Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T15:54:08.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Capacity development for conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2022

Mark O'Connell
Affiliation:
(moconnell@glos.ac.uk), University of Gloucestershire, Francis Close Hall, Swindon Road, Cheltenham, GL50 4AZ, UK
Marianne Carter
Affiliation:
(marianne.carter@fauna-flora.org) Fauna & Flora International, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK

Abstract

Type
Editorial
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International

Anthropogenic pressures on the environment and natural resources have grown significantly in both number and extent over the past 50 years (Dobson et al., Reference Dobson, Rowe, Berger, Wholey and Caro2021). But beyond their impact on global biodiversity per se, these pressures also pose a substantial problem for the conservation community. This is because the breadth and complexity of the skills, knowledge and resources required to achieve collective conservation goals have also grown markedly. Calls for urgent transformative change at a societal level (IPBES, Reference Díaz, Settele, Brondízio, Ngo, Guèze and Agard2019) reflect the need to strategically apply a more diverse set of competences and innovative mechanisms to conserve nature. As a result, identifying, prioritizing and funding the development of conservation capacity is now one of the most pressing and significant conservation challenges of the 21st century (O'Connell et al., Reference O'Connell, Nasirwa, Carter, Farmer, Appleton and Arinaitwe2017).

It has been widely recognized that as a community we need to develop a more strategic, coordinated and sustainable approach to capacity development at all scales (Campagnaro et al., Reference Campagnaro, McIntosh, Trentanovi and Sitzia2022, O'Connell et al., Reference O'Connell, Donnison, Lynch and Bennett2022). However, although the urgent need for the development of conservation capacity has been identified, until recently there was a paucity of published research to provide guidance on the key knowledge gaps, the effectiveness of different approaches, and future priorities. In the past decade, a growing community of conservation practitioners has attempted to address this range of capacity development issues.

It was in response to the need to bring together key members of this community that three regional conferences were convened, in Colombia in 2013, Kenya in 2015 and India in 2017, to discuss methods and share solutions and best practice. A fourth conference was held in the UK in 2019 to consolidate the key ideas arising from these previous meetings. The capacity for conservation theme in this issue of Oryx is the principal output from that gathering. It is intended to provide both evaluation and reflection on current practices and provision, and contribute conceptual frameworks for a more strategic way forward. In particular, this collection of 14 articles reflects on four key thematic areas of conservation capacity development.

Understanding the complexity of the challenge Conservation actions require practitioners to work with natural and social systems that are inherently unpredictable and complex (Massarella et al., Reference Massarella, Nygren, Fletcher, Büscher, Kiwango and Komi2021). A common feature of many areas of conservation action is therefore that one approach does not fit all, and local perspectives, contexts, attitudes and funding can significantly alter the outcomes of conservation actions. This has created a range of difficult issues for conservation capacity development, where past efforts have tended to focus on individuals and technical skills. A thread throughout this capacity for conservation theme is the need for whole-system thinking, to tackle the issue of complexity driven by local contexts (Porzecanski et al., Reference Porzecanski, Sterling, Copsey, Appleton, Barborak and Bruyere2022).

Valuing diversified engagement The conservation sector needs to diversify its professional practice by engaging people with a broad variety of expertise, experience and resources from across society as facilitators and practitioners (Appleton et al., Reference Appleton, Barborak, Daltry, Long, O'Connell and Owen2021), including those that might not traditionally be aligned to the core conservation mission. Engaging a diversity of peers, and actively addressing issues of equity, deepens conservation thinking and broadens its relevance and effectiveness (Anthem & Westerman, Reference Anthem and Westerman2021). This will be critical for developing capacity in areas where local communities are affected severely by the loss of biodiversity but where conservation approaches also need to be decolonized (Domínguez & Luoma, Reference Domínguez and Luoma2020). This will also require diverse, effective and resilient leaders (Sandbrook et al., Reference Sandbrook, Nelson, Bolderson and Leader-Williams2021; Webb et al., Reference Webb, Bruyere, Halladay and Walker2021). These individuals and their institutions need both technical and functional capacities, but these leaders will also require less tangible skills such as being relational and reflective, trust-building, visioning and problem-solving (Black, Reference Black2021; Abu-Bakarr et al., Reference Abu-Bakarr, Bakarr, Gelman, Johnny, Kamanda and Killian2022; Campagnaro et al., Reference Campagnaro, McIntosh, Trentanovi and Sitzia2022; Loffeld et al., Reference Loffeld, Humle, Cheyne and Black2022b). Removing barriers, such as budget, language and location, to accessing relevant learning activities is an important consideration (Chao et al., Reference Chao, Loffeld, Mastro, Willcox, Guthrie and Rao2022).

