\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{HCode}
{\documentclass[CRBIOL,Unicode,screen,biblatex,published]{cedram}
\addbibresource{crbiol20250641.bib}
\newenvironment{noXML}{}{}
\let\citep\parencite
\let\citet\textcite
\def\xcitealp#1#2{\citeauthor{#1}, \citelink{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand*{\citelink}[2]{\hyperlink{cite.\therefsection @#1}{#2}}
\def\defcitealias#1#2{}
\let\citepalias\parencite
\let\citetalias\textcite
\newenvironment{Table}{\begin{table}}{\end{table}}
\def\thead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\endthead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\tabnote#1{\vskip4pt\parbox{.92\linewidth}{#1}}
\def\tsup#1{$^{{#1}}$}
\def\tsub#1{$_{{#1}}$}
\RequirePackage{etoolbox}
\def\jobid{crbiol20250641}
%\graphicspath{{/tmp/\jobid_figs/web/}}
\graphicspath{{./figures/}}
\skip\footins 12pt
\newcounter{runlevel}
\let\MakeYrStrItalic\relax
\def\refinput#1{}
\def\back#1{}
\def\Lbreak{\newline}
\def\hyphen{\text{-}}
\def\0{\phantom{0}}
\def\xsection#1{}
\def\botline{\\\hline}
\DOI{10.5802/crbiol.190}
\datereceived{2025-08-08}
\daterevised{2025-11-06}
\dateaccepted{2025-11-13}
\ItHasTeXPublished
\def\og{\guillemotleft}
\def\fg{\guillemotright}
\makeatletter
\g@addto@macro{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
\gappto{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\makeatother
%
\gdef\tabonesplittabular{\hline 
\multicolumn{4}{r@{}}{(continued on next page)}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\begin{table*}
\caption{(continued)}
\fontsize{9.2}{12}\selectfont
\tabcolsep 4pt
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Dimension} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Key question} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Assessment indicators (Examples)} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Sources and methods} \\
\hline
}
%
\gdef\tabtwosplittabular{\hline 
\multicolumn{4}{r@{}}{(continued on next page)}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\setcounter{table}{1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{(continued)}
\fontsize{9}{12}\selectfont
\tabcolsep 4pt
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Characteristics} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Wolf} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Wild boar} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Greater flamingo} \\
\hline
}
}
{
\PassOptionsToPackage{authoryear}{natbib} 
\documentclass[crbiol]{article}
\def\CDRdoi{10.5802/crbiol.190}
\let\newline\break
\def\selectlanguage#1{}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\def\xmorerows#1#2{\morerows{#1}{#2}}
\let\tabonesplittabular\relax
\let\tabtwosplittabular\relax
\def\citelink#1#2{\citeyear{#1}}
\def\xcitealp#1#2{\citealp{#1}}
\def\href#1#2{\url[#1]{#2}}
\let\refinput\input
\def\xsection#1{}
\makeatletter
}
\makeatother

\usepackage{upgreek}
\dateposted{2026-02-02}

\begin{document}

\begin{noXML}

\CDRsetmeta{articletype}{opinion}

\title{Governing biodiversity: solidarity, justice and reciprocity in
wildlife management}

\alttitle{Gouverner la biodiversit\'{e} : solidarit\'{e}, justice et
r\'{e}ciprocit\'{e} dans la gestion de la faune sauvage}

\author{\firstname{Rapha\"{e}l} \lastname{Mathevet}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-1778-1080}\IsCorresp}
\address{CEFE, University of Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, 34090 Montpellier, France}
\curraddr[R. Mathevet]{UMR5175 CEFE Campus CNRS, 1919 route de Mende
34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France}
\email[R. Mathevet]{raphael.mathevet@cefe.cnrs.fr}

\author{\firstname{Coralie} \lastname{Mounet}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-7650-6433}}
\address{Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte, 38000 Grenoble, France}
\email[C. Mounet]{coralie.mounet@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr}

\keywords{\kwd{Ecological
solidarity}\kwd{Reciprocity}\kwd{Environmental 
justice}\kwd{Coexistence}\kwd{Animal agency}\kwd{Biodiversity
governance}\kwd{Wildlife management}}

\altkeywords{\kwd{Solidarit\'{e}
\'{e}cologique}\kwd{R\'{e}ciprocit\'{e}}\kwd{Justice
environnementale}\kwd{Coexistence}\kwd{Agentivit\'{e}
animale}\kwd{Gouvernance de la biodiversit\'{e}}\kwd{Gestion de la
faune sauvage}}

\editornote{Article submitted by invitation}
\alteditornote{Article soumis sur invitation}

\begin{abstract} 
In the current epoch of profound anthropogenic transformations of
ecosystems, managing wildlife cannot be reduced to simple technical
adjustments in response to social tensions or conflicts. This article
proposes a shift in perspective based on three principles---ecological
solidarity, interspecies reciprocity and environmental justice---to
reconsider the conditions of coexistence between humans and wildlife.
These principles are not limited to damage prevention; they can also
open up political spaces for diverse living beings and their relations.
We therefore present a framework for analyzing socio-ecological
viability consisting of four dimensions: ecological interdependence,
ethical-political commitment, relationship quality, and institutional
arrangement fairness. Through three case studies in France involving
wolves (\textit{Canis lupus}), wild boars (\textit{Sus scrofa}) and
greater flamingos (\textit{Phoenicopterus roseus}), we examine three
contrasting management strategies: conflict and polarization, pragmatic
hunting and symbiotic negotiation---processes of mutual adjustment in
shared environments. These cases do not describe fixed management
regimes, but rather shifting configurations that reveal forms of power,
situated knowledge and animal agency. Our analysis reveals the
necessity of a wildlife governance that is more attentive to
attachments, yet also more demanding in terms of reciprocity, and
capable of recognizing the contributions of non-humans to shared
environments. Transitioning from a logic of compensation to a policy of
co-viability therefore necessitates supporting practices that foster a
shared habitability and habitable futures for humans and other living
beings alike.\looseness=-1
\vspace*{-2pt}
\end{abstract}

\begin{altabstract}
Dans cette p\'{e}riode de bouleversements anthropiques des
\'{e}cosyst\`{e}mes, la gestion de la faune sauvage ne peut plus
relever des simples ajustements techniques en r\'{e}ponse \`{a} des
tensions ou \`{a} des conflits sociaux. Cet article propose un
changement de perspective en s'appuyant sur trois principes : la
solidarit\'{e} \'{e}cologique, la r\'{e}ciprocit\'{e}
intersp\'{e}cifique et la justice environnementale, afin de penser
autrement les conditions de la coexistence. Loin de se limiter \`{a} la
pr\'{e}vention des dommages, ces principes peuvent permettre d'ouvrir
un espace politique \`{a} la diversit\'{e} des \^{e}tres vivants et
\`{a} leurs attachements. Nous proposons donc un cadre d'analyse de la
viabilit\'{e} socio-\'{e}cologique qui est compos\'{e} de quatre
dimensions : interd\'{e}pendance \'{e}cologique, engagement
\'{e}thico-politique, qualit\'{e} des relations et justice des
arrangements institutionnels. \`{A} travers trois cas d'\'{e}tude
situ\'{e}s en France, portant sur le loup (\textit{Canis lupus}), le
sanglier (\textit{Sus scrofa}) et le flamant rose
(\textit{Phoenicopterus roseus}), nous explorons trois r\'{e}gimes
contrast\'{e}s de gestion : conflit et polarisation,
instrumentalisation cyn\'{e}g\'{e}tique et n\'{e}gociation symbiotique.
Ces cas ne d\'{e}crivent pas des r\'{e}gimes de gestion fig\'{e}s mais
plut\^{o}t des configurations mouvantes, r\'{e}v\'{e}latrices de formes
de pouvoir, de savoirs situ\'{e}s et d'agentivit\'{e} animale Notre
analyse montre la n\'{e}cessit\'{e} d'une gouvernance plus attentive
aux attachements mais aussi plus exigeante en mati\`{e}re de
r\'{e}ciprocit\'{e} et qui soit capable de reconna\^{i}tre les
contributions des non-humains \`{a} des mondes partag\'{e}s. Passer
d'une logique de compensation \`{a} une politique de co-viabilit\'{e}
implique alors de soutenir les pratiques qui fabriquent une
habitabilit\'{e} partag\'{e}e, des futurs habitables pour les humains
comme pour les autres \^{e}tres vivants.
\end{altabstract}

\thanks{CNRS-Ecologie \& Environnement, CNRS-Sciences humaines \&
sociales, French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS-EE),
PACTE Camargue project, RECIBIODAL project (ANR-15-IDEX-02,
ANR-10-LABX-50-01, ANR10 LABX56), Albert II of Monaco Foundation
(Wildlife Initiative), COEXIST Programme (OFB)}

\maketitle

\twocolumngrid

\end{noXML}

\defcitealias{Zask2020}{ibid.}
\defcitealias{MathevetBechet2020}{ibid.}

\section*{Introduction: rethinking the place of wildlife in the
Anthropocene era}

\vspace*{-2pt}

Interactions between humans and wildlife are intensifying all over the
world. However, these interactions are not confined to ecological
friction or antagonism between species \citep{Ingold1993,Haraway2022}.
They also frequently reveal social tensions between human groups that
have different interests, knowledge and value systems relating to
wildlife management \citep{Madden2004,Marchinietal2019,Tsingetal2020}. 
These encounters are generally referred to as ``conflicts'' and are
often{\unskip\break} managed through reactive measures such as
deterrence, control and elimination, which are based on a technocratic
and dualistic view of nature
\citep{DucarmeCouvet2020,MarguliesKaranth2018}. Despite the
sophistication of conservation efforts, they are failing due to the
development of human infrastructure and the intensification of
agriculture \citep{Foleyetal2005,Rudeletal2009,Simkinetal2022}.  The
Anthropocene era---defined here as the epoch marked by massive
human-driven transformations of the Earth system 
\citep{Crutzen2002,LewisMaslin2015}---appears to be a period in which
the boundaries between species, habitats, and governance are becoming
blurred due to modern human activities. Therefore, wildlife should be
approached not as an external problem, but as a common issue of
livability.

