Institutional misfits : Law and habits in Finnish wolf policy

Copy igh © 2013 by he au ho (s). Published he e unde license by he Resilience Alliance. Hiedanpää, J. 2013. Ins i u ional mis i s: law and habi s in Finnish wol policy. Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-05302-180124 Resea ch, pa o a Special Fea u e on Nudging E olu ion? C i ical Explo a ion o he Po en ial and Limi a ions o he Concep o Ins i u ional Fi o he S udy and Adap i e Managemen o Social-Ecological Sys ems Ins i u ional Mis i s: Law and Habi s in Finnish Wol Policy Juha Hiedanpää 1 ABSTRACT. Finland has s uggled wi h o mula ing and implemen ing policies ega ding he na ional g ey wol (Canis lupus) popula ion. I seems ha a e majo ins i u ional adjus men s unde aken o imp o e wol p o ec ion, he wol popula ion has, in ac , dec eased. This calls o an explana ion. My app oach o he ques ion o ins i u ional i builds upon classical ins i u ional economics and p agma ism. I will apply Cha les S. Pei ce’s concep ion o habi s and his heo y o ca ego ies and he idea o no ma i e sciences. The case s udy om sou hwes e n Finland shows ha i he ins i u ional designe s would add ess he habi s o eeling, mind, and ac ion, including hei own, ha ame and cons i u e he p oblema ic si ua ion and po en ial solu ions, he c i ical condi ions o ins i u ional i would be mo e angible and easie o iden i y and handle. As long as policy adjus men s a e eac i e and compulsi e and no buil upon a easonable engagemen o whole epis emic communi y in habi -b eaking and habi - aking, policies will mos likely ail. Key Wo ds: g ey wol (Canis lupus); habi s; ins i u ional i ; ins i u ions; policy; p agma ism INTRODUCTION Finland has s uggled wi h o mula ing and implemen ing policies ega ding he na ional wol popula ion. The p esence o he g ey wol (Canis lupus) is a a he peculia en i onmen al p oblem because i s hund ed-yea -long nea ex inc ion means ha i seems like a o eign in ade bu is ac ually na i e o he a ea. Finland’s accession o he Eu opean Union (EU) in 1995 s a ed a new e a o la ge ca ni o e policy. The wol became s ic ly p o ec ed by he Eu opean Union’s Habi a s Di ec i e. In addi ion, a e majo ins i u ional adjus men s unde aken o imp o e wol p o ec ion, he wol popula ion has, in ac , dec eased (Figu e 1). This calls o an explana ion. Fig. 1. The wol popula ion in Finland (Kojola e al. 2011). Figu e 1 shows ha he p e-EU wol policy was unable o s eng hen he iabili y o he wol popula ion. The popula ion size dipped in he la e 1990s; consequen ly, he Eu opean Commission ini ia ed In ingemen P oceedings (2001) o compel Finland o imp o e la ge ca ni o e p o ec ion. As pa o he wildli e adminis a ion’s eac ion o he in ingemen p ocedu e, an unp eceden ed e o o da e o in ol e he public in wol policy making in Finland ook place. Finland p epa ed he Wol Managemen Plan (Managemen 2005) based on a ious mee ings and public hea ings o ganized ac oss Finland (Bisi and Ku ki 2008). The wol popula ion inc eased du ing his pe iod. The Commission called he case o he Eu opean Cou o Jus ice (ECJ) in 2005. The Commission claimed ha (1) he conse a ion s a us o he wol in Finland was no a o able; (2) Finland had no hono ed he p inciple o s ic p o ec ion; and (3) Finland had no adequa ely explo ed easible al e na i es o wol p eda ion o educe li es ock losses. Following an in es iga ion in o hese allega ions, he Cou ende ed i s judgmen in June 2007. Finland was ound o be a aul in one o he cha ges (2) bu no he o he wo (1, 3). The Cou o de ed he Finnish go e nmen o ec i y i s ailu e o o e s ic p o ec ion o wol es. In he wo o he espec s, he Finnish wol policy was in line wi h he Habi a s Di ec i e (Eu opean Cou o Jus ice 2007, Hiedanpää and B omley 2011). In 2008, he es ima ed wol popula ion in Finland was app oxima ely 200 (compa ed o 130-140 in 1995). The popula ion sp ead o and inc eased in wes e n Finland. Howe e , he popula ion has declined since 2008. Cu en ly, he es ima ed win e popula ion is app oxima ely 120-135 wol es (win e 2013 es ima e). The appa en decline o wol es 1Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ Fig. 2. The Pyhäjä i a ea ac oss Finland has only one plausible explana ion: illegal killing o he wol es. Acco ding o he Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e (RKTL), he e we e no biological easons o hei disappea ance; he oe dee and moose popula ions we e su icien ly dense and he e we e no signs o le hal diseases (Kojola e al. 2011). I will explain why i is use ul o discuss ins i u ional mis i in he con ex o Finnish wol policy. The spa ial case is ha o he Pyhäjä i a ea, whe e he i s se e e wol p eda ion o li es ock in a hund ed yea s happened in Augus 2008. Wol es killed o le hally inju ed 65 sheep in Köyliö on ou pas u es du ing July and Augus . Two communi ies in pa icula , Köyliö and Pöy yä, we e aken by su p ise since bo h o hem ha e wol packs o hei own, he Köyliö pack in Köyliö and he Yläne pack in Pöy yä (see Figu e 2). These ela i ely small communi ies (3,500 and 8,500 esiden s, espec i ely) a e loca ed wi hin 50 km o h ee majo sou he n Finnish ci ies: Tampe e, Tu ku, and Po i. I is a la a ea wi h a ela i ely b oad s a e-owned wilde ness a ea, Vaskijä i S ic Na u e Rese e (15 km2) and Ku jen ahka Na ional Pa k, along wi h Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ se e al la ge p i a e es a es