The consequences of avoiding conflict: lessons from conservation planning for Europe's last wild reindeer

This paper seeks to contribute to debates on the potential for conservation planning to engage actively with conflict. Current research in conservation planning generally approaches conflict by concentrating on the challenges of securing agreement and consensus. Recent planning literature advocates approaches that are more open to conflict. In the analysis of a Norwegian regional planning process for wild reindeer conservation, we examine how planning authorities handled conflict, and in particular how planning documents portrayed conflicts expressed during the planning process. Findings show that the aim of reaching regional consensus limited the scope of planning, and led to the exclusion of difficult issues and opposing views. Instead of engaging actively with conflict, the planning authority framed opposing positions as unplannable, and failed to recognise them as legitimate. This contributed to weakening of the legitimacy of the regional plan when put to the test.