The widespread and persistent conceptual framework of ``conflict
between humans and wildlife'' often obscures the political, ontological
(different ways of conceiving the being and role of non-humans, e.g.,
as resources, companions, or agents), and ethical dimensions of these
relationships. This framework renders the distribution of harm and
benefits, the epistemic asymmetries between stakeholders (e.g., between
scientific expertise, local ecological knowledge, and policy framings),
and the possibilities for coexistence beyond control invisible
\citep{Chapronetal2014,Franketal2019,JacobsenLinnell2016}. In this
article, we argue that a new mode of governance is needed, one that
moves from contributing to halting biodiversity loss and thereby
generating tangible benefits for human societies to proactively
constructing shared territories. To this end, we propose three guiding
principles: ecological solidarity \citep{Mathevetetal2010}; reciprocity
\citep{BlountHill2021}; and environmental justice
\citep{Fraser2009,Paloniemietal2015}. These principles raise distinct
questions: Who benefits, who pays, and who decides? What knowledge is
recognized? What obligations arise from our relationships with wild
species?\looseness=1

According to \citet{Mathevet2012}, ecological solidarity redefines
interdependence as a scientific and normative commitment. Reciprocity
requires a transition from an instrumental logic to relationships
founded on exchange and mutual{\unskip\break} recognition \citep{Haraway2008,
Plumwood1993,Roberts2005}. Environmental justice emphasizes both the
social distribution of ecological burdens and the recognition and
participation of multiple stakeholders \citep{Fraser2009}. Together,
these principles challenge reductionist governance frameworks and
reorient wildlife management towards more localized, equitable and
sustainable arrangements.\looseness=1

This proposal resonates with broader debates within the social sciences
and conservation, often referred to as the ``animal turn''. In
particular, animal geography has played a pivotal role in recent years
in recentering animals within geographical and political analyses of
place, space and identity. This approach has emphasized the need to
recognize their agency and moral significance 
\citep{WolchEmel1998,Lynn1998,PhiloWilbert2000}. Similarly, approaches
developed under the banner of Compassionate Conservation advocate for
an ethic of coexistence that rejects instrumental framings of wildlife,
emphasizes the moral value of individuals and acknowledges natural
harms \citep{OgraUrbanik2018,Katz2024}. Our framework builds on these
insights while proposing a distinctive contribution: articulating
solidarity, reciprocity, and justice as conceptual anchors for
multispecies governance. In doing so, it extends the scope of animal
geography and compassionate conservation by explicitly engaging with
ecological dynamics, historical asymmetries, and the political
consequences of encounters with wildlife in more-than-human
worlds.\looseness=1

This article is divided into three parts. In Section~\ref{sec1}, we set
out the conceptual foundations necessary for rethinking the
relationship between humans and wildlife through the lens of
solidarity, reciprocity and justice. In Section~\ref{sec2}, we present
a socio-ecological viability assessment framework designed to analyze
policies in terms of both their effectiveness and their ability to
maintain viable interrelationships. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec3}, we
apply this framework to three empirical case studies in France: the
wolf (\textit{Canis lupus}), the wild boar (\textit{Sus scrofa}) and
the Greater flamingo (\textit{Phoenicopterus roseus}). These
contrasting species enable us to discuss in conclusion, how wildlife is
governed and contested, and how it coexists with humans, proposing
alternative approaches to governing living beings.

\section{Theoretical foundations for a renewed relationship with life}
\label{sec1}
\subsection{The principle of ecological solidarity: from ecology to
legal standard}\label{ssec11}

Despite interest in the fields of conservation science and
sustainability, the concept of ecological solidarity remains little
known on the international stage \citep{ChapinIII2020,Rozzi2013}. It
was initially developed in France at the intersection of ecological
science and law \citep{Mathevetetal2010}. Ecological solidarity enables
us to reconsider the fundamental biophysical concept of the
interdependence between living organisms and their environment as both
a descriptive, objective fact and a normative principle
\citep{Fromontetal2022,Michelot2022}. This change in perspective
appears to go far beyond a mere metaphor for scientific rationality. It
provides a normative framework rooted in the recognition of
interdependence and in the idea that humans are part of, and dependent
upon, biodiversity and ecosystem processes. This framework could
transform governance towards more inclusive, ecologically grounded, and
socially legitimate forms \citep{Jolivet2022,Mathevetetal2016}.

\subsubsection{A genealogy rooted in scientific ecology}

During the 2006 reform of French national parks
\citep{Borrini-Feyerabendetal2013}, 
ecological solidarity was defined as
``the close interdependence of living beings with each other and with
the natural or developed environments of two geographical areas,
whether contiguous or not'' \citep{Thompsonetal2011}. Although
technical and administrative in nature, this formulation already seems
to imply a new perspective. It situates living beings within a set of
systemic, dynamic and multi-scalar relationships where the focus shifts
from entities to continuities and assemblages of species, habitats and
flows that interweave tensions and complementarities between ecological
processes and governance institutions \citep{Mathevetetal2016}.
Inspired by Leopold's Land Ethic \citep{Leopold1949} and its
contemporary interpretations \citep{Callicott2013}, this vision implies
responsibility. Indeed, recognizing interdependence is not enough, it
requires ethical and political commitment in order to truly care for
it.

\subsubsection{From ecology to law: an ontological shift}

This redefinition was legally enshrined in France during the 2006
reform of National Parks, and was subsequently explicitly included in
the Biodiversity and Landscape Restoration law (No. 2016-1087).
According to Article L110-1 of the Environmental Code, all public
decisions likely to impact the environment must now take into account
``interactions between ecosystems, living beings and natural or
developed environments''. Although subtle, this legislative change has
undermined the dualistic basis of environmental law, which is founded
on a set of prohibitions and preservation measures. By replacing a
logic of preservation with a relational architecture
\citep{Jolivet2022, Michelot2022}, it appears to open up a new space: a
normativity situated in interdependence that can accommodate
more-than-human forms of life.

\subsubsection{{De facto} solidarity vs solidarity in action: a
fundamental difference}

In our view, one important contribution of this framework lies in
distinguishing between ``{de~facto}'' and ``in action''
ecological solidarity. The former concerns ecosystem relationships
(such as flows, feedbacks and co-evolutions) regardless of social or
political recognition. The latter implies choosing to recognize these
interdependencies and acting accordingly by anchoring oneself in
broader, trans-specific collectives \citep{Mathevetetal2016}. Rather
than being a dysfunction, the gap between these two dimensions becomes
a shared space where multiple species and institutions co-exist and
interact. This is a kind of in-between space shaped by aspirations,
power asymmetries and conflicts of legitimacy
\citep{Jolivet2022,Mathevet2012}.  Rather than attempting to erase the
human/non-human divide, governance now seeks to manage its thresholds,
leaving space for fruitful hesitation.

\subsubsection{Co-viability: making solidarity measurable}

In order to make ecological solidarity effective, it must be given an
operational framework. The theory of viability, which is derived from
the mathematics of dynamic systems
\citep{Aubinetal2011,AubinSaintPierre2007}, seems to offer such a
framework. Viability refers to a system's ability to maintain its
essential functions despite changing constraints
\citep{Anderiesetal2018,Mathiasetal2020}. When applied to hybrid
systems, such as socio-ecosystems, it becomes ``co-viability''. This
allows us to consider the capacity of human and non-human systems to
support each other in an adaptive process \citep{Barriereetal2019}.
This change in perspective necessitates a shift in the criteria used to
evaluate the preservation of isolated entities, moving towards
consolidating the relational conditions of livability. In this context,
ecological solidarity is valuable not only as an ethical goal, but also
as a measure of justice, a management indicator and a normative
benchmark in an uncertain world. By justice, we refer not to the moral
accountability of non-humans, but to the distribution of burdens and
benefits across species. A lack of ecological solidarity translates
into injustice when human institutions systematically deny the
conditions of survival and flourishing to other species. In a sense,
ecological solidarity transforms management into an art form, focusing
on maintaining relationships rather than controlling them. It
encourages us to consider conservation as a policy of coexistence.

Several recent proposals place it in a renewed institutional
perspective: the ``right to co-viability'' \citep{Barriere2022} as a
right to shared habitability \citep{Chezeletal2024}. This vision shifts
ecological solidarity away from its original field of application (i.e.\ 
protected areas) and establishes it as a structuring principle of
relational environmental governance that extends far beyond protected
areas themselves \citep{Mathevetetal2016}. The objective is no longer
to restore a lost balance, but rather to address dynamic co-presences,
shifting boundaries and precarious compatibilities. Living with other
living beings, then, means maintaining the conditions for their
viability without claiming to control their future, and accepting
uncertainty and change.

\subsection{The principle of reciprocity: re-embedding human societies
in ecological communities}\label{ssec12}

While ecological solidarity emphasizes the systemic interdependence of
species and environments, reciprocity introduces an arguably more
intimate and ethical framework for relations between humans and
non-humans. In our view, it replaces purely functional conceptions of
interaction, reconfiguring them in terms of exchange, care and mutual
responsibility \citep{Mathevetetal2018}. Therefore, the challenge
lies not only in what humans take from the living world, but also in
what they give back in return in material, symbolic and political
terms. ``Giving back'' may involve material measures (restoring
habitats, reducing pressures, reintroducing ecological functions),
symbolic ones (recognizing the presence and value of non-humans in
cultural narratives), and political ones (granting them representation
in governance bodies).

\subsubsection{Anthropological and philosophical foundations}

Environmental anthropology has long taught us that the recognition of
humans and non-humans often manifests in acts of exchange. Reciprocity,
deeply rooted in the now classic triad of giving--receiving--returning
\citep{Heinsetal2018,Mauss1925}, has long  transcended the strict realm
of interpersonal interactions. In many contexts, it permeates
cosmologies in which non-human living beings---spirits, animals, plants
and elements---participate in a moral and material economy of exchange
\citep{Luteetal2016}. In many societies, offerings, care and restraint
in harvesting are gestures that crystallise mutual obligations towards
the non-human world, thus anchoring social norms in ecological practice
\citep{Heinsetal2018,Nadasdy2007,Papilloud2018}.  These practices
cannot be reduced to ``animistic'' or folkloric irrationality. Instead,
they implement subtle and localised regulations that facilitate
coexistence in diverse worlds \citep{Hann2006,Ojedaetal2022}.  Where
the law struggles to grasp the plurality of entities involved, these
practices establish lines of attention and shape shared worlds by
maintaining debts, deferred gifts and renewed obligations.

