Letting the managers manage: analyzing capacity to conserve biodiversity in a cross-border protected area network

Biodiversity loss is one of the most significant drivers of ecosystem change and is projected to continue at a rapid rate. While protected areas, such as national parks, are seen as important refuges for biodiversity, their effectiveness in stemming biodiversity decline has been questioned. Public agencies have a critical role in the governance of many such areas, but there are tensions between the need for these agencies to be more “adaptive” and their current operating environment. Our aim is to analyze how institutions enable or constrain capacity to conserve biodiversity in a globally significant cross-border network of protected areas, the Australian Alps. Using a novel conceptual framework for diagnosing biodiversity institutions, our research examined institutional adaptive capacity and more general capacity for conserving biodiversity. Several intertwined issues limit public agencies’ capacity to fulfill their conservation responsibilities. Narrowly defined accountability measures constrain adaptive capacity and divert attention away from addressing key biodiversity outcomes. Implications for learning were also evident, with protected area agencies demonstrating successful learning for on-ground issues but less success in applying this learning to deeper policy change. Poor capacity to buffer political and community influences in managing significant cross-border drivers of biodiversity decline signals poor fit with the institutional context and has implications for functional fit. While cooperative federalism provides potential benefits for buffering through diversity, it also means protected area agencies have restricted authority to address cross-border threats. Restrictions on staff authority and discretion, as public servants, have further implications for deploying capacity. This analysis, particularly the possibility of fostering “ambidexterity”—creatively responding to political pressures in a way that also achieves a desirable outcome for biodiversity conservation—is one promising way of building capacity to buffer both political influences and ecological pressures. The findings and the supporting analysis provide insight into how institutional capacity to conserve biodiversity can be enhanced in protected areas in Australia and elsewhere, especially those governed by public agencies and/or multiple organizations and across jurisdictions.

Effects of protected area downsizing on habitat fragmentation in Yosemite National Park (USA), 1864 – 2014

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) has been documented worldwide, but its impacts on biodiversity are poorly understood. To fill this knowledge gap, we reviewed historical documents to identify legal changes that altered the boundaries of Yosemite National Park. We identified two downsizes and five additions between 1905 and 1937 that reduced the size of Yosemite National Park by 30%. To examine the effects of these downsizing events on habitat fragmentation by roads, we compared protected, never-protected, and downsized lands at three spatial scales using four habitat fragmentation metrics: road density, fragment (land surrounded by roads) area-to-perimeter ratio, fragment area, and fragment density. In general, lands that were removed from protection, e.g., downsized, were more highly fragmented than protected lands and indistinguishable from never-protected lands. Lands where downsizes were reversed were less fragmented than lands where downsizes were not reversed. These results suggest that protected area downsizing may exacerbate habitat fragmentation, a key contributor to biodiversity loss globally. Furthermore, the case study in Yosemite National Park demonstrates that iconic protected areas in developed countries are not immune to downsizing. These findings underscore the need to account for PADDD and governance histories in ecological research, monitoring, and evaluation. As we move toward more evidence-based conservation policy, a rigorous understanding of PADDD is essential to ensure that protected areas fulfill their promise as a strategy for conserving global biodiversity.

Creating restoration landscapes: partnerships in large-scale conservation in the UK

It is increasingly recognized that ecological restoration demands conservation action beyond the borders of existing protected areas. This requires the coordination of land uses and management over a larger area, usually with a range of partners, which presents novel institutional challenges for conservation planners. Interviews were undertaken with managers of a purposive sample of large-scale conservation areas in the UK. Interviews were open-ended and analyzed using standard qualitative methods. Results show a wide variety of organizations are involved in large-scale conservation projects, and that partnerships take time to create and demand resilience in the face of different organizational practices, staff turnover, and short-term funding. Successful partnerships with local communities depend on the establishment of trust and the availability of external funds to support conservation land uses. We conclude that there is no single institutional model for large-scale conservation: success depends on finding institutional strategies that secure long-term conservation outcomes, and ensure that conservation gains are not reversed when funding runs out, private owners change priorities, or land changes hands.

Conservation narratives in Peru: envisioning biodiversity in sustainable development

In the mega-diverse country Peru, a resource intensive development model collides with the interest of conserving biodiversity. Peruvian biodiversity experts have developed different lines of argumentation as to how to integrate conservation into the sustainable development of their country. Applying grounded theory, I define five groups of conservation narratives based on the analysis of 72 qualitative interviews with experts working in areas of biodiversity conservation. I have labeled them: biodiversity protectionists, biodiversity traditionalists, biodiversity localists, biodiversity pragmatists, and biodiversity capitalists. These groups are each discussed in connection with what they have to say about biodiversity in relation to human life, valuation and knowledge systems, participation and leadership, substitutability of natural capital, and its predominant political strategy. In a second step, a comparative analysis of the dominant and diverging political perspectives is made. I argue that by deconstructing underlying premises and ideologies, common ground and possible opportunities for collaboration can be identified. Moreover, although the presented results can serve as a discussion scaffold to organize conservation debates in Peru, this example demonstrates how the terms biodiversity and sustainability are operationalized in conservation narratives.