and a mul i ude o small a ms (app oxima ely 70 pe cen o o es in sou hwes e n Finland is p i a ely owned, and he a e age size o o es p ope y is app oxima ely 30 hec a es). While d awing on he concep o i de eloped by Young (2002, 2008), I will o e a a ia ion on his app oach. Fi s , in my ea men , he ques ions conce ning ins i u ional i and in e play a e in e wined: he p e-exis ing ins i u ional a angemen s and local people a e pa o bo h he p oblem and he solu ion (see Va n and Vedeld 2012). Second, he s ic sepa a ion be ween ins i u ions (as po en ial solu ions) and ecosys ems (as po en ial p oblems) canno be made (see B omley 2012). I will build on a p agma is iew and sugges ha ins i u ional i conce ns habi s and how hey in e lock. In pa icula , i is abou habi -b eaking and habi - aking. I ollow John Dewey and especially Cha les Sande s Pei ce in claiming ha a iche de ini ion o ins i u ional i han Young’s (2002, 2008) is a ailable. My main a gumen is ha he policies ha ocus only on habi -b eaking and igno e habi - aking will mos likely ail. I will a gue ha i he ins i u ional designe s would add ess and acknowledge he habi s o eeling, ac ion, and mind, including hei own, ha ame and cons i u e he p oblema ic si ua ion and po en ial solu ions, he ma e o ins i u ional i would become easie o iden i y and handle. THEORETICAL NAVIGATION Wha a e ins i u ions? Acco ding o he mos cus oma y de ini ion, ins i u ions a e o mal o in o mal ules. Ins i u ions may hen be a icula ed ules en o ced wi h sanc ions, incen i es, una icula ed adi ions, cus oms, and mo al no ms. This line o easoning ollows he new ins i u ionalism o , o ins ance, Douglass C. No h (2005) and Oli e Williamson (1996) (on old and new ins i u ionalism, see Ru he o d 1994). This de ini ion akes o mal and in o mal ins i u ions as he ou e cons ain s o indi idual ac ion. Ins i u ions di ec and s abilize indi idual ac ion by compelling ce ain gene al goals and o e mo e p ac ical means (incen i es and sanc ions) o ac ualizing hese goals. Ins i u ions cons i u e socie al sca olding ha shapes human in e ac ion (No h 2005). The challenge in ins i u ional design and policy implemen a ion is whe he ac o s ind hese new se ups su icien ly compelling and accep able. Young (2008:21) makes he ollowing a gumen : “success ul go e nance sys ems mus be based on a ecogni ion o he cha ac e o he p oblems a hand and ea u e he in oduc ion o beha io al mechanisms c a ed o add ess hese p oblems.” Ano he concep ion o ins i u ions is based on he classical old ins i u ionalism o John R. Commons and Tho s ein Veblen, bo h o whom ollowed p agma ism, especially ha o John Dewey and Cha les S. Pei ce.[1] Acco ding o his iew, ins i u ions a e no ules ha a e ollowed pe se bu o de ed collec i e ac ions ha expand, es ain, o libe a e indi idual ac ion (Commons 1990). This classical iew esembles no only Bou dieuan sociology bu also he social–ecological unde s anding o he s uc u es and unc ionings o coe ol ing human–en i onmen ansac ions (Emi baye and Goldbe g 2005, Hiedanpää e al. 2012, No be g e al. 2008). The e a e wo schools o classical ins i u ionalism di e ing on whe he o de is oli ionally c ea ed o eme ges spon aneously. Economis s such as B omley (2006, 2008) and Va n (2005) and poli ical scien is s such as Pie son (2006) unde s and ins i u ions as oli ional collec i e ac ion, mani es ed in policies and he way ha hey shape and c ea e easons o indi idual ac ion. Hodgson (1993, 2004, 2007), on he o he hand, conside s habi o be he uni o selec ion in ins i u ional change. Hodgson holds ha ins i u ions a e eme gen p ope ies o in e ac ing habi s and ha hese con ingen ins i u ional pa e ns cause a downwa d p essu e on indi idual ac ions and beha io . Gene ally, his line o easoning also applies o he ins i u ional and e olu iona y economis s o he pos -Da winian adi ion (Dop e 2007, Ald ich e al. 2008). I ends o dis ega d he signi icance o pu pose and inal causa ion. A Pei cean ex ension My pu pose is o s e ch hese heo e ical o ien a ions and ocus on he analy ical gap I p opose. The heo ies make an analy ic bi u ca ion which, in consequence, c ea es a black box ha blu s he essen ial ma e o ins i u ional i and in e play. The exis ence o his black box is due o hei on ological and epis emological commi men o ei he o mal o in o mal, oli ional o spon aneous, o ganized o uno ganized quali ies when ying o unde s and he bi h and en enchmen o ins i u ional designs. I will ollow he same b oad p agma is app oach aken by he a o emen ioned classical ins i u ionalis s (e.g., Hodgson 2010, B omley 2012), bu I am also sympa he ic o he new ins i u ionalis idea ha ins i u ions cons i u e an ou e en i onmen al sca olding o human ac ion and in e ac ion, i.e., ha human ac ion and in e ac ion a e media ed by “en i onmen al” s uc u es and ea u es such as ecosys ems, physical in as uc u es, no ms, and ules (Cla k 1997). I will make my case clea e by explo ing he Pei cean concep ion o habi s, ca ego ies, and no ma i e sciences mo e ho oughly. My pu pose is o p o ide a nondualis ic concep ion o ins i u ions and apply i in he analysis o ins i u ional i . Habi s Acco ding o Pei ce (CP 6.101), “li e has a endency o ake habi s.”