Contemporary ecological thinking does not lie outside this horizon.
Indeed, we sometimes see it attempting to reconnect with these modes of
relating in a different way. For example, the French philosopher of
sciences Edgar Morin \citep{Morin2015} calls for an ontology of
connectedness, arguing that the focus should be on cohabiting,
co-producing and co-existing rather than dominating. In the theological
realm, Pope Francis's encyclical \textit{Laudato si'}
\citep{PapeFrancois2015} mobilizes a figure of kinship with the Earth,
reviving a long tradition of Christian and indigenous cosmologies in
which humans are not outside nature but inside it. From these
perspectives, otherness does not restrict ethics. Rather, it becomes
its condition. Interdependence forms the basis of responsibility. It is
relationships, not fixed identities, that give rise to obligations
\citep{BaardAhteensuu2019,Held2005,Norton2015, Robinson2011}. As such,
belonging to an ecological community---often fragile, contested and
precarious---becomes the basis for moral, political and territorial
claims. In this regard, forms of debt and gift-giving do not disappear;
rather, they are reconfigured around broader notions of reciprocity,
committing humans and non-humans alike to inhabiting uncertain
territories.

\subsubsection{A relational ethic against domination}

Reciprocity offers an interesting alternative to the utilitarianism
that continues to reduce nature to available resources. Contrary to
this frequent instrumentalization, thinking in terms of reciprocity
implies giving practical attention, care and recognition to those
entities that act, resist or support governance dynamics through their
ecological behaviors (e.g., predation, mobility, reproduction), beyond
the human world \citep{Buller2014,Burlingame2025,HodgettsLorimer2018,
Ingold2011}. In many agricultural or pastoral contexts, for example,
the land is not only plowed, but also listened to, respected and handed
down. Its fertility becomes the result of a relationship and localized
commitment in practice \citep{Hourdequin2025}.  These practices are
often ordinary and sometimes invisible, yet they contribute to shaping
ecological commons that are not instituted by law, but rather woven by
mutual obligations between humans and non-humans \citep{Hache2011}.
These forms of coexistence demonstrate that reciprocity encompasses
more than just measurable exchanges; it is also embodied in actions,
rituals, ways of living and ways of governing \citep{DiazPascual2025}.
Taking into account the cognitive, material and institutional
dimensions of relationships seems to us to open up a space for
rethinking ecological governance \citep{Diazetal2018}.  The latter
would no longer be based solely on the management of flows, but on
recognising the capacities and vulnerabilities of all those involved.
From this perspective, politics becomes a space for relational
negotiation, populated not by objects of planning or management, but by
partners situated in shared worlds
\citep{Dore2013,Latour2020,Latour2012}. The ``wild experiences''
described by Jamie Lorimer \citep{Lorimer2015} form part of this
\mbox{dynamic.} Rather than \mbox{restoring} a lost nature, the focus is on dealing
with living otherness on a daily basis in a world that has already been
largely transformed. Such an approach, in our view, does not seek to
restore mythical harmony or naturalise conflict, but rather embraces
the uncertainty, friction and negotiation that characterise all
coexistence with other living beings \citep{WolchEmel1998}. However,
this relational perspective would be incomplete without also focusing
on attachment \citep{Bousquetetal2022,Stepanoff2024}. The latter refers
to emotional bonds, often formed over time, that manifest as loyalty,
responsibility, or dependence. Such bonds are frequently subtle and
stifled by legal or technocratic frameworks, yet they are vital for
developing a viable, situated, and just ecology of coexistence.

\subsubsection{Reciprocity and mutual control}

Several empirical studies on wildlife management show that reciprocity
is not necessarily a harmonious exchange, but can instead be a tense
relationship that is negotiated over time. In Kyrgyzstan, for example,
herders and wolves engage in a process of adjustments and
countermeasures involving mutual recognition, deterrence and learning.
This is not based on mutual affection, but rather an unstable balance
of control and recognition of coexistence \citep{Lescureux2006}.
Similarly, in Western Europe, large wild animals such as wolves, bears,
lynxes and wild boars occupy a similar place in both the imagination
and the territory. They are never simply there. Their presence
saturates social spaces with contradictory perceptions, strong emotions
and territorial and political tensions 
\citep{Benhammou2007,Dore2014,MathevetBondon2022,Mounet2008}. The
deployment of management measures such as fences, culling plans and
compensation schemes is not merely a technical response to an
ecological issue. They actually reconfigure the relationships between
species, social groups and citizens and the State. These measures draw
on localised knowledge and memories, as well as emotions such as fear,
empathy and resentment \citep{Benhammou2007,Smith2022}. In doing so,
they create divisions between what is considered legitimate and
illegitimate. A biopolitical reading \mbox{\citep{Foucault2008}} enables us to
comprehend these mechanisms as being structured by logics of power
rather than as neutral. While disciplines organise individual
behaviour, biopolitical logics \mbox{manage} \mbox{populations} and assign relative
value to lives. When applied to interspecies relations, this framework
reveals the balance between care and control, protection and sorting,
and recognition and distancing. It enables us to challenge the
decisions that determine whether lives can be lived, reproduced or
eliminated \citep{Anderson2012,Curryetal2019,Merzetal2025}. These
regimes are reflected in everyday practices. In hunting, for example,
the same animal can be a resource, a target and a monitored population.
When treated as game, regulated as a threat and protected as heritage,
the wild boar becomes an ambivalent being subject to contradictory
expectations, regulations and emotions \citep{Stepanoff2021}.  Such
configurations demonstrate that the relationship between humans and
non-humans is not a moral ideal, but rather a contested space of
cohabitation traversed by the conflicting forces of governance, memory,
emotions and politics.

\subsubsection{Towards a viable coexistence policy}

In our view, prioritizing reciprocity means fundamentally changing our
perspective. Instead of evaluating a policy based solely on its
ecological or technical results, we must consider the quality of the
relationships it enables or hinders. This means viewing governance not
as an exercise in optimization, but as an arrangement of obligations,
presences and absences in a populated, contested world rife with
multiple claims. This shift requires us to pay close attention to what
non-humans do and know, and how their actions are translated or ignored
in decision-making processes affecting them. It is not just a matter of
recognizing their agency, but also of examining the often mundane, and
sometimes institutionalized, mechanisms that render them discreet,
disposable or simply inaudible. Reciprocity is therefore neither a
matter of consensus nor of any pre-established balance. On the
contrary, it involves constantly negotiating the conditions of
coexistence---a situated practice of ``living with'' and ``doing with''
in a world that is already shared \citep{CarterLinnell2016,
Konigetal2020,Michalonetal2016}. Reciprocity does not align with
ecological solidarity, but rather adds complexity to its promises. In
our view, it invites us to consider socio-ecological viability not as a
technical solution but as a politics of connection and an ecology of
attachments, tensions and plural forms of living together. In this
context, the use of terms such as ``negotiation'' or ``partners'' is
metaphorical. It does not anthropomorphize wildlife but highlights how
their behaviors and ecological dynamics constrain and reshape human
practices and institutions. Recognizing otherness requires avoiding
human categories while acknowledging that animal actions have political
consequences.\looseness=1

\subsection{From conflict to coexistence: a spectrum of interspecific
interactions and (in)justices}\label{ssec13}

Based on the principles of ecological solidarity and reciprocity
outlined thus far, we must now consider how interspecies relationships
are built and maintained on a daily basis within territories and
bodies. As we have seen, interactions between humans and wildlife
cannot be defined simply in terms of biology or geography. These
interactions are rooted in narratives, legal frameworks, emotions,
attachments, fears and power relations that underpin public action and
local institutional arrangements. These relationships are always
context-specific, oscillating between recognition and distancing, and
between care and exclusion. Depending on historical, social and
ecological circumstances, these relationships appear as open conflict,
tacit tolerance or ingrained habits. In order to address the tensions
they express, as well as what they obscure, it is insufficient to
merely adjust technical devices or management tools. We must also
revisit the knowledge regimes, categories of analysis and implicit
norms that shape our thinking and actions regarding coexistence. Only
then can a shared political ecology truly emerge---one that is
attentive to the plural worlds that coexist without necessarily
meeting.

\subsubsection{Deconstructing ``coexistence'': a management framework
that needs to be overcome}

Over the past decade, the term ``coexistence'' has become firmly
established in scientific discourse and the terminology of conservation
science \citep{Nyhus2016,Konigetal2020}. At the same time, it has
become commonplace in technical discourse and political mandates
\citep{Pooleyetal2021}. It has become particularly prevalent in
contexts involving the return of large predators or the presence of
so-called emblematic species in environments heavily impacted by
humans. However, despite its constant use, we believe that its meaning
is often tied to a normative vision. This is the vision of an ideal to
be achieved: reconciling human activities and the protection of
biodiversity as well as possible. In this context, coexistence is
primarily viewed as a risk reduction approach aimed at minimizing
damage caused by wildlife or preventing the extinction of threatened
species \citep{FajardodelCastillo2021,Marchinietal2021}, rather than as
an actual lived reality situated within a specific context and subject
to constant tensions and negotiations. This framing appears to be based
on a set of assumptions that are rarely made explicit, but which we
believe to be highly influential. These assumptions concern the
legitimacy of animal presence, demographic thresholds of social
tolerance and what constitutes the ``right place'' for a species in a
given landscape \citep{Harrisetal2023,PhiloWilbert2000,Mauz2002}. 
These thresholds are not solely based on ecological logic; rather, they
appear to be deeply rooted in cultural representations of nature, the
wild, the useful and the harmful \citep{Kanskyetal2024}. This often
results in a limiting policy that translates into spatial
compartmentalization, pushing wildlife to the margins (such as
reserves, forests and areas of low economic value) while ensuring human
sovereignty over inhabited, cultivated and productive spaces. These
dividing lines outline the contours of conditional coexistence: a
regulated sharing of space negotiated unilaterally and defined by the
interests of the humans' majority. Though seemingly inclusive, this
ontology of coexistence actually perpetuates an implicit hierarchy
between beings and their right to inhabit. It subjects the presence of
animals to governance calibrated to human priorities
\citep{Wagneretal2007},  where otherness is only tolerated at the
margins of legitimate action. In this configuration, local and
vernacular knowledge obviously struggle to find their place. Their
approaches to living beings, which often differ greatly from
technocratic standards, are dismissed, marginalized, or reduced to mere
anecdotes. Human communities themselves can become disjointed and cut
off from their territories and socio-ecological networks when their
practices conflict with the dominant conservation logic
\citep{ChambruMounet2021}. Coexistence then ceases to be a shared
project and becomes, in a sense, a slogan for an already established
and rarely discussed world order.\looseness=1

\subsubsection{Towards an ecology of relationships: co-presence,
neighborliness and shared habitability}

\vspace*{3pt}

To move beyond the current dominant logic of damage limitation, we must
rethink interspecies relations, relying more on the spatial and
temporal dynamics of co-presence \citep{Goffman1974,MerleauPonty1945}. 
This concept, originating from interactionist sociology and political
philosophy, refers to the mutual harmonization of beings sharing the
same environment. Unlike the emphasis placed on discrete events of
conflict or impact, this approach highlights the daily, often tacit and
almost always embodied, adjustments that underpin cohabitation.

