A stakeholder analysis about jaguar (Panthera onca) conservation in central Brazil

A stakeholder analysis was conducted to study attitudes towards jaguar (Panthera onca) conservation in Brazil and identify areas of conflict and agreement between different stakeholder institutions. In my study I defined stakeholders as any institution that directly or indirectly influenced jaguars, were influenced by jaguars, or both. I limited the spatial scope of the study to the states of Goias and Mato Grosso, in central Brazil, and used Q methodology to explore which institutional actors grouped together and on what issues. The Q analysis was complimented by an “interest-influence” analysis to further explore how the different institutional actors perceived their own interest in, and impact on, jaguar conservation, as well as that of the other institutional actors under scrutiny. From the Q analysis I identified three different narratives which could be described as A; anti-hunting and pro-conservation, B; ecocentric and C; tolerant-towards-jaguars. The three prevailing groups of stakeholders whose opinions constituted these narratives were characterised by institutions linked to government and social movements for the “anti-hunting, pro-conservation” narrative (A), research for the “ecocentric” narrative (B) and cattle farming for the “tolerant-towards-jaguars” narrative (C). Although the jaguar’s right to exist in Brazil was fundamental to all three narratives and the over all level of agreement among the narratives was remarkable, there were also significant differences that could be important for successful jaguar conservation. Hunting in general and jaguar hunting in particular were very controversial issues among the narratives. Also the jaguar’s ecological role, where jaguars should be allowed to survive and the impacts of hydropower were topics that caused disagreement among the narratives. My findings suggest that jaguar conservation potentially could be symbolic of other social or political divisions in central Brazil. Results from the interest-influence analysis, although mixed, further suggested that the power relationships between stakeholder institutions were unclear. There was a clear mismatch in perceptions between institutional actors, suggesting that the understandings between actors of their different roles, with respect to jaguars, were poor. These results are worrying, yet not necessarily surprising considering the very broad spectrum of institutions that were involved in the stakeholder analysis. However, the possible implications this holds for jaguars and their conservation could be serious. If the more important stakeholder institutions do not appreciate their roles in jaguar preservation, or do not understand who the other important players are, they may not adequately assume their responsibilities, cooperate with the appropriate partners or take adequate actions with respect to jaguars