Less government intervention in biodiversity management: risks and opportunities

n a changing global environment, with increasing pressure on ecosystem goods and services, biodiversity conservation is likely to become increasingly important. However, with the current global financial crisis, governments are increasingly trying to stabilise economies through spending cuts aiming to reduce national deficits. Within such an economic climate, the devolution of governance through public participation is an intrinsically appealing concept. We outline a number of challenges that explain why increased participation in biodiversity management has been and may continue to be problematic. Using as a case study the local stakeholder-driven Moray Firth Seal Management Plan in Scotland, we identify four key conditions that were crucial to the successful participatory management of a biodiversity conflict: a local champion, the emergence of a crisis point, the involvement of decision-makers, and long-term financial and institutional support. Three of the four conditions point to the role of direct government involvement, highlighting the risk of devolving responsibility for biodiversity conflict management to local communities. We argue that without an informed debate, the move towards a more participatory approach could pose a danger to hard-won policy gains in relation to public participation, biodiversity conservation and conflict management

Conflicts over wildlife conservation: learning from the reintroduction of beavers in Scotland

1. Species reintroductions have become a common conservation tool, but they can be controversial and may generate social conflicts. 2. We examine the social dimension of beaver reintroduction in Scotland to understand the issue, the potential for, and impact of, conflict between groups or individuals with differing views on beavers and reintroductions. 3. Using a literature review and semi‐structured interviews, we studied planned and unplanned beaver reintroductions to three contrasting landscapes in Scotland: in Knapdale, the reintroduction was planned and science‐led, whereas in Tayside and the Highlands, the reintroductions were accidental and/or illegal. 4. Our results highlight the context dependency and complexity of reintroductions. Nationally, the reintroduction of beavers has not become a conflict. At the local scale, we found the Tayside situation to be a conflict with major consequences on the debate at the national scale. While there were no conflicts in the Highlands and Knapdale, the reintroduction remains controversial. 5. The level of conflict depended on the reintroduction process, relationships between stakeholders and their perspectives on their role in nature, their perceptions of landscapes, and the potential issue of lack of control and uncertainty around reintroductions. 6. Based on these findings, the study outlines lessons learned in terms of management, guidelines and implications for future species reintroductions. We argue that to prevent future conflicts over reintroductions, processes must go beyond addressing the effects of reintroduced species on the environment and people's perceptions and acceptance of these species. Reintroduction processes require engagement in effective discussions which involve all actual and potential stakeholders to agree on broad and long‐term conservation plans at the landscape scale

The ebb and flow of adaptive co-management: a longitudinal evaluation of a conservation conflict

Adaptive co-management (ACM) is an emerging approach to the governance of social-ecological systems, but there are few long-term assessments of its efficacy. This is especially true in conservation conflicts, where ACM can mitigate disputes between polarised stakeholders. We evaluated ACM that emerged in 2005 to address conflict between seal conservation and fisheries interests in the Moray Firth, Scotland. We interviewed 20 stakeholders in 2015, repeating a survey carried out in 2011 which applied an indicator framework to measure outcomes and pre-conditions for ACM to continue. In 2015, all but one of the 12 outcome indicators were positive, the exception being the conservation status of salmon. However, pre-conditions for ACM’s continuation had weakened, with declines between 2005, 2011 and 2015. These were most marked for three indicators: leaders prepared to champion the process, presence of a bridging organisation or individual, and participation of all impacted stakeholders. The results show that ACM in this conservation conflict is dynamic. Perceived declines in salmon abundance and increases in seal numbers have renewed tensions amongst stakeholders, triggering a ‘revival’ phase of ACM initiated by fishery interests. Our study provides empirical evidence of ACM’s fluid nature, and how resource crises can reignite ACM. We suggest that participatory evaluation is a potentially important early-warning mechanism that can identify remedial action and galvanise stakeholders to respond to the re-emergence of conflict

Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation?

The establishment of protected areas, such as Natura 2000, is a common approach to curbing biodiversity loss. But many of these areas are owned or managed by private actors. Policies indicate that their involvement should be encouraged to ensure long term success. However, to date there have been no systematic evaluations of whether local actor involvement in the management of protected areas does in fact contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, which is the expressed policy goal. Research incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data was carried out in three case studies in Scotland where local actor input was required in the development and/or implementation of Natura 2000 management plans. No relationship was found between the characteristics of the process of stakeholder involvement and stakeholders’ perceptions of future biodiversity outcomes. Social outcomes of increased stakeholder involvement, such as increased trust, did however increase the perceived likelihood of positive future biodiversity outcomes. The findings indicate that efforts aimed at increasing stakeholder involvement in the management of protected areas need to consider making processes more independent, and acknowledge and address underlying biodiversity conflicts. The findings also emphasise the need to evaluate multi-level conservation efforts in terms of processes, social outcomes and biodiversity outcomes

A transdisciplinary approach to a conservation crisis: a case study of the Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata) in Ireland