Our naturalistic experiences and field research, as well as a growing
number of documented empirical examples, demonstrate the existence of
negotiated co-presence. The adjustment of wildlife to human activities
is interpreted here as a form of co-presence that forces humans to
adapt as well. We use ``negotiated'' in a metaphorical sense to
highlight these reciprocal adjustments, not to suggest intentional
bargaining or to ignore wildlife's ecological otherness. For instance,
wolves adjust their movements to avoid human activity; livestock
grazing is adapted to the breeding cycles of protected birds, such as
black grouse; and wild boars synchronize their foraging with periods or
places where humans are absent. These micro-adjustments reflect what
could be termed ``situated intelligence'' between species: forms of
perception, anticipation and behavioral plasticity that are rooted in
relational ecologies. Furthermore, the concept of neighborhood
developed by the pragmatic philosopher Jo\"{e}lle \citep{Zask2020}
appears to offer an interesting extension to this relational approach.
Neighborhood cannot be reduced to spatial proximity. According to 
\citetalias{Zask2020}, it implies mutual recognition and shared
responsibility. Wild boar display agency by shaping landscapes and
influencing agricultural practices. We do not attribute moral
responsibility to them; rather, we emphasize that their actions
generate effects that humans must reckon with, thus redistributing
responsibility within multispecies assemblages. While it is not
necessarily emotional or harmonious, we believe that neighborhood also
presupposes the ongoing negotiation of boundaries, rhythms and
obligations. Consequently, coexistence appears to be a \mbox{process} rather
than a state, shaped by asymmetries, contested meanings, and evolving
modes of interaction \citep{Bergstrom2017}. Recognizing animals as
spatial and political actors
\citep{Edelblutteetal2023,MathevetBondon2022} further challenges
anthropocentric assumptions about action, adaptation and governance.
Certain species, particularly those that cross or disrupt conventional
boundaries, become ``boundary animals'' and are incorporated into the
neighborhood, thereby challenging established dichotomies such as
wild/domestic or nature/culture. Their presence requires not only
technical adaptation, but also a reconfiguration of relationships.

To us, what is at stake in this reconfiguration of links to living
beings resonates perfectly with certain urban and rural geography works
that propose shifting the focus to habitability. Rather than viewing it
as a simple technical attribute denoting housing comfort, access to
resources or guaranteed security, these studies consider it to be a
relational quality, or even an emergent property of social and
ecological connections
\citep{Barrioz2023,FournyLajarge2019,
LazzarottiFrelatKahn2012,Lefort2020}. Consequently, habitability is no
longer confined to a set of measurable criteria. Instead, it is
experienced, felt and negotiated through the depth of relationships
formed in a place, the activities carried out there and the conflicts
it generates. From this perspective, living is not merely a matter of
material installation or functional appropriation. It is about
establishing a presence, albeit sometimes fragile or contested, in a
world already populated by humans, as well as by plants, animals, and
narratives. In our view, therefore, habitability does not refer to a
neutral space to be distributed equitably, but rather to a lived space
that is always in tension and is co-produced and traversed by
conflicts, interdependencies and multiple compositions. Therefore, it
is no longer a question of opposing human territories to those of other
living beings, nor of considering their juxtaposition as belonging to
separate regimes of existence. Instead, we must follow the interlocking
patterns, lines of contact and partial overlaps that outline more or
less stable and viable forms of coexistence. From this perspective, the
anthropologist Tim Ingold's proposal that worlds are constructed ``in
and through relations'' through a process of ``mutual world-making''
\citep{Ingold2011} appears highly promising. Environments do not exist
as fixed backgrounds against which existences are superimposed. Rather,
they are caught up in actions, rhythms and attachments, which they both
enable and inherit. Therefore, habitability cannot be considered a
state to be achieved, but rather a process to be maintained: a living
fabric constantly in the making at the intersection of domestic
practices (human, animal and plant), ecological dynamics, forms of
social organisation and the regimes of attention that support or
disrupt them. In this context, caring for a territory does not mean
taking control of it or organizing everyone's place from a distance. It
involves getting into the details of interactions, paying attention to
subtle uses, latent conflicts and situated narratives
\citep{Burlingame2025,Held2005}. It also involves dealing with
uncertainty, cultivating trust and accommodating the diversity of
knowledge and its discussion. In short, living and coexisting require
forms of mediation that pay attention to the histories, conflicts and
possibilities of a place.

\subsubsection{A political interpretation of interactions:
socio-ecological justice and inclusion}

Having clarified our theoretical framework, we believe that a
commitment to coexistence must address justice \citep{Harrisetal2023,
JacobsenLinnell2016}. Interspecies relations are rooted in asymmetries,
not only between humans and animals, but also within human communities
\citep{Mace2014,Reed2008}. Building on philosopher Nancy Fraser's model
of justice \citep{Fraser2009,FraserHonneth2003},  we suggest evaluating
the political ecology of coexistence through the prisms of
distribution, recognition and representation.

Distributive justice concerns the distribution of costs and benefits.
Who is affected by the material consequences of coexistence, such as
damage to crops, loss of livestock and restricted access? Who benefits
from symbolic or economic gains (e.g., ecotourism or conservation)?

Recognitional justice concerns the legitimization of knowledge and
identities. Are local ecological knowledge systems, attachment to
place, and the experiences of individuals or social groups considered
in decision-making processes? Or are they dismissed as anecdotal,
emotional or unscientific?

Representative justice concerns the inclusion of diverse stakeholders
in governance processes. Who has the right to participate in defining
problems, \mbox{designing} actions and evaluating results? Are the views of
non-experts, non-institutional bodies and non-humans given due
consideration?

By addressing these three dimensions, we believe that we can articulate
ecological solidarity as an ontological principle, as well as a
normative and political commitment. As coexistence only makes sense if
it considers the social and ecological conditions that make it
possible, including non-human beings in governance---whether
symbolically, procedurally or materially---seems to us to be a
significant challenge in rethinking the political community.

\section{A Framework for assessing the relationship with wildlife}
\label{sec2}

Building on the principles set out in the first part of this article,
we now shortly present an analytical framework for evaluating the
quality of human--wildlife relations in a comprehensive manner. Rather
than measuring the effectiveness of a policy in a technocratic sense
(e.g., reducing damage or increasing shooting efficiency), the
objective here is to evaluate how consistent it is with a social
project based on co-viability \citep{Barriereetal2019}. We refer to
this analytical framework as the ``socio-ecological viability
framework''. It can be used to evaluate whether a socio-ecological
system promotes sustainable coexistence between humans and non-humans
\citep{Roberts2005}. We suggest it can be used to evaluate different
wildlife management policies or monitor the evolution of the same
policy---for example, before and after a reform---as part of an
adaptive management approach \citep{Holling1978,Marchinietal2021}.

\subsection{The scope of the assessment}\label{ssec21}

Building on the three principles outlined above---ecological
solidarity, reciprocity, and justice---we propose an analytical
framework designed to make visible the relations that wildlife
management regimes create, sustain, or suppress. The framework is
organized around four interdependent dimensions that explore how
governance connects humans, institutions, and non-human living beings.
Rather than assessing management effectiveness through isolated
indicators, it invites an examination of the quality and depth of
relationships that emerge from these arrangements---the forms of
attachment, recognition, and cooperation that make socio-ecological
systems viable. These four dimensions are:

\subsubsection{Integration of ecological interdependence (de facto
solidarity)}

The first dimension aims to evaluate the extent to which public
policies are based on a detailed understanding of ecological
interdependencies. It is not merely a case of incorporating ecological
variables into decision-making processes; it is also about recognizing
ecosystem dynamics, such as flows, cycles and connections, as integral
components of the environments in which we live. This requires us to go
beyond administrative boundaries in order to follow landscape
continuities, corridor networks and watersheds, as well as taking the
territories inhabited by the relevant species seriously, even if they
extend beyond mapped zones.

\subsubsection{Ethical and political commitment (solidarity in action)}

The second dimension focuses on the actual commitments of public
institutions to fairer and more sustainable coexistence, rather than
merely declared ones. It distinguishes between defensive or reactive
approaches, which are focused on managing nuisances, and more proactive
approaches, which demonstrate a clear intention to coexist with other
living beings. This stance is evident not only in the tools used, such
as protection status, hybrid legal mechanisms and forms of dialogue
between stakeholders, but also in the narratives produced by
institutions, the justifications given and the values promoted.
Ultimately, it questions which living beings are considered legitimate
to remain, be protected, or be changed or displaced.

\subsubsection{Quality of relational dynamics (reciprocity and
co-presence)}

This third dimension is structured around the central question of
whether existing policies recognize non-humans as agents in their own
right, capable of learning, circumventing, alerting and acting. Here,
we examine the various forms of co-presence between species, whether
they are explicit or not. Our focus is on the practical arrangements
that emerge, the reciprocal adjustments made, and the shared attention
regimes established. The implementation of animal behavior monitoring
systems, local adaptation methods and forms of cross-compensation, such
as creating refuges in exchange for tourist or agricultural use,
demonstrate this lived reciprocity.

