Search

Funding: M.L. is grateful to the Wildlife Conservation Network and the Disney Conservation Fund for funding. Conservation biology is a mission-driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long-term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation. Publisher PDF

Compensation schemes are important tools to counteract crop or livestock loss caused by wildlife of conservation concern. We adopted a research action approach that focused on local actors’ knowled...

Funding was provided by Mitacs through a Globalink Research Award to MLL, BS and SC, a José-Sarukhan Excellence Award given by the Centro del Cambio Global y Sustentabilidad del Sureste to MLL, an Excellence Award from the Quebec Center for Biodiversity Science to MLL, and a grant from the Université de Sherbrooke to SC. Conservation focuses on environmental objectives, but neglecting social concerns can lead to feelings of injustice among some actors and thus jeopardise conservation aims. Through a case study on a biodiversity conflict around jaguar management in Southern Mexico, we explored actors' feelings of injustice and their associated determinants. We employed a framework distinguishing four dimensions of justice: recognition, ecological, distributive and procedural. By conducting and analysing 235 interviews with farmers and ranchers, we investigated what drive their feeling of injustice, namely their perceptions of the injustice itself, individual characteristics and interactions with their environment. The participants selected 10 statements representing criteria characterizing their feeling of justice toward jaguar management, which they compared using pair-wise comparisons. A pioneering statistical analysis, BTLLasso, revealed that self-interest assumptions were not upheld; feelings of injustice were only weakly influenced by experience of depredation. Feelings of injustice were influenced mainly by factors related to actors' intra-and inter-group relationships (e.g. perception of collective responsibility, perceived coherence in the group to which they identified). This nuanced understanding of how people build their perception of justice can inform fairer and more effective conservation approaches. Whilst details will be context specific, it emerged that building relationships and enabling debate over ecological responsibilities are important and conservation efforts should go beyond merely offering financial compensation. We conclude that perception of justice is a neglected but important aspect to include in integrative approaches to managing biodiversity conflicts, and that novel mixed methods can advance both conceptual and applied understanding in this area. Postprint

Fil: Vanbergen, Adam J. Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté. AgroSup Dijon. Agroécologie. Francia. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Rio Negro, Argentina. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de Argentina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Rio Negro, Argentina. Fil: Cordeau, Stephane. Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté. AgroSup Dijon. Agroécologie. Francia. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garratt, Michael P. D. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó. Institute of Ecology and Botany. Centre for Ecological Research. Hungría. Fil: Lecuyer, Lou. Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté. AgroSup Dijon. Agroécologie. Francia. Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Alemania. Fil: Potts, Simon G. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Settele, Josef. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. Department of Community Ecology. Alemania. Fil: Skrimizea, Eirini. Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté. AgroSup Dijon. Agroécologie. Francia. Fil: Young, Juliette C. Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté. AgroSup Dijon. Agroécologie. Francia. Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.

Conservation biology faces critical challenges that require collaborative approaches, including novel strategies to support interactions among actors in biodiversity conflicts. The goals of this study were to investigate the concept of common ground across multiple issues and to explore its practical application for the support of environmental management. We conceptually defined common ground as the areas of relevance underlying the suite of issues expressed by people regarding environmental management in a particular context. We then empirically tested this in the Calakmul region of Mexico, where the complex socio-historical context and high biodiversity have created environmental management challenges that are now being addressed by a local, multi-stakeholder management board. We conducted 26 open interviews with members of the board and a further round of quantitative prioritisation of issues raised. Using a coding process designed to reveal common ground, we categorized the issues at four levels ranging from coarse to fine (themes, topics, sub-topics and perspectives). We then analysed two levels, topics (n = 14 issues) and sub-topics (n = 51 issues). To do so, we built common ground matrices to identify and analyze common ground among actors and across issues. First, cluster and non-metrical data analyses revealed the diversity of actor positions and the lack of consistent grouping among actors by occupational activity. This demonstrated that focusing on actors' differences might be misleading, and that actors' views were not closely aligned with their roles. Second, we located issues according to their levels of common ground and importance among actors. We showed that by not focusing on single issue conflicts, the identification of common ground across multiple issues can pinpoint synergies. We then proposed a framework for collaboration that prioritizes issues of high importance with greater common ground (e.g. sustainable resource use activities), to support the development of trust and norms of reciprocity among actors, strengthening the potential for future cooperation. By adopting this approach, environmental managers could support the initial stages of collaborative conservation strategies, engaging with other actors to seek common ground, avoid the creation of polarised groups and help effectively manage biodiversity conflicts.

Funding was provided by MITACS through a Globalink Research Award to MLL, BS and SC, a José-Sarukhan Excellence Award given by the Centro del Cambio Global y Sustentabilidad del Sureste to MLL, an Excellence Award from the Quebec Center for Biodiversity Science to MLL, and a grant from the Université de Sherbrooke to SC. A failure to address social concerns in biodiversity conservation can lead to feelings of injustice among some actors, and hence jeopardize conservation goals. The complex socio-cultural and political context of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, has historically led to multiple biodiversity conflicts. Our goal, in this case study, was to explore perceptions of justice held by local actors in relation to biodiversity conflicts. We then aimed to determine the following: 1) people's definitions of their feelings of justice; 2) the criteria used in this assessment; 3) variability in the criteria influencing them; and 4) implications for environmental management in the region and beyond. We worked with five focus groups, exploring three examples of biodiversity conflict around forest, water and jaguar management with a total of 41 ranchers, farmers and representatives of local producers. Our results demonstrated that people constructed their feelings of justice around four dimensions of justice: recognition (acknowledging individuals' rights, values, cultures and knowledge systems); ecological (fair and respectful treatment of the natural environment), procedural (fairness in processes of environmental management), distributive (fairness in the distribution of costs and benefits). We identified a list of criteria the participants used in their appraisal of justice and sources of variation such as the social scale of focus and participant role, and whom they perceived to be responsible for resource management. We propose a new framework that conceptualizes justice-as-recognition and ecological justice as forms of conditional justices, and procedural and distributive justices as forms of practical justice. Conditional justice allows us to define who is a legitimate source of justice norms and if nature should be integrated in the scope of justice; hence, conditional justice underpins other dimensions of justice. On the other hand, procedural and distributive address the daily practices of fair processes and distribution. We propose that the perception of justice is a neglected but important aspect to include in integrative approaches to managing biodiversity conflicts. Addressing demands of justice in environmental management will require us to consider more than the distribution of costs and benefits among actors. We also need to respect the plurality of fairness perspectives and to recognize the benefits of dialogical approaches to achieve more successful environmental management. Postprint