Investigating conservation performance payments alongside human–wildlife conflicts: The Swedish lynx and wolverine protection policies

Abstract Conservation performance payments are becoming an increasingly popular instrument to tackle human–wildlife conflicts. In Sweden, Sámi communities practicing reindeer husbandry receive performance payments as compensation for reindeer losses caused by lynxes and wolverines. This study examines the challenges and conflicts associated with the Conservation Performance payment scheme and aims to understand its effectiveness. We carried out a thematic analysis of challenges and conflicts using semi‐structured interviews with stakeholders associated with the payment scheme as the main source of evidence, supported by literature identified in a systematic review. The results reveal a wicked conflict setting with a broad range of direct and indirect conflicts. Direct conflicts revolve around the following themes: (1) Uncertainty and mistrust regarding the annual number of lynx and wolverine family groups and the extent of reindeer losses caused by these predators; (2) Payments being too small to cover losses; (3) Large numbers of reindeer lost to predators in many communities and the related hunting regulations. Indirect conflicts are linked to cumulative effects, such as the negative effects of forestry and mining projects on reindeer husbandry, a lack of comprehensive environmental policies, and the perceived lack of respect for reindeer herding as a culturally significant livelihood. We argue that conflicts regarding uncertainties in predator and reindeer loss numbers in particular rather mask broader underlying conflicts. Policy implications: We suggest that high predator‐caused reindeer losses in combination with indirect conflicts hampers the successful implementation of the program. Nevertheless, all interviewees appreciated the basic design of the program and its potential. However, realizing this potential requires acknowledging the wickedness of human–wildlife conflicts and adequately addressing long‐standing ecological and socio‐cultural root conflicts by developing comprehensive, cross‐sectoral, and inclusive conservation policies. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.