\subsubsection{Governance and socio-ecological justice}

Finally, the fourth and last dimension involves critically analyzing
decision-making processes using Nancy Fraser's (\citeyear{Fraser2009})
three-part framework: distribution, recognition and participation. Who
bears the costs of coexistence (e.g., damage, fatigue and surveillance)
and who reaps the material and immaterial benefits (e.g., funding and
tourism promotion)? Are the identities and knowledge of the relevant 
groups---livestock farmers, hunters, local residents, national park
officials, public authorities and scientists---recognized as equal, or
are they implicitly ranked? Above all, who participates in the
decision-making process? Who is absent or disqualified from the
governance process? This form of collective deliberation could be
qualified as a democratic decision-making process, as opposed to a
purely bureaucratic or top-down approach.

\subsection{The operational analysis grid}\label{ssec22}

These dimensions can be broken down into a more operational framework
(Table~\ref{tab1}). Each dimension gives rise to a central question,
potential indicators and sources of information that are rooted in
concrete practices. Rather than being technocratic, the aim here is to
construct a critical assessment that considers the variety of
experiences, the tensions on the ground and the compromises that have
been made. This framework is not intended to standardize, but rather to
highlight the connections, adjustments and tiny stories that often
remain on the margins of analysis and which shape the possible forms of
coexistence.

%tab1
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab1}Socio-ecological viability analysis grid}
\fontsize{9.2}{12}\selectfont
\tabcolsep 4pt
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\thead
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Dimension} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Key question} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Assessment indicators (examples)} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Sources and methods} \\
\endthead
\parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright 1. Ecological interdependence (\textit{de
facto solidarity})} & \parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright Is management based
on a systemic understanding of ecological dynamics?} & 
\parbox[t]{13pc}{\raggedright Consideration of ecological corridors,
connectivity, and species dispersion, population dynamics\Lbreak\Lbreak
Management carried out at the landscape or watershed scale, not limited
to administrative boundaries\Lbreak\Lbreak Integration of scientific
knowledge on the functional role of the species in the ecosystem (e.g.,
regulation, engineering)} & \parbox[t]{11pc}{\raggedright Scientific
reports and papers, National Action Plans (PNA), Departmental Hunting
Management Plans (SDGC)\Lbreak\Lbreak Maps of green and blue 
corridors\Lbreak\Lbreak Landscape ecology studies\Lbreak\Lbreak Scientific
committees (e.g., National Council for Nature Protection---CNPN,
National Parks)\Lbreak\Lbreak Interdisciplinary surveys} \vspace*{8pt}\\

\parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright 2. Ethical-political commitment
(\textit{solidarity in action})} & \parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright Does the
policy demonstrate a preference for long-term coexistence over crisis
management?} & \parbox[t]{13pc}{\raggedright The protection status of
the species, along with official statements from ministries and 
agencies\Lbreak\Lbreak The explicit objectives of the plan (e.g.,
``maintain a favorable conservation status'' vs.\ ``limit damage'' or
``regulate population numbers'')\Lbreak\Lbreak The existence and
promotion of innovative legal mechanisms that promote conservation
(e.g., environmental real obligations)} & \parbox[t]{11pc}{\raggedright
Legislation: Environmental Code, PNA, SDGC\Lbreak\Lbreak Ministerial
statements and press releases\Lbreak\Lbreak Administrative and judicial
case law\Lbreak\Lbreak Sociological surveys}\vspace*{8pt} \\

\parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright 3. Relational dynamics (reciprocity and
co-presence)} & \parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright Does the policy promote a
reciprocal relationship or a relationship of domination/{\unskip\break}
instrumentalization?} & \parbox[t]{13pc}{\raggedright A preponderance of
prevention, adaptive and learning measures (such as guarding and
scaring) versus destruction measures\Lbreak\Lbreak Recognition of wild
animals as subjects capable of adaptation and learning\Lbreak\Lbreak The
existence of functional ``gift/counter-gift'' mechanisms (e.g., a
habitat created or maintained by an economic activity in exchange for
ecotourism activities) is recognized} & \parbox[t]{11pc}{\raggedright
Analysis of field practices (herd protection, feeding, land
management)\Lbreak\Lbreak Interviews with stakeholders (livestock
farmers, hunters, natural area managers, etc.)\Lbreak\Lbreak Analysis of
discourse and representations of stakeholders} \\
\tabonesplittabular

\parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright 4. Governance and socio-ecological justice}
& \parbox[t]{5pc}{\raggedright Is the decision-making process inclusive,
adaptive, and fair?} & \parbox[t]{13pc}{\raggedright The composition and
functioning of governance bodies (e.g., the National Wolf Group and
departmental commissions)\Lbreak\Lbreak Local-level mediation and
negotiation is facilitated by the presence of mediators\Lbreak\Lbreak 
Transparency of data (e.g., population numbers, locations and damage)
and decision-making processes\Lbreak\Lbreak Modalities for distributing
protection efforts and compensation for damage\Lbreak\Lbreak
Consideration of local knowledge and the views of non-economic
stakeholders (e.g., associations and the general public)\Lbreak\Lbreak
Ability to make the living beings concerned visible; effective
participation in the definition of standards; possibility of
challenging or adjusting regulations; recognition of animal agency} &
\parbox[t]{11pc}{\raggedright Governance meeting minutes\Lbreak\Lbreak
Public policy evaluation reports\Lbreak\Lbreak Analysis of allocated
budgets and financing mechanisms\Lbreak\Lbreak Sociological 
surveys\Lbreak\Lbreak Regulatory frameworks and mechanisms (hunting
plans, zoning, compensatory measures)\Lbreak\Lbreak Methods of public
participation and representation regarding wildlife}\vspace*{2pt}
\botline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Scope and limitations of the framework}\label{ssec23}

Our proposed framework seeks to broaden the scope of traditional
methods of assessing human--wildlife interactions by combining
technical effectiveness with relationship quality, social justice and
ethical \mbox{responsibility.} This framework could facilitate comparative
studies in different socio-ecological contexts. Although it offers a
broader perspective, its practical implementation faces various
obstacles. The process of measuring the experiential knowledge
available to local stakeholders remains complex. Qualitative social
science methods do not always allow for the straightforward measurement
of emotional bonds between humans and non-humans, nor for the detection
of animal agency in the form of action, resistance and adaptation.
These elements require research methods that combine inductive
approaches with participatory, context-specific, qualitative enquiry.
Nevertheless, this framework is intended as a flexible conceptual tool
rather than a rigid model or prescriptive checklist. It should be
viewed as a reflective tool that requires development through
discussions with land and wildlife managers and continuous collective
learning in real-world contexts. This approach certainly falls within
the realm of adaptive governance, as it acknowledges that uncertainty
is an inevitable part of life \citep{Holling1978}. By embracing the
diversity of knowledge systems and ways of life, we believe it helps to
establish ecological integrity and social equity, while recognizing the
political and moral value of otherness in our shared socio-ecological
world.

\section{Three models of human--wildlife relations}\label{sec3}

This third section forms the empirical core of this work. Through the
systematic application of the socio-ecological viability framework to
cases involving wolves, wild boars and flamingos in France, we intend
to demonstrate the analytical relevance of the framework and reveal the
underlying logic, contradictions and potential of current management
models. To facilitate understanding of these analyses, which are
discussed briefly in this paper, Table~\ref{tab2} below summarizes the
main biological, ecological, sociocultural and political factors
relating to the three species in question.

%tab2
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab2}Biological, ethological, ecological
characteristics and conservation statutes and management regimes of the
three case studies}
\fontsize{9}{12}\selectfont
\tabcolsep 2pt
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\thead
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Characteristics} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Wolf} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Wild boar} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Greater flamingo} \\ 
\endthead
Scientific name & \textit{Canis lupus} & \textit{Sus scrofa} & \textit{Phoenicopterus roseus} \\ 

Family & \textit{Canidae} & \textit{Suidae} & \textit{Phoenicopteridae} \\ 

Size/Weight & 110--150 cm; 18--40 kg & 125--165 cm; 70--110 kg & 120--145 cm; 2--4 kg \\ 

Life expectancy & 12--14 years & 10--12 years & 20--40 years  \\ 

Reproductive cycle & 
1 per year; gestation 62 days & 
1 per year; gestation 115 days & 
1 per year; incubation 27--31 days \\ 

Litter & 4--5 cubs & 5--6 piglets & 1 egg \\ 

Diet & Strict carnivore &  Opportunistic omnivore &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Filter feeder (invertebrates, algae, crustaceans, seeds)}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Social organisation & Hierarchical pack & Matriarchal groups &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Dense colonies (up to several thousand individuals)}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Communication & Howling, marking, postures & Growling, squeaking, odours &
Vocalisations, visual postures \\ 

Territorial & 
Territory 150--500 km\tsup{2} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Territory highly variable (5--150 km\tsup{2})}\vspace*{2pt} & 
Colonies linked to nesting sites \\ 

Mobility & 
${>}$100 km during dispersal &
Nocturnal movements 5--20 km & 
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Partial migrant (local and regional)}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Activity & Dusk/night & Dusk/Nocturnal & 
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Diurnal (peak activity in early morning and
evening)}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Role in the ecosystem & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\raggedright Key predator; regulates ungulates} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Engineer species, affects soil and crops} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Indicator species for healthy wetlands, sediment mixing, waterbird assemblages}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Habitat & 
Forests, mountains, hedgerows &
Forests, crops, wetlands & 
Lagoons, ponds, salt marshes \\ 

Range & Holarctic & 
\parbox[t]{8pc}{\raggedright Eurasia, North Africa, introduced elsewhere}\vspace*{2pt} & 
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Mediterranean basin, Africa, Asia} \\ 

Estimated population & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\raggedright France (2023): ${\sim}$1104 individuals, Europe: ${\sim}$17~000} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright France: ${>}$1 million individuals, Europe: rapid expansion} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Global: ${\sim}$550 k--680 k, Europe: ${\sim}$45 k--62 k pairs, France:~${\sim}$10~k~up~to~25~k~pairs}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Adaptability & Very high & Exceptional & 
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Moderate but dependent on protected sites}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 

Mortality factors & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\raggedright Hunting, disease, human conflict} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Hunting, collisions, disease,
regulation} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Habitat disruption, pollution,
human disturbance}\vspace*{3pt} \\ 