[2] Regula i y, con inuum, o de , s abili y, and easonableness a e all mani es a ions o his gene al endency o li e. Al hough all habi s unc ion o ul ill a pu pose o some kind, hey a e no ully oli ional. Pei ce wa ned us no o iden i y pu pose wi h a conscious goal. To him, “a pu pose is me ely ha o m o inal cause which is mos amilia o ou Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ expe ience” (CP 1.211). Pu poses, i.e., ac i i ies unde aken o some hing’s sake, a e no hing bu ope a i e desi es, he objec o which is ne e conc e e bu always gene al. No ice ha pu poses, inal causes, and habi s poin a he po en ial u u e (Hulswi 2002). Fo Pei ce, inal causes o pu poses a e basically habi s ha habi ually di ec p ocesses owa d an end s a e. Fo Pei ce, he e is a speci ic ea u e in his end-di ec edness: Thus we see how hese p inciples no only lead o he es ablishmen o habi s, bu o habi s di ec ed o de ini e ends, namely he emo al o sou ces o i i a ion. Now i is p ecisely ac ion acco ding o inal causes which dis inguishes men al om mechanical ac ion; and he gene al o mula o all ou desi es may be aken as his: o emo e a s imulus. E e y man is busily wo king o b ing o an end ha s a e o hings which now exci es him o wo k.(CP 1.392) The i i a ion ( he eeling o being dis u bed) mo i a es one o esol e he si ua ion by adjus ing ac ion endency, belie , and habi . The change o habi is no an easy ask because i does no ake only mo i a ion and ac i i ies bu in ol es he b oade en i onmen in which ac ions ake place. John Dewey b ings cus oms in o he analysis o habi s. Dewey (1988:43) has de ined he in e ela ion o habi and cus om eloquen ly: “bu o a la ge ex en cus oms pe sis because indi iduals o m hei pe sonal habi s unde condi ions se by p io cus oms.” Dewey (1988:38) con inues: “Habi s inco po a e an en i onmen wi hin hemsel es. They a e adjus men s o he en i onmen , no me ely o i ” [emphasis in he o iginal]. Indeed, many o he ins i u ional adjus men s ail because o a poo i be ween hei habi s, hei cus oma y en i onmen , and hei newly launched pu poses. In essence, ins i u ional and social change equi es bo h habi -b eaking and habi - aking. Ins i u ional i is a ma e o embodied and inco po a ed en i onmen al in e ac ions. In iden i ying his kind o phenomenon, Hukkinen (2012), desc ibes i as “ i in he body.” Ca ego ies Pei ce p o ides heo e ical and analy ical ools o unde s and wha habi -b eaking and habi - aking a e, and also o explain how hese phenomena occu . He de ines h ee ca ego ies o o ganize desc ip ions o he wo ld, which will be used he e o elabo a e a iche concep ualiza ion o he ela ionship be ween i : i s ness, secondness, and hi dness (Volume 5 o Collec ed Pape s o Pie ce in Pie ce 1934; Po e 1967). Fi s ness is a quali a i e aspec o e e y phenomenon. We ha e an immedia e acquain ance wi h i s ness; i is an unanalyzed, ins an aneous, immedia e eeling o he sign. “Fi s ness is he mode o being o ha which is such as i is, posi i ely and wi hou e e ence o any hing else” (CP 8.328). As Pei ce a icula ed u he , “[o]u o he womb o inde e minacy we mus say ha he e would ha e come some hing, by he p inciple o i s ness, which we may call a lash” (CP 1.412). Fi s ness is no an ac ual en i y bu exis s only in he in e p e e ’s imagina ion, being hypo he ical and possible (Be ns ein 2010, Co lée 2009). Secondness is an expe ience ei he o e o o esis ance. Acco ding o Pei ce (CP 8.330), [ ]he ype o an idea o Secondness is he expe ience o e o , p escinded om he idea o a pu pose.... The exis ence o he wo d e o is su icien p oo ha people hink hey ha e such an idea; and ha is enough. The expe ience o e o canno exis wi hou he expe ience o esis ance. E o is only e o by he i ue o i s being opposed; and no hi d elemen en e s. No e ha I speak o he expe ience, no o he eeling, o e o . Fo Pei ce, will is always se agains some hing, eac ing in he ealms o ela ions, dis u bances, and s uggles. Thi dness in ol es a medium o a connec ing link be ween wo hings. When hings o wo ds se e a unc ion o any kind, when he ac is done o he sake o some hing, hi dness eme ges. Acco ding o Pei ce, “[ ]he hi d is ha which is wha i is owing o hings be ween which i media es and which i b ings in o ela ion o each o he ” (CP 1.356). “A Thi d is some hing which b ings a Fi s in o ela ion o a Second” [emphasis in he o iginal] (CP 8.331) (Misak 2004). Now we a e able use Pei ce’s heo ies o unde s and li ing sys ems’ endency o b eak and ake habi s. Habi s di ec p ocesses o an end s a e. Chance and possibili y wo k owa d di e si y o hese p ocesses and end s a es. Reac ion and s uggle adjus habi s in he ace o dis u bances and he admi ed end s a es. Pei ce’s heo y o ca ego ies p o ides a pe spec i e h ough which o s udy he social-ecological condi ions and consequences o his gene al endency o b eak and ake habi s. Fo ou pu poses, habi is hi dness, e o is secondness, and eeling is i s ness. Ca ego ies a e capable o combina ions. E o is an essen ial cons i uen o habi , and eeling is an essen ial cons i uen in e o and habi . In o he wo ds, emo ions a e cons i uen s in ( e)ac ion, and emo ions and ( e)ac ions a e cons i uen s in habi (Po e 1967). Ins i u ional i is a dynamic consequence o i i a ion and doub , o e coming esis ance o se e a pu pose. No ma i e sciences Pei ce desc ibes he ask o wha he calls no ma i e sciences as di e en ia ing “wha ough o be om wha ough no o be” (CP 1.186). No ma i e sciences can also be cha ac e ized as an analysis o “ he condi ions o he a ainmen o some hing o which pu pose is an essen ial ing edien ” (CP 1.575). Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ Be gman (2009:56) cla i ies he ask: “... i seems easonable o concei e he no ma i i y... in e ms o c i icism o habi s, whe e he ca ego ies mani es hemsel es on he le el o he objec s c i icized a he han as a de e minan o he sciences as such. In o he wo ds, all o he no ma i e sciences a e conce ned wi h he c i icism o conduc , albei o di e en kinds.” I am he c i ic he e. I explo e he ins i u ional condi ions such ha he c i icism o a ious habi s becomes possible. The Pei cean no ma i e sciences equi e he adop ion o he e hnog aphic s a egy. Commons (1990, see also Rams ad 1990) was well awa e o his and sugges ed ha he esea che mus pu him/he sel in he posi ion o he esea ch subjec and eel wha he people likely el as hey we e easoning and doing. The key is o unde s and why and how ce ain ac ions we e aken. In o he wo ds, why and how a pa icula ac ion soo hes he eeling, ex inguishes he s imulus o i i a ion, and ul ills a pu pose. The ques ion is no abou a i udes. I is abou wha ac ions we e aken and wha easons we e gi en o hose ac ions. The c i ic mus become in ol ed in he esea ch subjec . The c i ic mus be bo h an obse e and a pa icipan . The i s -, second- and hi d-pe son pe spec i es a e in e wined. The i s -pe son pe spec i e e e s o a eeling agen , he second-pe son pe spec i e o a pa icipan in ac ion, and he hi d-pe son pe spec i e o he o e iew o he ela ions be ween he i s and he second (Bohman 2001, Cooke 2006). The p ima y da a se is de i ed om in e iews wi h he local people o sou hwes e n Finland and he o icials o he na ional and egional wildli e adminis a ions. The ieldwo k ex ends o he pa icipan obse a ions o e e yday li e in he a eas ha ha e expe ienced he e ec s o wol p esence. The in e iews anged om expansi e hema ic in e iews (23) las ing se e al hou s o b ie mini-in e iews (8) wi h he people spon aneously me du ing he ieldwo k (on in e iews, see K ale 1996). In e iews we e conduc ed be ween he pe iod o 2009 and 2011. The aim o hese in e iews was o de elop an empi ical image o how he p esence o he wol a ec s he habi s o u al communi ies and he adminis a ion and o enable he analysis o ins i u ional i and mis i (on loca ion, see Figu e 2). THE PRESENCE OF THE WOLF IN SOUTHWESTERN FINLAND Habi s o eeling / i s ness Le me i s explo e he eelings a oused by a sudden appea ance o he wol . Indeed, he sudden appea ance o he wol in human se lemen s ook communi ies by su p ise in he Pyhäjä i a ea in 2008. The p eda ion o some 65 sheep was a shock. The e en ecalled he obse a ions o he wol , acks and dead co pses o oe dee and o he p ey ha had been nea ly con inuous h oughou he yea . Be o e ha ime, un il 2008, he encoun e s had been a e and idiosync a ic. The p esence o he wol became an “exci a ion.” On one hand, i was an aes he ic exci emen , a pleasu e o eeling he in ensi y and quali y o he su ounding en i onmen . On he o he hand, i was a eeling o po en ial loss, h ea , dange , and insecu i y. In gene al, hese eelings and expec a ions we e mixed, and people el conce n bo h abou and o he wol . The wol in e ened in he a ious habi ua ed spaces. I s p esence in ensi ied he eeling ha he wol belongs in he wilde ness, whe e i s ac i i ies a e i ele an o people, and no nea human se lemen s con aining amilies and domes ic animals. This bounda y be ween wol es and humans and hei espec i e e i o ies, wha one migh call an “on ological ag eemen ,” was ansg essed when indica ions o he wol ’s p esence began o appea wi hin he li elihood spaces o humans. O cou se, i s e i o y, e en deep in he wilde ness and o es , con ains human ac i i y, hun ing g ounds, o example. I is his ansg ession in o he habi ua ed spaces ha cha ac e izes he quali y o eeling p o oked by he wol ’s p esence. The wol belongs o he wilde ness and ce ainly does no belong o se led human spaces. The eappea ance o he wol ac i a ed ag a ian memo ies. The old s o ies abou wol es ha had killed human in an s we e old and e old, especially by people li ing hei u al ag a ian li es on acknowledged wol e i o y. These cul u al memo ies e i alized hemsel es e en hough cus oms and u al daily p ac ices a e e y di e en now. This pa e n indica es ha he ag a ian cus oms (cul u es) and he habi s o eeling hey sus ain s ill se e pa icula , i no ob ious, pu poses. The ag a ian cus oms and habi s sus ain hese s o ies. In a simila ein, he physical s uc u es known as “wol holes”, which e e o camou laged holes measu ing h ee me e s wide and h ee me e s deep o cap u ing wol es ha come oo close o he illage, began o ha e a pu pose again: p o ec ing people and domes ic animals agains he wol . The illage o Tuiskula in Köyliö has displayed i s ou wol holes o he public and media. Habi s a e gene ali ies, po en ial epe oi es o ac ing and belie ing ha poin o he end ha is achie ed and admi ed. In gene al, he p esence o wol es is el as a limi ing ac o o he u he de elopmen o indi idual and collec i e expe iences in he Pyhäjä i a ea. The wol is an icon o he wilde ness, he possibili y o h ea . In ag a ian se ings, signs o wol es communica e he possible ha m and he loss o well- being. In gene al, he p esence o wol es seems o dis u b and exci e s ong eelings in suppo o he cus oma y o de . Reac ions / secondness People ac o id hemsel es o i i a ion and doub . In he Pyhäjä i a ea, people