Among the most significant features of recent laws in many countries is the provision of a legal basis for wildlife management planning. Most laws envisage the formulation of wildlife-related management plans of various kinds: from general "wildlife management plans" and even "bioregional management plans" and "natural resource management plans" to "recovery plans", "threat abatement plans". Provisions related to management planning may include requirements for the administration to collect data and/or for concerned people to supply them, publication of the plans in draft form to obtain comments from stake-holders, description of the required minimum contents of the plans. Management measures stated in the law or required to be adopted in the plans are almost always made subject to sustainability principles.
These provisions show that management processes and basic objectives of these processes are increasingly guided by the law in their basic steps, rather than being left to changing administrations’ initiatives. Important aspects of this approach are the increasing importance recognized to the collection of scientific data for management purposes, and the incorporation of the principle of sustainable development in national legislation.
The emerging trend is undoubtedly a general improvement of legal bases for wildlife management. Other elements which have tended to be incorporated into recent legislation, i.e. provisions on protection of biodiversity and on the assessment and mitigation of potentially harmful processes on wildlife, contribute to such improvement.
Many laws could be further improved by more clearly linking the adoption of management measures to the planning process and in particular to the results of surveys. However, not all laws include in a logical progression the basic steps for appropriate management planning, so their approach remains fragmentary. Another weakness is the tendency to concentrate on the most significant species and areas, risking to lose basic (although perhaps less spectacular) biodiversity elements.
Regarding ownership of wildlife and hunting rights, legislation is usually the product of long-established traditions, combined with developments determined by interest groups’ pressures, courts’ decisions and international initiatives. Some of these developments taking place in different countries go in the same direction. For example, there seems to be a tendency to extend the prerogatives of private landowners by reducing limitations regarding wildlife found on their land. This is happening even in countries where landowners’ rights have traditionally been restricted, allowing free access of hunters on any land, namely for the purpose of safeguarding wildlife by entrusting it to the State, but more often simply to support hunting interests. However, there remain significant differences among legal systems in their approaches to wildlife ownership, entitlement to hunting rights, compensation of damage caused by wild animals, and management obligations of landowners. In these respects, there does not seem to be a tendency to harmonization. This aspect does not in itself prevent adequate protection and management of wildlife, as the adoption of appropriate measures is possible under different tenurial situations, adapting approaches to local characteristics and traditions.
Provisions on wildlife and protected areas sometimes include innovative aspects in recent legislation, such as those aiming to enhance significant local values in wildlife and protected area management, including natural, historic, anthropological and cultural aspects. A related example is the devolution of decision-making powers, including powers to adopt applicable rules, to the local level and particularly to protected area-managing authorities. These provisions, however, are not frequent, and they cannot be considered a sign of a general evolution in that direction.
As to people’s role in wildlife management, its significance and usefulness are increasingly recognized. Legal requirements for various forms of public participation are quite common.
The basic challenge of balancing the interests of people on the one hand and wildlife and protected areas on the other, however, continues to require efforts to identify innovative solutions in practice and in institutional and legal arrangements. At present, few laws address issues of competing land uses and integration of wildlife management with other activities taking place in rural areas. Compensation of damage caused by wild animals is rarely a satisfactory solution where pressures to utilize wildlife resources has led to encroachment and illegal activities.
A contribution to the solution of wildlife-related conflicts may come from initiatives which may bring practical benefits to people, whether undertaken privately or under collaborative arrangements with the administration, such as management of particular areas for repopulation and/or hunting purposes, game ranching and breeding. Recent legislation does foresee some of these arrangements, but does little to encourage them, sometimes simply establishing applicable limitations. However, such arrangements can be important opportunities for development, as they may provide economic benefits and empowerment of local communities, with a view also to making wildlife "pay its way".