\parbox[t]{6pc}{\raggedright Protection Status (France) and IUCN
Conservation Status} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright From Strictly
protected (Bern Convention) to Protected in 2025, Habitats Directive;
IUCN: LC (Least Concern) but on the Red list (Vulnerable) in France} &
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Not protected, game species; localy pest
species; IUCN: LC} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Birds Directive, Natura
2000; IUCN: LC}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 
\tabtwosplittabular

\parbox[t]{6pc}{\raggedright Characteristics of Main Public Management
Policies (macro, meso, micro scales)} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright
Macro: Wolf plans; Meso: compensation, committees; Micro: local
removal, coexistence dialogues} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Macro:
regulated hunting to reduce crop damages, health measures; Meso:
hunting federations; Micro: local control} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright
Macro: wetland conservation; Meso: Natura 2000 management; Micro: site
management, bird scaring in rice fields and institutional arrangements} 
\vspace*{3pt}\\ 

\parbox[t]{6pc}{\raggedright Management regime} & 
\parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Highly symbolic species,
crystallizes human/nature conflicts; highly politicized and contentious
management} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Prolific species, hybrid
management (game/pest/health); major agricultural and social issues and
conflicts} & \parbox[t]{9pc}{\raggedright Heritage species and
charismatic species, relatively peaceful governance; positive
interactions with territory}\vspace*{2pt}
\botline 
\end{tabular} 
\tabnote{Sources: OFB, IUCN, Action Plans, Wetland international, Tour
du Valat.} 
\end{table*}

\subsection{The Wolf (\textit{Canis lupus}): solidarity put to the test
in conflict}\label{ssec31}

The natural recolonization of France by wolves via the Italian Alps,
confirmed in Mercantour National Park in 1992 (PNA, 2024), has become
one of the country's most emblematic socio-ecological conflicts
\citep{Dumezetal2017}. It stems from the tension between the strict
protection regimes of the Bern Convention and the European Habitats
Directive and the extensive pastoral systems that shape rural
territories \citep{Marie2009}. Praised for their contribution to
biodiversity and open landscapes \citep{FajardodelCastillo2021}, these
practices are also challenged by the return of a protected predator
that reconfigures relations between humans, livestock, and ecosystems
\citep{Meuretetal2021}. As in other cases of large carnivore recovery,
the wolf epitomizes the contradictions of contemporary conservation
governance, where ecological restoration meets pastoral vulnerability
and conflicting values of nature \citep{Arpin2020,
Mounet2019,CarterLinnell2016}. 
It thus embodies a form
of conflictual solidarity, where coexistence depends less on regulation
than on maintaining dialogue across asymmetrical worlds. The
government's recent easing of lethal control, presented as pragmatic,
has instead reinforced structural disengagement and weakened
coexistence as a collective horizon \citep{BenhammouDegeorges2025}. 
\mbox{Explicitly} criticized by the French National Council for Nature
Protection (CNPN, 2023) and the European Parliament in 2025, this shift
implies a devaluation of the species, without clear conservation
objectives, and fails to implement a coexistence strategy based on
scientific data and socially negotiated agreements. Recent research
\citep{Merzetal2025,Ordizetal2024}
highlights the ineffectiveness of
culling in controlling predation, while public research and wildlife
management organizations such as INRAE \& OFB demonstrate that
sustainable management depends primarily on adapted pastoral practices
and collective mechanisms.

As \citet{Dore2025} observes, the return of wolves unsettles the
fragile compromises that once organized relations between pastoralists,
conservationists, and local residents, and generates a
\textit{political \mbox{propagation}}: local disturbances expanding into
national debates and mobilizing publics and institutions around how to
live together. The following section examines how these tensions
between national management choices and local living together
materialize through management practices, institutional arrangements,
and situated experiences of coexistence. It shows how ecological,
political, and moral claims become entangled in the governance of
wolves in contemporary France.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~1. Ecological interdependence (}de facto
\textit{solidarity)}. Until recently, the prevailing management
strategies prioritized intensive scientific \mbox{monitoring} of the national
wolf population. From the 2000s to the early 2020s, this population
experienced significant growth, driven by the gradual recolonization of
the national territory. However, since 2022--2023, numbers have
fluctuated around 1000--1100 wolves, suggesting a slowdown. The
2024--2029 National Action Plan continues this quest for genetic and
demographic knowledge. However, we believe that this scientific
approach is incomplete and disproportionately focused on attacks on
livestock. It largely ignores the ecological role of wolves as apex
predators, particularly their contribution to regulating wild ungulate
populations and generating positive trophic cascade effects
\citep{Laundreetal2014,Martinetal2020}. Although these functions are
well established in the ecological literature and highlighted by
conservation NGOs, they are conspicuously absent or incomplete in the
current framework. Similarly, the ecological impacts of protective
measures, such as the presence of guard dogs or the proliferation of
fences, on non-targeted biodiversity are rarely assessed. Thus,
recognition of interdependencies remains highly incomplete and
selective.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~2. Ethical and political commitment (solidarity in
action)}. The State's position appears rather ambivalent. Legally, it
is bound to ensure a favorable conservation status for the species
\citep{Boyer2016,Trouwborst2018}. However, successive policies have
increasingly favored lethal control measures, including relaxing
shooting protocols, increasing the number of authorized shooters and
developing specialized equipment \citep{DiBernardietal2024}. France has
also supported the recent EU initiative to change the protection status
of wolves from ``strictly protected'' to ``protected''
\citep{Trouwborst2025}. This strategic shift seems to reflect a form of
solidarity primarily aligned with agricultural interests promoted by
dominant agricultural lobbies, at the expense of promoting more
balanced forms of coexistence. It can be viewed as a utilitarian and
instrumentalized version of ecological solidarity that emphasizes
negative interactions while detaching pastoralism from its ecological
origins. In our view, a sincere approach to ecological solidarity would
also involve recognizing the network of interdependencies that supports
pastoral systems, including the presence of wolves. In particular,
pastoralism faces numerous difficulties (economic competition, access
to land, etc.) over which it has little control: wolves then represent
a more accessible scapegoat, and public \mbox{controversies} and management
decisions present the wolf primarily as a pastoral threat. It would
also require a comprehensive assessment of the social and ecological
costs of protective measures, including stress on shepherds and
livestock, the ecological impact of night enclosures, disturbance to
wildlife by guard dogs and growing tensions with hikers and local
residents. In some regions, this could even call into question the
legitimacy or long-term viability of pastoral practices themselves.
Current trajectories seem far from such reflexivity. Therefore,
solidarity in action remains clearly asymmetrical, anthropocentric and
mainly reactive.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~3. Relational dynamics (reciprocity and
co-presence)}. The institutionalized relational regime appears to us to
be largely antagonistic. Wolves are generally presented as a threat and
a ``problem to be solved'', with dominant discourses saturated with
terms such as ``defense'', ``pressure'' and ``nuisance''
\citep{Chandelier2018}. Beyond monetary compensation, which we consider
to be more akin to a financial transaction than a reciprocal commitment
\citep{CarnisFacchini2012}, there appears to be no form of symbolic or
material compensation that recognizes the presence of wolves
\citep{Steeleetal2013}. In our view, this deteriorated relationship
tends to overlook or downplay animal agency, whereas other perspectives
could exist, or indeed already do exist in a few places. For instance,
initiatives of community-based wolf governance in parts of Italy and
Spain \citep{Marinoetal2022} or co-management arrangements with
Indigenous peoples in North America provide alternative perspectives.
Although potentially lethal, predation can be viewed not only as an
attack, but also as an invitation to negotiate shared space. From this
perspective, the use of force---whether through scaring or, in rare
cases, selectively removing individuals that repeatedly attack
livestock despite preventive measures---can be reconfigured as part of
an adaptive dialogue that considers animals' learning and behavior
\citep{Lescureux2006}. Still, such measures raise a crucial risk: that
otherness is tolerated only insofar as it remains convenient for
humans, thereby reproducing a logic of domination where fairness is
unilaterally defined. Recognizing wolves as cohabitants therefore
requires clearer criteria for what counts as ``fair reciprocity,''
grounded not only in human interests but also in broader
socio-ecological relations. Like shepherds, wolves adapt by avoiding
certain areas, changing their movements, and negotiating space.
Acknowledging these responses could pave the way for coexistence based
on mutual adjustment rather than domination.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~4. Governance and socio-ecological justice.}
In France, wolf governance is largely centralized and dominated by
organizations such as the National Wolf Group, an {ad hoc} body
created by ministerial institutions rather than a permanent
institution. The balance of power remains uneven between the
agricultural sector and environmental organizations
\citep{Dumezetal2017, NicolasDore2023}. Important decisions, such as
those concerning culling quotas, are still perceived as political
rather than scientific. Although compensation schemes may partially
fulfil the requirements of distributive justice, they struggle to take
into account intangible damages such as chronic psychological stress,
social isolation, an increased workload or questioning the meaning of
work. Meanwhile, recognition justice remains hampered by persistent
mutual stigmatization between farmers, conservationists, and animal
rights activists. Representative justice also remains limited.
Participation mechanisms are often considered to be merely symbolic or
formal, offering insufficient opportunities for deliberation. However,
some local initiatives offer alternative approaches. The Vercors Action
Plan 2018--2023: ``Wolf \& Territory'', including the shared narrative
``living together and sharing the Vercors'' of the Vercors Regional
Nature Park, for instance, attempts to move beyond entrenched
conflictual discourse. Participatory action research projects such as
RECIBIODAL in the Belledonne Massif in the French Alps and COEXIST also
in the Vercors explore a key question: how can local communities care
for their territories, landscapes, pastoral practices, wildlife and
social ties as interconnected entities? These initiatives are shifting
governance towards collaborative territorial management by highlighting
these interdependencies and co-constructing a shared narrative, thereby
moving away from zero-sum games.