and communi ies had hei pa icula ways and easons o eac . Human sa e y, especially ha o child en, was he i s poin when discussing he wol . A e he i s a acks o 2008 in Köyliö, many people and communi ies began o quickly adjus Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ hei daily ac i i ies in a ious ways. Some decided no o walk as o en in he o es s. As he school yea was abou o begin, he communi y councils decided o a ange axi ides o schools. One o he pas u es in which a p eda ion happened was si ua ed close o summe houses. The esiden s we e conce ned abou he neighbo ing sheep pas u es because sheep a ac wol es; a p e ious en i onmen al ameni y u ned o an en i onmen al nuisance. Wha is impo an o no e, howe e , is ha he wol did no inci e ange o ha ed in his pa icula ega d, bu wo y. The secu i y o li elihoods is ano he issue ha a ose. Fa m- le el p ecau ions ose o a new le el. Sheep and goa s we e kep inside, and dogs we e kep on a leash. The sheep a me s a oided he dange ous g azing ields and b ough he sheep, goa s, and ca le close o hei homes. La e ha au umn, mos o he a me s who had su e ed losses o he h ea o losses e ec ed elec ic ences on ce ain pas u es. In 2008, encing ma e ials could be o de ed ee o cha ge om he Regional Wildli e Agency (called Game Managemen Dis ic , GMD un il Ma ch 2011), bu he labo cos s o encing we e no compensa ed by he go e nmen . Some o he sheep a me s dispu ed his policy. Mo eo e , due o iscal p oblems, he Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y could no deli e enough encing ma e ials o he sheep a me s. In gene al, a me s we e conce ned o hei business and li elihoods. Some we e annoyed and us a ed because he go e nmen al compensa ion was paid a e nea ly a yea , a conside able lapse o ime. This lag placed an addi ional economic bu den on sheep a me s. They, along wi h a me s in gene al, ound he si ua ion dis u bing. The esis ance agains he ins i u ed p ocesses o knowledge p oduc ion was a hi d issue. Local communi ies dispu ed he o icial numbe s o wol es. Rumo s sp ead ha he Pyhäjä i a ea, especially a ound Pöy yä, was su ounded by mo e han wen y wol es. Local hun e s o ganized wol censuses in Pöy yä in la e 2008 and in ea ly 2009, coun ing 25 and 23 wol es, espec i ely. The o icial es ima es p o ided by he Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e (RKTL) indica ed ha Pöy yä had one e i o y, i.e., one wol pack. Hun e s and hei o ganiza ion (Finnish Hun e ’s Associa ion) did no ha e con idence in he es ima es p o ided by RKTL and, simila ly, esea che s o RKTL did no conside he hun e s’ coun ing me hods o be scien i ically obus . Hun e s we e us a ed and ang y because hei conce n and e o s we e no aken se iously. Fou h, local people eac ed o he legal and adminis a i e ules o socie y. The inc easing p esence o he wol b ough he legal cons ain s o he o e. Namely, he hun e s ound i ha d o unde s and why i was no possible o kill he wol es despi e he ac ha hei p esence caused conce ns and exceeded a c i ical h eshold in 2008. The ules conce ning he de oga ion om p o ec ing he wol popula ion a e s ic o local hun e s. Ano he example is e en mo e illumina ing. In one o he pas u es, he sheep kep he aluable cul u al landscape open, o which he sheep a me ecei ed a speci ic ag o-en i onmen al subsidy. A e he wol a ack, he inspec o om he egional Ely-cen e (Cen e o Economic De elopmen , T anspo and he En i onmen ) poin ed ou ha he pas u es we e unde g azed, and he sheep a me ecei ed a se e al-hund ed Eu o penal y. The cause o he unde g azing, i.e., ha he wol killed he sheep, did no ma e . Consequen ly, us a ion and ange sp ead in communi ies. Thei in e es s in a secu e ag icul u e and sa e li elihoods did no ca y he same weigh as he bu eauc a ic commi men o secu ing wol numbe s. Con inui ies / hi dness Habi ela es eelings and e o s o each o he . As illus a ed, eac ions we e ins an ia ed by he p esence o he wol . The wol dis u bed habi ua ed spaces and cus oma y li elihoods in he Pyhäjä i a ea. In e es ingly, howe e , he eac ions we e igge ed by he combina ions o ins i u ional a angemen s, adminis a i e ci cums ances, and he wol . F us a ion and ange in ensi ied he eac ions. Consequen ly, by June 2009, only a ew wol obse a ions we e made in he Pyhäjä i a ea, whe eas in he p e ious yea , he obse a ions we e made con inuously. The e we e no wol a acks on sheep o on o he domes ic animals. The wol es we e gone. The e we e no signs o he Köyliö pack ha had dep eda ed 65 sheep, and he numbe s in he Pöy yä pack we e g ea ly educed. Acco ding o he RKTL, he e we e no e iden ecological easons behind he disappea ance: he p ey popula ions, oe dee and moose, we e su icien ly dense, and he e we e no signs o le hal diseases. The only plausible explana ion is ha he numbe o he wol es had been educed by illegal killing. I seems ha he communi ies o he Pyhäjä i a ea sol ed hei “wol p oblem.” The communi ies exe cised social sus ainabili y. Social sus ainabili y o his kind is no he same b eed ha he EU o he Finnish na ional au ho i ies wish o p omo e. The de ailed easons behind hese local adap i e ac s a e s ill unknown, bu he e idence poin s o espec and sympa hy owa d ellow humans, conce n o he igh s o he people o e he igh s o he wol , and ange owa d he au ho i a i e agencies. The pu pose o he illegal killing o he wol es was o sa egua d he Pyhäjä i communi