In this article, we build on a growing literature of examples of transdisciplinary approaches to illustrate the catalysts and outcomes of a stakeholder‐driven process to conservation practice. We illustrate this using the case of one of Europe's most rapidly declining bird species, the Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata ). As part of the response to its continuing decline, a stakeholder‐driven workshop was held in Ireland in November 2016, bringing together over 80 stakeholders from a range of governmental, non‐governmental, and private organizations responsible for or interested in curlew conservation and management. This innovative workshop sought to formulate ideas and support the implementation of actions from stakeholders themselves on how to halt further losses of curlews, within the current legislative framework. Four years on, many of the short‐ and medium‐term actions identified during the workshop have been implemented jointly by stakeholders. However, curlew recovery will require continued communication and meaningful engagement with all relevant stakeholders together with increased government support underpinned by increased public awareness and ownership of the curlew's plight. Ultimately, many stakeholders will measure the success of curlew conservation in Ireland by the long‐term viability of the breeding population

Fight or Flight? Understanding Different Stakeholder Responses to Conservation Conflicts

Efforts to manage conservation conflicts are typically focused on reconciling disputes between opposing stakeholders over conservation objectives. However, this is an oversimplification of conflict dynamics, driven by the difficulties of understanding and addressing deeper-rooted issues. In this study, an ethnographic approach using a combination of informal discussions, participant observation, and in-depth interviews was used to examine local stakeholder narratives around a conservation conflict over grouse shooting and raptor conservation. Analysis highlighted three main narratives – cooperation, resistance, and despondence, that served as a basis for individuals to justify their responses to conflict: to work toward collaboration, act antagonistically, or avoid. Our analysis suggests that the current status quo in conflict management serves to reinforce antagonistic positions. We recommend a more nuanced approach to understanding stakeholder decision-making that goes beyond superficial disputes to recognize diversity within stakeholder groups, access hidden voices, and encompass the wider socio-political context.Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Onlin

The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts

Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and other human activities are intensifying as a result of growing pressure on natural resources and concomitant demands by some for greater conservation. Approaches to reducing conflicts are increasingly focusing on engaging stakeholders in processes that are perceived as fair, i.e. independent and where stakeholders have influence, and which in turn can generate trust between stakeholders. Hitherto, there has been limited empirical research supporting the claim that conservation conflicts can be reduced by building trust through fair participation. Using quantitative and qualitative empirical data from three case studies, we analysed whether fair participation processes were directly related to conflict resolution and if this relationship was mediated by trust. Our research provided empirical quantitative evidence that increased trust through fair processes makes conflict resolution more likely. The qualitative analysis revealed caveats to this finding, including the different understandings of the definition of conflict by stakeholders, the complex nature of trust in conservation conflicts where most stakeholders have high levels of ecological knowledge, and the atypical nature (i.e. presence of a local champion) of one of the case studies. Building and maintaining trust with landowners and managers may be central to conserving biodiversity. Such trust-building requires effort and resources, opportunities for appropriate dialogue between stakeholders and a willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy implementation, especially when local stakeholders are dependent on and knowledgeable about natural resources

Managing science-policy interfaces for impact : Interactions within the environmental governance meshwork

Science-policy interface organizations and initiatives (SPIORG) are a key component of environmental governance designed to make links between science and society. However, the science­policy interface literature lacks a structured approach to explaining the impacts of context on and by these initiatives. To better understand these impacts on and interactions with governance, this paper uses the concept of the governance ‘meshwork’ to explore how dynamic processes – encompassing prior, current and anticipated interactions – co­produce knowledge and impact via processes, negotiation and networking activities at multiple governance levels. To illustrate the interactions between SPIORGs and governance meshwork we use five cases representing archetypal SPIORGs. These cases demonstrate how all initiatives and organizations link to their contexts in complex and unique ways, yet also identifies ten important aspects that connect the governance meshwork to SPIORGs. These aspects of the meshwork, together with the typology of organizations, provide a comprehensive framework that can help make sense how the SPIORGs are embedded in the surrounding governance contexts. We highlight that SPIORGs must purposively consider and engage with their contexts to increase their potential impact on knowledge co-­production and policy making.Peer reviewe

‘It doesn’t happen how you think, it is very complex!’ Reconciling stakeholder priorities, evidence, and processes for zoonoses prioritisation in India

BackgroundWhy do some zoonotic diseases receive priority from health policy decision-makers and planners whereas others receive little attention? By leveraging Shiffman and Smith’s political prioritisation framework, our paper advances a political economy of disease prioritisation focusing on four key components: the strength of the actors involved in the prioritisation, the power of the ideas they use to portray the issue, the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself (e.g., overall burdens, severity, cost-effective interventions). These components afford a nuanced characterisation of how zoonotic diseases are prioritised for intervention and highlight the associated knowledge gaps affecting prioritisation outcomes. We apply this framework to the case of zoonoses management in India, specifically to identify the factors that shape disease prioritisation decision-making and outcomes.MethodsWe conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with national, state and district level health policymakers, disease managers and technical experts involved in disease surveillance and control in India.ResultsOur results show pluralistic interpretation of risks, exemplified by a disconnect between state and district level actors on priority diseases. The main factors identified as shaping prioritisation outcomes were related to the nature of the zoonoses problem (the complexity of the zoonotic disease, insufficient awareness and lack of evidence on disease burdens and impacts) as well as political, social, cultural and institutional environments (isolated departmental priorities, limited institutional authority, opaque funding mechanisms), and challenges in organisation leadership for cross-sectoral engagement.ConclusionThe findings highlight a compartmentalised regulatory system for zoonoses where political, social, cultural, and media factors can influence disease management and prioritisation. A major policy window is the institutionalisation of One Health to increase the political priority for strengthening cross-sectoral engagement to address several challenges, including the creation of effective institutions to reconcile stakeholder priorities and prioritisation processes