Creating strengthened networks and opportunities for innovative practice and learning There is a considerable need within the conservation capacity community to create and develop collaborative networks. These have been shown to promote supportive practice that can encourage application of skills and knowledge within learning communities (Bruyere et al., Reference Bruyere, Copsey and Walker2022) and enable innovation and upscaling. A number of established conservation leadership development programmes have found that experiential learning opportunities combined with peer network development are effective (Sandbrook et al., Reference Sandbrook, Nelson, Bolderson and Leader-Williams2021; Abu-Bakarr et al., Reference Abu-Bakarr, Bakarr, Gelman, Johnny, Kamanda and Killian2022). Additionally, creating safe spaces for peer-supported learning and development helps practitioners build resilience, experiment with a wider range of approaches, accept and learn from failure, and enhance creativity and innovation (Dickson et al., Reference Dickson, Butchart, Catalano, Gibbons, Jones and Lee-Brooks2022; Loffeld et al., Reference Loffeld, Black, Carter, Sterling and Humle2022a).

Resourcing future increases in capacity development activities One of the major drivers for the work outlined in this capacity for conservation theme has been that the impact of capacity development initiatives on halting the loss of biodiversity has not always been apparent to the wider conservation community. It can be hard to attribute the outcomes of capacity development initiatives, particularly given the time lag between action and impact, although methodologies are being tested, with some success, to improve this (Gerrie et al., Reference Gerrie, Concannon, Copsey, Wright and Young2022). These long timescales can be problematic when donor funding cycles tend to be short (Echols et al., Reference Echols, Front and Cummins2019). Furthermore, given the predicted increases in the range, magnitude and extent of future environmental issues and the barriers to addressing these, it is clear that efforts to develop conservation capacity will need to be significantly scaled up. There is therefore a considerable need for capacity developers to work more effectively with the donor community in identifying future priorities and best practice methods (Santy et al., Reference Santy, Loffeld, Paterson, Copsey and Bakarr2022). Connected to this, it is important to improve the means by which we can measure and evaluate capacity initiatives (Sterling et al., Reference Sterling, Sigouin, Betley, Zavaleta Cheek, Solomon and Landrigan2021). This difficult area associated with conservation capacity development was a major theme at the UK conference in 2019.

The challenge to build sufficient conservation capacity to deliver effective, timely nature protection at the scale needed is significant. There is increasing recognition that collaborative investment in all these areas needs to be made to facilitate urgent and critical conservation actions, but also to sustain the positive impacts from these. This collection of papers demonstrates there is a good understanding of the task ahead, and increasing evidence to support many of the approaches being taken. To ensure a future for life on our planet, we now need to multiply efforts to harness holistic, diverse engagement, secure adequate resources and enable the supportive, connected networks necessary to increase and strengthen capacity for effective delivery of conservation impact.