ies om he po en ial impac o he wol es’ p esence and o main ain local cus oma y o de . All communi y membe s did no commi hemsel es o he o mal wol policy. The habi s o eeling and he eac ions in he ace o he wol policy indica ed his. The nega i ely el possibili ies and nega i e in ense emo ions in eac ions did no engende communi ies and hei membe s o he policy. The pu pose o he policy emained dis an . This comes owa d explaining why communi ies we e engaged in exe cising one kind o con inuum o e he o he . This helps Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ o explain why communi ies exe cised one se o p ac ices a he han ano he . I also illus a es he na u e o ins i u ional “mis i ”. The policy did no lead o an admi ed u u e. THE HARDSHIP OF MAKING INSTITUTIONS FIT The iabili y o he wol popula ion has no imp o ed in sou hwes e n Finland. Consequen ly, in 2009, he Eu opean Commission once again called o an in o mal discussion ( he Package Mee ing) on wildli e- ela ed issues wi h Finnish au ho i ies. The Commission claimed ha Finland con inued o ha e p oblems in he implemen a ion and en o cemen o he Habi a s Di ec i e. The wildli e adminis a ion admi ed he p oblems and exp essed i s con inued commi men o igh en he ins i u ional se up conce ning la ge ca ni o e p o ec ion. Weeding ou he bad habi s The Finnish go e nmen and he wildli e adminis a ion end o unde s and ins i u ions as he ou e cons ain s o human ac ion, which is a new ins i u ionalis inclina ion (Ru he o d 1994, Williamson 1996). This endency became appa en in he all o 2010 when he Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y en o ced a legal adjus men ha inc eased he ine o killing la ge ca ni o es. The pu pose o he adjus men was o en ich he ins i u ional sca old wi h a disincen i e o hun illegally. Also, a new penal ca ego y, a se ious hun ing c ime, was included in he c iminal law. I came in o o ce in Ap il 2011. Acco ding o he law, he elemoni o ing o suspec s by he police is allowed, and a con ic ion leads o a p ison e m o ou mon hs o ou yea s. These ins i u ional designs build on he idea ha when i comes o en o cemen mechanisms, he h ea o punishmen is he mos e ec i e. I is expec ed ha hese newly launched ins i u ional cons ain s will discou age illegal killing; he pu pose is o de e he bad habi s o some u al agen s. These ac i i ies may no necessa ily imp o e he ins i u ional i . Namely, he weeding ou o bad habi s is a eac i e adminis a i e ac i i y. We should emembe ha he en i e emo ional egime o he Finnish wol policy is eac i e. This is undoub edly indica ed by he con inued s uggle be ween he go e nmen o Finland and he Commission, he wol en husias s, and he hun e s, and he local hun e s and wildli e science o RKTL. One Finnish wol scien is has gone so a as o claim ha he Finnish wol con lic is insoluble, ha is, he e is no way ha people can add ess he issues wi h he wol o wi h each o he when i comes o he impac s o he wol (Bisi 2010). Indeed, acco ding he Pei cean in e p e a ion, he p oblems a e insoluble exac ly as long as he game is played on he pla eau o eac ions and s uggle and as long as he unde lying habi s o eeling and cus oma y en i onmen s a e no add essed. Un il hen, he solu ions will build upon “ he compulsion o law,” i.e., eac i e legisla i e adjus men s ha ely on he ex e nal cons ain s o human ac ion and in e ac ion. The cu ency o conce n The go e nmen has adjus ed no only he ex e nal cons ain s o human–wol in e ac ions bu also he o mal sca olding o wildli e policy and managemen . The new Ac on Wildli e Adminis a ion came in o e ec in Ma ch 2011. Regional Wildli e Agencies (15 in o al) and Regional Wildli e Councils we e es ablished, and he p e ious egional Game Managemen Dis ic s (GMD) (15 in o al) and hei boa d o di ec o s we e disman led. The pu pose o he ins i u ional edesign was o es ablish a clea e dis inc ion be ween he o icial wildli e managemen and in e es poli ics. The Regional Wildli e Councils subs i u e o he p e ious boa d o di ec o s o he GMD. The Councils comp ise a maximum o 10 membe s: six ep esen he hun e s and ou ep esen o he in e es s, such as egional land use planning, o es owne s, and a ic. The councils a e discu si e bodies wi h he ask o di ec ing egional wildli e policy. The boa d o di ec o s o GMD had eal decision making powe s, mos no iceably conce ning he de oga ion om he s ic p o ec ion o he wol . Such decisions a e now made by he Finnish Wildli e Agency. The membe s o he GMD boa d o di ec o s we e local landowne s and hun e s. The e a e indica ions ha he shi o powe om he egional le el o he Finnish Wildli e Agency may inc ease he el impo ency o u al communi ies, including a ound he Pyhäjä i a ea. By ocusing p ima ily on he illegal killing o he wol es and by disman ling he ac ual powe a he egional le el, he go e nmen has implici ly and indi ec ly signaled ha he local communi ies a e, o an ex en , esponsible o he wol es’ a e. Nei he he go e nmen no he wildli e adminis a ion has ac i ely aken wol - ela ed communi y needs and hopes in o conside a ion. In o he wo ds, he adminis a ion has a habi o igno ing he easons behind he communi ies’ eac ions o nega i e eelings. This habi has become appa en in how eluc an he adminis a ion has been o alle ia e he economic and emo ional bu dens engende ed by he wol es’ p esence. The egula o y appa a us ha he go e nmen has e ec