Who is local and what do they know? Braiding knowledges within carnivore management in Europe

Abstract Growing recognition of Indigenous Peoples and traditional local communities as stewards of biodiversity has brought to the fore the issues of knowledge and value pluralism in conservation policy and practice. Given their basis in practical and multi‐generational experience, Indigenous and local knowledges are highly relevant to managing human–wildlife interactions, especially species that are challenging to live with. Yet, these situated forms of knowledge remain overlooked and marginalised, especially ‘local knowledge’, as it is unclear what or whom is encompassed within the term. We explore local knowledge in the context of pastoral areas in Europe, where populations of large carnivores such as wolves are currently expanding. We ask: who is ‘local’, what constitutes ‘local knowledge’ and what can this knowledge contribute to carnivore management? We show that continuous exchanges between long‐settled residents, newcomers and transient people in pastoral areas mean that ‘localness’ cannot be approached as a dualist position. Similarly, local knowledge is dynamic and continuously evolving in the face of ongoing and emerging change, which makes efforts of categorisation and preservation complex. We argue that current approaches to incorporating local knowledge often fail to account for this complexity, producing unjust and ineffective policies and strategies. To advance understanding, we offer an approach that situates local knowledge and those who hold it on a spectrum of knowledge characteristics. We then describe the challenges of braiding knowledge that are particularly relevant for carnivore management, illustrated by examples from our own research and the broader literature. To tackle the challenges, we propose ‘spacing’ conservation planning by investing in networks of emplaced practitioners, tasked with coordinating the mobilisation and braiding of relevant knowledges and producing locally adapted strategies for coexistence. Policy implications . Pluralism in carnivore management goes beyond incorporating the technical know‐how of local communities. It requires a better recognition and braiding of different kinds of knowledge and skills, at all scales, to produce better outcomes for people and nature. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.