References

Abu-Bakarr, I., Bakarr, M.I., Gelman, N., Johnny, J., Kamanda, P.J., Killian, D. et al. (2022) Capacity and leadership development for wildlife conservation in sub-Saharan Africa: assessment of a programme linking training and mentorship. Oryx, 56, 744752.Google Scholar
Anthem, H. & Westerman, K. (2021) Conservation for all, by all: Making conservation effective and equitable. Oryx, 55, 801802.10.1017/S0030605321001459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, M.R., Barborak, J.R., Daltry, J.C., Long, B., O'Connell, M., Owen, N.R. et al. (2021) How should conservation be professionalized? Oryx, 56, 654663.Google Scholar
Black, S.A. (2021) A leadership competence framework to support the development of conservation professionals. Open Journal of Leadership, 10, 300337.10.4236/ojl.2021.104019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruyere, B.L., Copsey, J. & Walker, S.E. (2022) Beyond skills and knowledge: the role of self-efficacy and peer networks in building capacity for species conservation planning. Oryx, 56, 701709.Google Scholar
Campagnaro, T., McIntosh, N., Trentanovi, G. & Sitzia, T. (2022) Capacity development challenges and solutions for Natura 2000: an approach through blended learning. Oryx, 56, 764773.Google Scholar
Chao, N., Loffeld, T.A.C., Mastro, K., Willcox, D.H.A., Guthrie, V. & Rao, M. (2022) Strengthening capacity for species conservation in South-east Asia: a provisional assessment of needs and opportunities for the Asian Species Action Partnership. Oryx, 56, 760763.Google Scholar
Dickson, I., Butchart, S.H.M., Catalano, A., Gibbons, D., Jones, J.P.G., Lee-Brooks, K. et al. (2022) Introducing a common taxonomy to support learning from failure in conservation. Conservation Biology, published online 13 June 2022.10.1111/cobi.13967CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, A., Rowe, Z., Berger, J., Wholey, P. & Caro, T. (2021) Biodiversity loss due to more than climate change. Science, 374, 699700.10.1126/science.abm6216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domínguez, L. & Luoma, C. (2020) Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate Indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land, 9, 65.10.3390/land9030065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echols, A., Front, A. & Cummins, J. (2019) Broadening conservation funding. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 43, 372381.10.1002/wsb.1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrie, R.M., Concannon, L., Copsey, J.A., Wright, T. & Young, R.P. (2022) Using a theory of change to evaluate the impact of a conservation training programme: a practitioner's perspective. Oryx, 56, 720727.Google Scholar
IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) (2019) Draft Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, J. et al. ). IPBES, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Loffeld, T.A.C., Black, S.A., Carter, M. Sterling, E. & Humle, T. (2022a) What makes conservationists persevere? Resilience strategies at work. Oryx, 56, 681690.Google Scholar
Loffeld, T.A.C., Humle, T., Cheyne, S.M. & Black, S.A. (2022b) Professional development in conservation: an effectiveness framework. Oryx, 56, 691700.Google Scholar
Massarella, K., Nygren, A., Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., Kiwango, W.A., Komi, S. et al. (2021) Transformation beyond conservation: how critical social science can contribute to a radical new agenda in biodiversity conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49, 7987.10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, M., Donnison, A., Lynch, K. & Bennett, R. (2022) Assessing national-level provision of conservation capacity building: lessons learnt from a case study of Kenya. Oryx, 56, 753759.Google Scholar
O'Connell, M., Nasirwa, O., Carter, M., Farmer, K., Appleton, M., Arinaitwe, J. et al. (2017) Capacity building for conservation: problems and potential solutions for sub-Saharan Africa. Oryx, 53, 273283.10.1017/S0030605317000291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porzecanski, A.L., Sterling, E.J., Copsey, J.A., Appleton, M.R., Barborak, J.R., Bruyere, B.L. et al. (2022) A systems framework for planning and evaluating capacity development in conservation: recommendations for practitioners. Oryx, 56, 671680.Google Scholar
Sandbrook, C., Nelson, H.P., Bolderson, S. & Leader-Williams, N. (2021) Evaluating the impact of the first 10 years of the Cambridge Masters in Conservation Leadership. Oryx, 56, 710719.Google Scholar
Santy, A., Loffeld, T.A.C., Paterson, S., Copsey, J.A. & Bakarr, M.I. (2022) Donor perspectives on strengthening capacity development for conservation. Oryx, 56, 740743.Google Scholar
Sterling, E.J., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Zavaleta Cheek, J., Solomon, J.N., Landrigan, K. et al. (2021) The state of capacity development evaluation in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. Oryx, 56, 728739.Google Scholar
Webb, S.A., Bruyere, B., Halladay, M. & Walker, S. (2021) A framework for conceptualizing leadership in conservation. Oryx, 56, 664670.Google Scholar