ed has le he sou ces o us a ion and ange in ac . I s nonin e en ionis policy has an acciden al endency o inc ease he populace’s eelings o insecu i y, helplessness, and ange . The go e nmen has no ac i ely designed ins i u ions o posi i e o de and g ow h. The go e nmen i sel exe cises discipline and con ol, which is, again, a eac i e cha ac e is ic o go e nance. Making ules, no lo e The go e nmen ’s ocus has been habi -b eaking. The go e nmen has done li le in e ms o habi - aking among u al communi ies ha would help hem o adap o he wol es’ p esence. The go e nmen has no designed ins i u ions o ensh ine habi s o mo al and in ellec ual g ow h. The go e nmen ’s no ma i e e o , which in ol es he ongoing c i icism o local habi s, is no expansi e bu cons aining. I conside s nei he he unde lying emo ional egime no he Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ c i ical condi ions o habi o ma ion. The adminis a ion has, o cou se, admi ed ha ea is eal and ha i has ma e ial mani es a ions and p ac ical implica ions. Howe e , communi y membe s ha e con inued o exe cise hei p i a e nega i e eedoms and ha e spon aneously, wi hou ac i e go e nmen al assis ance, adjus ed hei communi y-based cus oms and habi s in pa icula ways. The iabili y o he wol popula ion has no been on hei lis o p io i ies. Habi s change when en i onmen –human in e ac ions change. I is no only a ma e o ixing ou e cons ain s. The go e nmen ’s pa icipa ion in he p ocess o habi - aking could acili a e a mo e owa ds wha Pei ce called conc e e easonableness (Wa d 2001). This e m means ha he collabo a ion and colla e al lea ning po en ially acili a e a g adual shi in wha is admi ed in gi en en i onmen al se ings and how he agen s eac o he nex dis u bance. The sha ed expe iences lead o g adual changes conce ning wha people conside an a ainable end. Conc e e easonableness is cha ac e ized by epis emic commi men o collabo a e as a communi y o ind, edesc ibe, and c ea e admi ed ends, app op ia e ac ions, and wa an ed epis emic p ac ices (Wa d 2001, Talisse 2010). Conc e e easonableness is a p ocess o adjus ed habi - aking. Ins i u ional i is no a ma e o co ec ly es ablishing he ex e nal cons ain s o cons uc ing he nega i e appa a uses. Ins i u ional i is abou c ea ing, designing, and e ec ing he posi i e, enabling en i onmen al appa a uses. In he Pyhäjä i a ea, he in e es ed indi iduals and g oups ha e al eady aken ini ia i es o mo e collabo a ion. Howe e , as long as he go e nmen , he wildli e adminis a ion, o he esea ch ins i u e RKTL a e no ac i ely aking pa in hese e o s, wol policy is ha dly becoming any i e o mo e easonable. I akes sha ed eelings and isions abou he admi ed o g ow habi s. This indeed will con inue o challenge Finnish wol policy. CONCLUDING REMARKS Re lec ing on he Pyhäjä i a ea, a e he ini ia ed policy measu es he mos app op ia e and he mos e ec i e in b eaking and aking new habi s ha allow communi ies o coexis wi h he wol es? Do he ecen policy measu es esol e he conce ns, ees ablish eelings o secu i y, o help communi y membe s o li e wi h he p esence o he wol ? No, hey p obably do no . Appa en ly, hese communi ies, which ha e been dis u bed by he wol and he un esponsi eness o he wildli e adminis a ion, con inue o admi e ce ain pu poses and encou age ce ain codes o conduc ha a e no he mos hono able o law-abiding, bu which a e expec ed o sa egua d he con inui y o u al li e. The go e nmen may ini ia e changes and may p o ide enabling ins i u ions and acili a e he mic o-mechanism o adap a ion. As his classical ins i u ionalis analysis has shown, as long as hose ins umen s a e eac i e and compulsi e and no collabo a i e engagemen o whole epis emic communi y in habi - aking, hey will he mos likely ail (on epis emic communi ies, see Haas 1992). In collabo a ion, cus oms, habi s, and he ensuing emo ional egimes may slowly begin o change. Ins i u ions, he a ious o ms o o de ed collec i e ac ions, may begin o be e i oge he in he habi ua ed social–ecological space in which he people, communi ies, and he wol li e. I will no be an exac i because no such hing exis s. Howe e , i he go e nmen ensu es ha he wildli e policy enables conc e e collabo a ion and colla e al lea ning, i may become doable, possible and easonable, o he ime being. Responses o his a icle can be ead online a : h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/issues/ esponses. php/5302 Acknowledgmen s: I would like o hank Daniel B omley, Janne Hukkinen, Sauli Hä könen, Jani Pellikka, and he Special Fea u e edi o Ka e Fa ell o he aluable commen s on he ea lie e sion o he manusc ip . I also hank he anonymous e iewe s and he Academy o Finland (253750). LITERATURE CITED Ald ich, H. E., G. M. Hodgson, D. L. Hull, T. Knudsen, J. Moky , and V. J. Vanbe g. 2008. In de ence o gene alized Da winism. Jou nal o E olu iona y Economics 18:577–96. Be gman, M. 2009. Pei ce’s philosophy o communica ion. Con inuum, London, UK. Be ns ein, R. 2010. The p agma ic u n. Poli y P ess, London, UK. Bisi, J. 2010. Suomalaisen susipoli iikan ana omia [The ana omy o Finnish wol policy]. Ac a Uni e si a is Ouluensis Scien iae Re um Na u alium A 552. Uni e si y o Oulu, Oulu, Finland. Bisi, J., and S. Ku ki. 2008. The wol deba e in Finland: expec a ions and objec i es o he managemen o he wol popula ion a egional and na ional le el. Publica ions 12. Helsinki Uni e si y, Ru alia Ins i u e, Seinäjoki, Finland. Bohman, J. 2001. Pa icipan s, obse e s and c i ics: p ac ical knowledge, social pe spec i es, and c i ical plu alism. Pages 87-113 in L. Rehg, and J. Bohman, edi o s. Plu alism and he p agma ic u n. MIT P ess, Bos on, Massachuse s, USA. B omley, D. W. 2006. Su icien eason: oli ional p agma ism and he meaning o economic ins i u ions. P ince on Uni e si y P ess, P ince on, USA. Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24 h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/ B omley, D. 2008. Voli ional p agma ism. Ecological Economics 68(1-2):1-13. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2008.08.012 B omley, D. W. 2012. En i onmen al go e nance as s ochas ic belie upda ing: c a ing ules o li e by. Ecology and Socie y 17(3):14. [online] URL: h p://dx.doi. o g/10.5751/ES-04774-170314 Cla k, A. 1997. Economic eason: he in e play o indi idual lea ning and ex e nal s uc u e. Pages 269–290 in J. N. D obak, and J. V. C. Nye, edi o s. The on ie s o he new ins i u ional economics. Academic P ess, San Diego, Cali o nia, USA. Commons, J. R. 1990. Ins i u ional economics: i s place in poli ical economy. T ansac ion, London, UK. Cooke, E. F. 2006. Pei ce’s p agma ic heo y o inqui y: allibilism and inde e minacy. Con inuum, London, UK. Co lée, L. 2009. A ske ch o Pei ce’s i s ness and i s signi icance o a . Sign Sys ems S udies 37:205–269. Dewey, J. 1988. Human na u e and conduc . The middle wo ks o John Dewey. Volume 14. Sou he n Illinois Uni e si y P ess, Ca bondale and Edwa ds ille, Illinois, USA. Dop e , K., edi o . 2007. The e olu iona y ounda ions o economics. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, UK. Emi baye , M., and C. A. Goldbe g. 2005. P agma ism, Bou dieu and collec i e emo ions in con en ious poli ics. Theo y and Socie y 34:469–518. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/ s11186-005-1619-x Eu opean Cou o Jus ice. 2007. Judgmen o he Cou (Second Chambe ) o 14 June 2007. Commission o he Eu opean Communi ies Republic o Finland. Failu e o a membe s a e o ul il i s obliga ions - Di ec i e 92/43/EEC - conse a ion o na u al habi a s - wild auna and lo a - Wol hun ing. Case C-342/05. [online] URL: h p://cu ia.eu opa.eu/ ju is/lis e.js ?language=en&num=C-342/05 Haas, P. M. 1992. In oduc ion: epis emic communi ies and in e na ional policy coo dina ion. In e na ional O ganiza ion 46:1-35. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1017/S0020818300001442 Hiedanpää, J., and D. W. B omley. 2011. The ha moniza ion game: easons and ules in Eu opean biodi e si y policy. En i onmen al Policy and Go e nance 21:99–111. h p://dx. doi.o g/10.1002/ee .561 Hiedanpää, J., and D. W. B omley. 2012. Con es a ions o e biodi e si y p o ec ion. En i onmen al Values 3:357–378. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.3197/096327112X13400390126091 Hiedanpää, J., A. Jokinen, and P. Jokinen. 2012. Making sense o he social: human-nonhuman cons ella ions and he wicked oad o sus ainabili y. Sus ainabili y: Science, P ac ice, & Policy 7:15–24. Hodgson, G. M. 1993. Economics and e olu ion: b inging li e back in o economics. Poli y P ess, Camb idge, UK. Hodgson, G. M. 2004. The e olu ion o ins i u ional economics: agency, s uc u e and Da winism in Ame ican ins i u ionalism. Rou ledge, London, UK. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.4324/9780203300350 Hodgson, G. M. 2007. Economics in he shadow o Da win and Ma x: essays in ins i u ional and e olu iona y hemes. Edwa d Elga , London, UK. Hodgson, G. M. 2010. Choice, habi and e olu ion. Jou nal o E olu iona y Economics 20:1–18. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/ s00191-009-0134-z Hukkinen. J. 2012. Fi in he body: ma ching embodied cogni ion wi h social-ecological sys ems. Ecology and Socie y 17(4):30. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-05241-170430 Hulswi , M. 2002. F om cause o causa ion: a Pei cean pe spec i e. Philosophical S udies Se ies. Volume 90. Kluwe Academic Publishe s, Do d ech , Ne he lands. h p://dx.doi. o g/10.1007/978-94-010-0297-4 Kojola, I., P. Helle, and S. Heikkinen. 2011. Susikannan iimeaikaise muu okse Suomessa e i aineis ojen alossa. Suomen Riis a 57:55–62. K ale, S. 1996. In e Views. Sage, London, UK. Managemen plan o he wol popula ion in Finland. 2005. Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y, Helsinki, Finland. [online] URL: h p://wwwb.mmm. i/julkaisu /julkaisusa ja/2005/ MMMjulkaisu2005_11b.pd Mi owski, P. 1988. Agains mechanism: p o ec ing economics om science. Rowman & Li le ield, Lanham, Ma yland, USA. Misak, C. 2004. Cha les Sande s Pei ce (1839–1914). Pages 1–26 in C. Misak, edi o . The Camb idge companion o Pei ce. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, Bos on, USA. h p:// dx.doi.o g/10.1017/CCOL0521570069.001 No be g, J., J. Wilson, B. Walke , and E. Os om. 2008. Di e si y and esilience o social-ecological sys ems. Pages 46–79 in J. No be g, and G. C. Cumming, edi o s. Complexi y heo y o a sus ainable u u e. Columbia Uni e si y P ess, New Yo k, USA. No h, D. C. 2005. Unde s anding he p ocess o economic change. P ince on Uni e si y P ess, P ince on, New Je sey, USA. No on, B. G. 1996. In eg a ion o educ ion: wo app oaches o en i onmen al alua ion. Pages 105-138 in A. Ligh , and E. Ka z, edi o s. En i onmen al P agma ism. Rou ledge, London, UK.