An understanding of trust, identity, and power can enhance equitable and resilient conservation partnerships and processes

A Typology of National Park Co-management Agreements in the Era of Reconciliation in Canada

Parks Canada, in response to commitments undertaken towards reconciliation, has signaled its readiness to reassess the participation of Indigenous peoples in the co-management of national parks, national park reserves, and national marine conservation areas (NMCAs). However, the effectiveness of co-management, as the established framework underpinning these and other longstanding partnerships between the state and Indigenous groups, has been disputed, based on an uneven track record in meeting the needs, interests, and aspirations of Indigenous communities. This paper explores the potential of co-management to facilitate reconciliation within national parks, reserves and NMCAs by developing a typology of various types of co-management agreements. Addressing a critical knowledge gap in co-management governance, we provide a comprehensive review of 23 negotiated co-management agreements involving the state and Indigenous groups in a national park context. The resulting typology categorizes these agreements according to contextual factors and governance arrangements, offering insights into the feasibility of shared governance approaches with Parks Canada. Moreover, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of co-management agreements in fulfilling reconciliation commitments. Our findings indicate that, although Parks Canada has implemented innovative approaches to co-management and shown a willingness to support Indigenous-led conservation efforts, true shared governance with Indigenous groups, as defined by international standards, is limited by the Canadian government's evident reluctance to amend the foundational legislation to effectively share authority in national parks.

Finding common ground: Understanding and engaging with science mistrust in the Great barrier reef region

At a time when ambitious environmental management initiatives are required to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems, public trust in the science that underpins environmental policy and decision-making is waning. This decline in public trust coincides with a rise in misinformation, and threatens to undermine public support for, and participation in, environmental protection. Our study investigates the prevalence and predictors of mistrust in science associated with the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and its catchments. Using survey data from 1,877 residents of the GBR region, we identify environmental values, perceptions, and attitudes that are associated with science mistrust. Our results include a typology of GBR science trust and scepticism. Science-sceptical respondents, representing 31% of our sample, were likely to perceive waterway management decisions as being unfair, felt less responsible, and were less motivated to contribute to improving waterway health than those with greater trust in science. Science-sceptical respondents also had differing perceptions of some threats to waterways, in particular climate change. However, similarities and 'common ground' between respondents with varying levels of trust in science included a shared recognition of the importance of waterways' ecosystem services, and a shared perception of the relative health and problems within their regions' waterways. Our findings can help to break down assumptions about science-sceptical groups in the GBR region and elsewhere. We offer recommendations to guide more constructive engagement that seeks to restore trust and build consensus on mutual goals and pathways to protect vital ecosystem functions and services.

The importance of equity in payments to encourage coexistence with large mammals

Large mammals often impose significant costs such as livestock depredation or crop foraging on rural communities, and this can lead to the retaliatory killing of threatened wildlife populations. One conservation approach-payments to encourage coexistence (PEC)-aims to reduce these costs through financial mechanisms, such as compensation, insurance, revenue sharing, and conservation performance payments. Little is known about the equitability of PEC, however, despite its moral and instrumental importance, prevalence as a conservation approach, and the fact that other financial tools for conservation are often inequitable. We used examples from the literature to examine the capability of PEC-as currently perceived and implemented-to be inequitable. We recommend improving the equitability of current and future schemes through the cooperative design of schemes that promote compensatory equity and greater consideration of conservation performance payments and by changing the international model for funding PEC to reduce global coexistence inequalities. New and existing programs must address issues of equitability across scales to ensure that conservation efforts are not undermined by diminished social legitimacy.

Exploring Routes to Coexistence: Developing and Testing a Human–Elephant Conflict-Management Framework for African Elephant-Range Countries

Creating a future for elephants and people is a highly complex and dynamic challenge, involving social, behavioral, and ecological dimensions as well as multiple actors with various interests. To foster learning from human–elephant conflict (HEC) management projects and share best practices, a study was conducted to review the management of conflicts between elephants and humans in 12 African countries by qualitative expert interviews. Based on this information, a HEC management framework was developed in a two-tiered process. In the first phase, the theory of the framework was developed. In a second phase, the theoretical framework was validated and adjusted through stakeholder participation in two southern African projects (in Mozambique and Malawi). This holistic approach considers environmental as well as social, political, cultural, and economic factors directly or indirectly affecting interactions between people and wildlife. The framework integrates six interlinked strategies to guide managers and conservation practitioners to address HWC drivers and mitigate their impact. A legal environment and spatial planning form the basis of the framework. Social strategies, including meaningful stakeholder engagement and design of appropriate institutional structures and processes are considered the heart of the framework. Technical and financial strategies represent its arms and hands. At the top, monitoring steers all processes, provides feedback for adjustment, and informs decisions. The integration and coordination of these six strategies has great potential as a guiding route to human–wildlife coexistence in Africa and elsewhere.

