Sweden’s Wolverine Conservation Payment Scheme Faces a New Challenge

Conservation narratives often follow a recognisable pattern. A species faces decline, people intervene, and, when the strategy succeeds, its population grows. That is normally where the story ends happily.

Northern Sweden presents a more complex picture. A policy intended to support wolverine recovery achieved its aim.

It paid Indigenous Sami reindeer-herding communities to coexist with predators, rather than compensating them only once reindeer had been killed.

For years, the approach appeared intelligent, equitable and progressive. However, wolverine numbers increased, expenses mounted, payments remained largely unchanged, and confidence in the arrangement started to erode.

A new study raises a challenging issue: what happens when a conservation scheme succeeds, yet those bearing its costs do not receive adequate support?

A different approach to predator conservation

Sweden launched its Conservation Performance Payment scheme in 1996.

The programme applied to Sami reindeer-herding communities in the north, rewarding them for recorded wolverines, lynx and wolves within their grazing territories.

This marked a departure from traditional compensation arrangements. Rather than waiting for a predator to kill livestock before covering the loss, Sweden compensated communities for predators being present.

A wolverine den containing cubs qualified for payment. Put simply, the scheme sought to make predators more valuable alive than dead.

Sami reindeer herders and payment for coexistence

Dr Hanna Pettersson, the study’s lead author, is based at the University of York’s Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity.

“Implemented in 1996, the scheme was at the time revolutionary,” said Dr. Pettersson.

“Instead of paying reindeer herders for damages caused by predators, the government paid communities for coexisting with them, whether or not damage actually occurs.

“The idea is to tie an income to the presence of the predator, providing an incentive to find ways to live alongside them, thus decreasing conflicts and improving social justice.”

The initiative drew international interest. Earlier research concluded that it had supported wolverine recovery in Sweden. For a period, it appeared to offer a model that other nations might replicate.

Wolverine recovery creates new pressures

Its success created the difficulty. Rising wolverine numbers placed greater strain on reindeer herders.

More reindeer were killed by predators, herders devoted additional time to managing danger, and the pressure involved in safeguarding their animals grew.

Yet the payment failed to match those changes. In 2002, the sum for every documented wolverine reproduction was fixed at 200,000 Swedish kronor. It remained at that figure for over two decades.

Over the same period, prices increased. Reindeer meat rose in value. Everyday living costs also climbed. As a result, a payment that had once appeared substantial lost much of its actual worth.

Payments lose real value

By 2025, Sweden’s Wildlife Damage Centre calculated that the payment ought to be nearly 525,000 kronor for each reproduction. Although the government increased the amount in 2024, the rise was just 25,000 kronor.

“Initial findings showed encouraging results of the scheme, namely a marked increase of the wolverine population, but after studying 30 years of data from the scheme, we have shown that this success has not been sustained,” said Dr. Pettersson.

“The payments to the reindeer herders have remained frozen at 200,000 SEK per predator reproduction since 2002, but due to rising costs and meat prices, the real value of the payment has approximately halved over the last two decades.”

“While the Sámi Parliament calculates the legal payout should be at least 480,000 SEK to comply with the law, the government offered only a 25,000 SEK increase in 2024.”

Climate change complicates monitoring

Finance was not the sole challenge. The payment scheme relies on evidence.

Every spring, rangers and herders search for wolverine dens and verify whether females have cubs. The number of confirmed dens determines the payment received by a community.

Climate change has complicated this task. In Norrbotten, Sweden’s northernmost county, winter conditions have become increasingly unreliable. Strong winds, difficult snow and abrupt weather changes may remove tracks or prevent access to den locations.

Requirements were tightened in 2012 as well. This made it more difficult for observations to gain official recognition.

Several herders said they had observed plentiful evidence of wolverines but received confirmation of far fewer reproductions. From their perspective, the animals had not vanished; rather, the system had become less effective at documenting them.

Communities lose trust

In 2023 and 2024, the researchers carried out interviews and surveys with herding representatives, county rangers, Sami institutions and national specialists. Their findings revealed considerable frustration.

Dissatisfaction with payments was evident, but the concern extended beyond finances. Many herders believed that their understanding of the land was being disregarded.

Some felt the regulations had made proving their observations excessively difficult. This is significant because cooperation is fundamental to the entire scheme.

Herders assist with locating dens, while rangers help verify them. As trust declines, monitoring deteriorates, disagreements increase and the programme becomes weaker.

Wolverines shifted south

The figures reveal a substantial change. Across the period examined in the 2015 study, Norrbotten accounted for roughly 63 percent of Sweden’s recorded wolverine reproductions.

Over the following decade, its share dropped to roughly 29 percent.

Sweden’s overall wolverine population did not simply collapse. Instead, it moved southwards into areas that lack the same payment scheme and do not place the same burden on Sami reindeer herders.

The research does not attribute this shift to one straightforward cause. Inadequate monitoring could account for part of the decrease, and illegal killing may be another factor. What is certain is that the earlier success is no longer being maintained in the area where it was once most important.

A broader warning for conservation

The issue is not confined to Sweden. Conservation programmes worldwide frequently ask local communities to coexist with wildlife that is dangerous or costly. Such animals may include wolves, lions, tigers, elephants and wild dogs.

As wildlife populations grow, so does the cost of coexistence. If payments do not rise alongside those costs, communities may feel deserted by the systems that sought their cooperation.

Effective conservation cannot stop once a species begins recovering. Frequently, that is the point at which the most difficult work starts.

Repair remains possible

The researchers maintain that Sweden can still strengthen the scheme. Payments should reflect actual costs and adjust as prices change.

Monitoring also needs to function in a warmer, less predictable climate. Above all, herders must feel that the scheme is fair and that it respects their knowledge.

“If a government fails to adapt payments to rising costs of coexistence, the burden is shifted onto local, often marginalized, communities, who in this case are already straining under the cumulative impacts of mining, forestry, and climate change,” noted Dr. Pettersson.

“It is a warning sign for other global conservation efforts. Governments must plan ahead and adapt interventions to changing conditions and local needs.”

The message is straightforward yet uncomfortable. Wildlife protection requires funding not only at the outset, but throughout the period in which people and predators occupy the same land.