Large carnivore conservation (LCC) presents complex social–ecological challenges in environmental governance, yet limited research has examined how institutional design influences conservation outcomes. This study compares community-based conservation (CBC) in India’s tiger conservation with collaborative governance regimes (CGR) in Germany’s wolf conservation. We conducted a policy-network analysis using Net-Map interviews with formal policy actors involved in LCC governance (India: n = 21. Germany: n = 15). Network structures were analyzed across four tie categories—information-sharing, instructions, influence, and advice—while structural and perceived power distributions were compared across governance levels. Results show that information-sharing dominated governance interactions in both countries, whereas advice ties remained weak. India’s CBC exhibited ties concentrated largely within the forest department administration. Despite stronger local stakeholder integration, social justice framing affected direct inclusivity in policy decisions. Germany’s CGR demonstrated fragmented policy centers with most power concentrated at the German federal state levels. Environmental justice framing allows stronger influence by powerful non-state actors but alienates local stakeholders from policy decisions. Discrepancies between structural and perceived power were evident in both systems, highlighting participation–power disconnects within conservation governance. The findings suggest that effective and sustainable LCC governance requires stronger cross level coordination, institutionalized scientific advice mechanisms, and meaningful inclusion of local stakeholders in policy processes for sustainable LCC.
Srivastava et al. (Mon,) studied this question.