Making a case for the consideration of trust, justice and power in conservation relationships

In conservation, trust and justice are increasingly recognized as both intrinsically valuable and critical for successful socio-ecological outcomes. However, the interdependence between these concepts has not been explored. In reviewing the conservation trust scholarship, we find efforts to build trust between conservation and local actors, yet this is often conceived to incentivize local cooperation within dominant paradigms. We argue that trust-building which does not actively plan to address power asymmetries in conservation practice may inadvertently re-embed inequities, and therefore offer a justice-trust model to provide a critical analysis of conservation partnerships. We draw on environmental justice theory to better calibrate trust literature for the historical-political settings of conservation, especially in the Global South. We demonstrate that justice and trust share strong theoretical links with important practical implications for understanding relationships. We apply our justice-trust framework to multiple case-studies, exploring i) how perceptions of (in)justice can shape willingness to trust, and ii) the ways in which nature-dependent communities and marginalized conservation workers are trusted, or the conditions they give trust under, can lead to partnerships being perceived as (un)just. We argue that focusing on trust in tandem with justice can help identify power dynamics so they can be more readily addressed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Planning for Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Conceptual Framework, Workshop Process, and a Model for Transdisciplinary Collaboration

Coexistence, as a concept and as a management goal and practice, has attracted increasing attention from researchers, managers and decision-makers dedicated to understanding and improving human-wildlife interactions. Although it still lacks a universally agreed definition, coexistence has increasingly been associated with a broad spectrum of human-wildlife interactions, including positive interactions, transcending a conservation focus on endangered wildlife, and involving explicitly considerations of power, equity and justice. In a growingly complex and interconnected human-dominated world, the key to turning human-wildlife interactions into large-scale coexistence is thorough planning. We present an approach for evidence-based, structured, and participatory decision-making in planning for human-wildlife coexistence. More specifically, we propose (i) a conceptual framework for describing the situation and setting the goals, (ii) a process for examining the causes of the situation and creating a theory of change, and (iii) a model for transdisciplinary research and collaboration integrating researchers, decision-makers and residents along with the interests of wildlife. To illustrate the approach, we report on the workshop considering the Jaguars of Iguaçu, a conservation project whose strategy includes the improvement of the relationship between ranchers and jaguars outside Iguaçu National Park, Brazil.

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

Potential impacts to rural livelihoods by large carnivores, such as gray wolves (Canis lupus), increase economic liability and fear among residents, resulting in social conflicts over wildlife issues. Strategies have been developed to promote non-lethal predator management in rural communities, but there is limited understanding of why ranchers choose to participate in such programs. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 45) of ranchers in Washington state, United States, asking open-ended questions to explore their perspectives on conflict mitigation. Interviews were analyzed using Grounded Theory. Ranchers mentioned five broad types of mitigation strategies: state agency intervention (i.e., calling the state agency in charge of wolf management to request either compensation or lethal wolf removal), biological measures (e.g., use of guard animals), physical measures (e.g., fences), human interference (cowboys and cowgirls), and indirect measures (e.g., husbandry practices). Motivations for participating in non-lethal mitigation strategies included previous positive interactions with wildlife agency officials, an understanding of the importance of wolves to the ecosystem, and clearly outlined guidelines on how to deal with wolf interactions. Barriers that hindered rancher participation included disdain for regulation both regarding the Endangered Species Act and the state's requirements for accessing damage compensation, which were perceived to be extensive and over-reaching. Negative attitudes toward wolf recovery included fear of wolves and perceived damage that wolves inflict on rural lives and livelihoods. Ranchers' motivations and perceived barriers for participating in mitigation strategies included sociopolitical and economic factors. Thus, we suggest that in addition to mitigating economic loss, wildlife managers address the intangible social costs that deter ranchers' participation in mitigation strategies through continued dialogue.