The case of wolves in France highlights the challenge of translating
ecological solidarity into practical, embodied governance. Our
socio-ecological viability framework reveals that a management regime
based on control and compensation rather than \mbox{negotiation} and
reciprocity persists. Furthermore, it shows that wolves are not
considered as cohabitants or sensitive agents, but rather as threats to
be managed or even eliminated. Farmers, for their part, are forced to
comply with top-down protocols that disregard local knowledge and
context. This case study demonstrates the usefulness of our analytical
framework in unpacking the implicit logics underlying current
management models. It also emphasizes the necessity of adopting more
inclusive, adaptive and relational governance approaches that recognize
the agency of non-humans and the co-construction of territories.
Nevertheless, it remains challenging to fully grasp the tacit
knowledge, emotional relationships, and silent negotiations that shape
everyday coexistence. This exploration of the wolf case shows that the
quality of cohabitation cannot be deduced solely from documents or
compensation mechanisms; rather, it is embodied in recognition,
attention, and the emergence of situated ways of life
\citep{Chezeletal2024, Cretietal2022}. Alongside national actors such
as State agencies, conservation NGOs and agricultural unions, the role
of local mediators at the meso and micro levels must be reaffirmed and
studied
\citep{ChambruMounet2021,Dumezetal2017,Lawson2002,Marchinietal2021,
MathevetBechet2020}.

\subsection{Wild boar (\textit{Sus scrofa}): utilitarian management put
to the test of co-viability}\label{ssec32}

Unlike wolves, whose management is characterized by significant
symbolic and political tensions, wild boars---whose numbers have
increased in all regions of France since the 1970s---are subject to a
regulatory regime that appears to be both less contentious and more
pragmatic. Their official status varies between ``game species'',
``species likely to cause problems'' (i.e.\ the new legal designation
for species formerly known as ``pests'') and ``health threats''. They
are also often considered not entirely wild due to manipulation by
humans, such as feeding, crossbreeding with domestic pigs and
breeding/release projects. In all cases, wild boars are not considered
cohabitants of a shared territory, but rather populations to be managed
and regulated according to human interests, primarily big game hunting
and agriculture.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~1. Ecological interdependence: reduced solidarity.} 
Wild boar management is structured by departmental hunting management
plans (SDGC, i.e.\ at the district level) and forms part of agricultural
damage control objectives \citep{CardouxPerea2019,MathevetBondon2022}. 
Various management indicators, such as areas prone to damage, crop
types and population estimates, trigger local interventions aimed at
reducing wild boar populations, which are often abundant. However, the
species' ecological contributions, such as soil disturbance, seed
dispersal and habitat creation, remain largely unknown. This limited
perspective only considers the species as a nuisance or a risk,
sometimes spreading African swine fever and causing damage, road
accidents and train crashes, and does not recognize its role in how
ecosystems work \citep{Fattebertetal2017,Morelleetal2015},  nor its
rightful place in human territory. Such selective solidarity
compromises any genuine recognition of our socio-ecological
entanglements.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~2. Ethical and political commitments: a delegated
public service.} The management of wild boar populations thus appears
to be part of an implicit agreement between those involved in
agriculture, hunting and forestry. This agreement is often presented as
rational and consensual and is known as the ``agro-forestry-hunting
balance''. However, this apparent consensus conceals a fundamental
contradiction: historical hunting practices have favored the growth and
spread of wild boar populations through conservative hunting, feeding,
breeding and releasing game, while the same stakeholders are now tasked
with regulating them \citep{MathevetBondon2022,Mounet2012}. Hunters
often refrain from shooting females for practical reasons (they provide
less meat), management objectives (fear of losing the resource) and
ethical considerations (it is considered inappropriate). Indeed, in a
highly polygynous species, this practice has little effect on
population growth, since all fertile females are fertilized, even when
males are scarce. This scientific perspective could help to change
hunting practices by showing how current patterns disrupt natural
mortality regimes. Overall, this form of solidarity is based on an
assumed anthropocentrism that excludes animals from any form of
cohabitation partnership. This makes perfect sense when the public
service of regulation is delegated to hunting federations without ever
questioning the socio-ecological model based on wild boar abundance,
which created the problem in the first place. The recent shift towards
biosecurity arguments---``white zones'' and preventive culling---has 
reinforced the dominant management logic by legitimizing increased
control in the name of global health crises. This reveals a system that
is ethically fragile in the face of sectoral interests and global
health crises \citep{MathevetBondon2022}.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~3. Relational dynamics: rejected reciprocity and
local adjustments.} The relationship between humans and wild boar
remains deeply asymmetrical and is structured by the logic of control
and instrumentalization. Measures such as banning the feeding of
animals are implemented to prevent damage, but these measures are based
on unilateral conditioning rather than interacting with animals in ways
that require continuous adjustment. Wild boar are not considered to be
inhabitants of the territory or neighbors with whom to coexist, but
rather entities to be controlled or eliminated. There is no
institutional recognition of animal autonomy or \mbox{mutual} learning. At the
meso and macro levels, governance is still dominated by technocratic
sectoral logics. However, at the micro level, those involved,
particularly hunters and farmers, often recognize the adaptability,
memory and learning capacity of wild boars \citep{Mathevetetal2018,
Mounet2012,Mounet2008}. Behavioral plasticity, avoidance strategies and
nocturnal changes illustrate the animals' ability to adapt and
negotiate their place. These forms of animal intelligence could inspire
a more reflective and adaptive mode of coexistence, but they remain
largely marginalized. Furthermore, as with wolves and pastoralism,
local hunting practices are disconnected from the broader networks of
interdependence---social, symbolic and ecological---that  once
supported and gave meaning to them. Official discourse primarily
presents hunting as a regulatory tool, divorced from its relational,
ethical, emotional, and ritual dimensions 
\citep{Ginzburg1986,Hell1998,Stepanoff2021}. This form of disembedding
can only hinder the prospect of renewed coexistence by obscuring the
forms of attention and responsibility that could be inspired by
everyday interspecies relations.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~4. Governance and justice: a closed and asymmetrical
system.} The governance of wild boars takes place within a utilitarian
technocratic framework that clearly serves the interests of the main
users of natural resources, such as farmers, foresters and hunters.
Other stakeholders, such as residents, naturalists and hikers, are
represented in various management bodies but are structurally excluded
from the bodies that make real decisions. The animal itself appears to
be considered solely in terms of control \citep{Fattebertetal2017}.
Distributive justice is also internalized within the ``agro-hunting''
system through compensation payments financed by hunters; however,
these mechanisms externalize the ecological and symbolic costs to
society and ecosystems. As for recognition justice, it seems virtually
non-existent. Farmers' and citizens' ecological knowledge appears
marginalized, and the role of animals as ecological subjects largely
goes unheard.

This case of the wild boar, which we have just explored briefly,
highlights the limitations of a management regime based on the triptych
of ``control, delegation and utility''. This regime fails to consider
animals as inhabitants of shared territories, \mbox{contrasting}
sharply with the more politicized and contested case of wolves, where
imperfect governance experiments have nevertheless emerged. Wild boars
are either tolerated or eliminated depending on the circumstances, but
are rarely considered as relational subjects. We believe that this
situation can be explained, at least in part, by the ambiguity of their
status as a hybrid between domestic and wild animals. As several
studies have shown, this ambiguity produces both rigid macrosocial
frameworks and flexible, adaptive and often informal local
arrangements. This reveals fragmented governance, oscillating between
technoscientific rationalizations and pragmatic improvisations. Our own
analytical framework also reaches a point of tension here. How can we
evaluate the quality of a relationship that is not named, discussed or
conceptualized? How can we consider the agency of an animal whose
presence is only recognized through the damage it causes to goods and
people, or through the instrumental value attributed to game?
Ultimately, we believe that the case of the wild boar illustrates a
management approach that may produce effective local results in the
short term but which fails to address the broader challenges of justice
and the sustainability of socio-ecological relations. Rethinking
governance therefore requires moving away from the exclusive logic of
population control towards an ethic that recognizes the place of 
others---whether human or \mbox{non-human}---and values attention, recognition
and care as highly as accounting balances or tolerance thresholds. In
this respect, the case of the wild boar builds on the lessons learned
from the wolf. It reminds us that the absence of explicit or acute
conflict should not be confused with genuine coexistence, and that the
quality of interspecies relations is demonstrated as much through
silence as through open controversy.

\subsection{The Greater flamingo (\textit{Phoenicopterus roseus}):
towards negotiated symbiotic coexistence in the Camargue}\label{ssec33}

Unlike the intense tensions aroused by the other animal figures
mentioned above, the case of the Greater flamingo in the Camargue
(Rhone delta, Southern France) appears to offer another form of
cohabitation that, while seemingly less conflictual, is just as fraught
with political issues. Rather than being characterized by an absence of
conflict, this case is defined by the way in which animals and the
irreducible otherness of the wild are welcomed and mobilized, and
sometimes even celebrated, within local territorial configurations
\citep{Mathevetetal2018a}.
Here, the wild is neither presented as a threat nor perceived as an
intruder to be regulated; rather, it is seen as a full-fledged partner
caught up in the shifting dynamics of a territory in perpetual change.
The Great flamingo engages in a particular form of coexistence that
does not erase asymmetries or necessary adjustments. Instead, it
outlines a more symbiotic and negotiated relationship with other living
beings, creating an intertwined presence, attention, management and
compromise. This relationship is partly institutionalized. It is
neither unrealistic nor idyllic. Rather, it is based on tacit
agreements, accumulated actions and a fairly sophisticated
environmental governance. The resulting balance is obviously neither
fixed nor guaranteed. It is fragile, but not illusory or temporary. On
the contrary, it outlines a possible path: a way of living together
that does not seek to neutralize differences, but to work with them
over a long period of time in a shared space, where attachments are
replayed through the seasons and different uses.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~1. An entangled web of interdependencies.} Since the
late 1960s, the Greater flamingo population has benefited from the
availability of an artificial site known as the Fangassier islet for
reproduction \citep{JohnsonCezilly2008}.
This was constructed within a salt pre-concentration
basin located within an industrial salt marsh. Tens of thousands of
birds return faithfully to this man-made landscape each year to set up
their nesting colony. In return, their presence adds to the perceived
interest of the landscape and symbolic significance of this vast
territory, which is highly valued for tourism and rice farming.
However, it should be noted that this interdependence has never really
meant harmony. Tensions with rice farmers are common in spring, when
the birds come to feed on the flooded, freshly sown rice fields
\citep{Tourenqetal2001}. These
tensions serve as a reminder that any {de facto} ecological
solidarity involves friction \citep{Mathevetetal2018}. What one
considers cohabitation, the other often experiences as a real nuisance.
In this context, the flamingo is not just a resident of the delta. In
fact, through its choice of nesting and feeding grounds \mbox{(lagoons,}
hunting marshes and rice fields), it influences water management
practices and determines human access to certain areas. This situation
renews the territorial approach to this vast wetland. The species does
not remain confined to a reserve, but crosses into and is part of a
socio-natural system---a hybrid space in which non-human life
influences technical and political decisions.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~2. From conservation efforts to interspecies
diplomacy.} As we have already pointed out, this fragile pact has its
origins in a founding act. This involved constructing an island to
encourage the nesting of a species that was endangered in the western
Mediterranean region at the time \citep{MathevetBechet2020}. A rather
diverse network of actors was behind this decision and the action that
followed. These included Luc Hoffmann, a Swiss philanthropist,
ornithologist and environmentalist who founded the Tour du Valat
research center for the conservation of Mediterranean wetlands, and the
industrial salt producer Salins du Midi. This original mobilization led
to a novel approach at the time: viewing the flamingo not just as a
beautiful bird to be observed or to enliven delta landscapes, but as a
partner for the future. This approach has continued to this day, thanks
to the collaboration of the Camargue Regional Nature Park and several
NGOs. However, when 6500 hectares of salt marshes were withdrawn from
exploitation in 2007 and sold to the \mbox{Conservatoire} du Littoral (i.e.\ 
national coastal conservancy), a new form of responsibility emerged in
the face of climate change. Rather than maintaining the former dike
system that protected the abandoned salt pans from flooding by the sea,
and given that no economic activity needs to be protected behind the
sea-front dike anymore, the aim of managers, although constrained by
costs and feasibility was to implement a nature-based solution and
restore the salt marshes to their former state, while maintaining the
presence of flamingos \citepalias{MathevetBechet2020}. This new approach is
based on a shared territorial ethic, blurring the boundary between
gardened and preserved nature in favor of creating a collectively
evolved environment with more room for uncertainty and free evolution.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~3. Coexistence under certain conditions.} The Greater
flamingo, as a symbolic species and conservation emblem, acts, makes
choices, causes disturbances, and moves around. Its comings and goings
between marshes, lagoons, and rice fields change the way the land is
used. Its economic value to tourism, regional marketing and PGI
agricultural products, such as rice, salt and wine, adds to its
ecological and symbolic legitimacy. However, this recognition also
necessitates governance in the form of banding young birds, tracking
certain adults via telemetry, controlling predators, and supplying
water to the breeding pond. The care taken of the flamingos involves
almost constant technical monitoring. This form of biopolitics of
cohabitation \citep{Anderson2012} highlights the ambivalence of a
relationship in which the animals exercise their freedom within a
carefully considered management framework. Nevertheless, this
relationship does not appear to be unilateral. Through their movements,
flamingos force managers, rice farmers, and conservationists alike to
constantly adjust their plans \citep{MathevetBechet2020}. Its presence
constrains and compels compromise. This dynamic coexistence is far from
peaceful and invites us to rethink the frameworks of ecological
governance as spaces for interspecies negotiation.

\medskip\noindent
\textit{Dimension~4. Governing instability.} The governance of the
flamingo is based on a combination of specific actors, such as
conservation NGOs, farmers, public institutions and researchers, as
well as genuine multi-stakeholder cooperation. It also involves a
varied portfolio of instruments, including contractual arrangements,
territorial arbitration and scientific monitoring. However, this form
of governance does not eliminate dissent or minimize significant
agricultural damage in some years for a handful of rice farmers
\citep{Ernouletal2014}. Current tensions between the Conservatoire du
littoral's project to restore the former salt marshes and the new
director of the Salins Group's plans to industrialize or use the area
again serve as a reminder that compromise is always vulnerable to
erosion, whether coastal or not. The Greater flamingo acts as a
territorial mediator, and its mere presence can crystallize divergent
visions of the delta's future.

Although it can be presented as a model of co-viability, the case of
the flamingo must be viewed in light of the specific conditions that
made it possible. It is a particularly charismatic species in a context
of long-term institutional support that promotes a positive
relationship between conservation and local development. However, these
elements cannot simply be generalized; above all, they remind us that
any successful coexistence is ultimately the product of a unique
institutional arrangement, rather than the simple application of a
coexistence model. Therefore, what matters here is not so much the
success or absence of real conflict, but what it teaches us:
cohabitation always involves negotiation. In this negotiation,
flamingos are not passive beneficiaries, but demanding partners who
impose their rhythm on human policies in the area.

%tab3
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab3}Comparative summary of the three case studies}
\tabcolsep3pt
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\thead
\parbox[t]{6pc}{\centering Case study/dimensions} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Ecological interdependence} &
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Ethical-political commitment} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Relational dynamics} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Governance and justice}\vspace*{2pt} \\ 
\endthead
Wolf & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Partially acknowledged: ecological roles under-recognized} &
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Ambivalent: formal protection with increasing control} & 
\parbox[t]{8pc}{\centering Conflictual: low agency recognition, threat framing} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Unequal: limited inclusion, sectoral dominance} \vspace*{5pt}\\ 

Wild Boar &
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Functional but reductionist: positive roles ignored} &
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Instrumental: alliance of users, ethics excluded} & 
\parbox[t]{8pc}{\centering Asymmetrical: no reciprocity, treated as nuisance} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Exclusive: governance limited to exploiter} \vspace*{5pt}\\ 

\parbox[t]{6pc}{\centering Greater flamingo} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Fully integrated: mutual dependency acknowledged} &
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Proactive: long-term interspecies commitment} & 
\parbox[t]{8pc}{\centering Symbiotic: mutual benefits, mitigated specific costs depending of the year, agency considered} & 
\parbox[t]{7pc}{\centering Inclusive: multi-stakeholders but fragile} \vspace*{2pt}
\botline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\section{Conclusion: towards a relational governance of living beings}

The contemporary tensions surrounding wildlife cannot be understood
through the lens of the opposition between conservation and
exploitation, or nature and culture. Drawing on pragmatic sociology,
political philosophy, conservation ecology, social geography and
anthropology, this work invites us to reconsider traditional dualistic
perspectives \citep{Latour1993, Haraway2008}. Rather than thinking of
wildlife as a mere object of management, we must recognise it as a
full-fledged actor in co-produced spaces \citep{Dore2025}. Rather than
referring to moral injunctions or technical and administrative tools,
the principles of ecological solidarity, reciprocity, and justice are
rooted in lived, localised relationships charged with emotions,
conflicts, and situated knowledge, as we have seen. In our view,
integrating all of these into an understanding of socio-ecological
sustainability means not separating the measurable effects of policies
from the quality of the relationships they enable or prevent, such as
recognized attachments, acceptable coexistence and shared deliberations
on what we want to preserve together
\citep{Despret2019,vanDoorenetal2016}. To this end, we have developed a
comparative framework tested with three case  studies---the wolf, the
wild boar and the flamingo---which symbolize three contrasting forms of
solidarity: conflictual, utilitarian and symbiotic. In all cases, it is
not the species that dictates the management approach, but the
territorial arrangement that enables or prevents a certain degree of
interspecific recognition. While the wolf embodies legal and symbolic
oppositions and the wild boar is a resource negotiated between humans,
the flamingo modestly illustrates the connections of sensitive
coexistence based on co-presence, mediation and cooperation
(Table~\ref{tab3}). These models are not fixed typologies; they are
invitations to consider the governance of living beings in worlds
characterized by tension. Co-viability cannot be decreed; it is
developed over time through interactions. This process requires us to
take the agency of non-humans seriously, to value the various forms of
knowledge that constitute territories, and to reform institutions so
that they can listen to the connections within them. In this sense, the
Camargue offers a living laboratory. Through its hybrid
institutions---regional nature parks, research centres and local
associations---it demonstrates how independent science, operational
translation and third-party mediation can be combined. However, it also
reveals the persistent limitations of a governance model that is still
too often technicized, where the plurality of life perspectives
struggle to find their place. Embarking on such a path requires an
active pluralization of knowledge and reform of decision-making
processes, creating management committees where professional, resident
and non-human voices can confront each other without negating each
other's contributions. It also implies rethinking aid and support
regimes, moving away from compensating for losses and towards
recognizing positive contributions to living territories
\citep{BuscherFletcher2020, Schlosberg2007}. Making public aid
conditional on demonstrating active solidarity---particularly in the
context of the EU Common Agricultural Policy---would shift the terms of
the debate from protection to cooperation and from regulation to
relationships. Ultimately, advocating for relational governance of
living beings means refusing to reduce them to their functionality. It
means recognising their agency, their right to space, and their role in
creating habitable worlds. References to ``negotiation'' with wildlife
must acknowledge their profound asymmetry. Habitat destruction,
overexploitation, and centuries of systemic depletion have created an
immense ecological debt, making reciprocity less a matter of balanced
exchange than of restorative justice. Solidarity thus entails
recognizing these historical asymmetries and creating conditions for
species to persist and flourish. The ethic of bio-proportionality
\citep{Mathews2016} provides a useful horizon, reminding us that
reciprocity cannot be reduced to tolerable negotiation but must aim to
restore ecological space and time for all beings. It means turning
ecological solidarity into a shared habitability---a way of living
together and collectively shaping shared landscapes. 

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the participants in the
PACTE Camargue project, the RECIBIODAL project (ANR-15-IDEX-02,
ANR-10-LABX-50-01, ANR10 LABX56); to the Albert II of Monaco Foundation
(Wildlife Initiative) and the COEXIST Programme (OFB) for their trust
and funding. We would also like to thank Jean-Dominique Lebreton for
inviting us to contribute to \textit{Comptes Rendus Biologies}. This
work was partially carried out within the framework of the Camargue
Health-Environment ``Zone Atelier'' (ZACAM) of the ``LONG-TERM
SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH -- LTSER'' network (RZA), funded by the
French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS-EE).

\CDRGrant[ANR]{ANR-15-IDEX-02}
\CDRGrant[ANR]{ANR-10-LABX-50-01}
\CDRGrant[ANR]{ANR10 LABX56}

\section*{Declaration of interests}

The authors do not work for, advise, own shares in, or receive funds
from any organization that could benefit from this article, and have
declared no affiliations other than their research organizations.

\section*{Funding}

RM's work is supported by CNRS-Ecologie \& Environnement and CM's work
is supported by CNRS-Sciences humaines \& sociales.

\back{}

\printbibliography
\refinput{crbiol20250641-reference.tex}

\end{document}
