New article: An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation

Posted on May 24, 2017 by Nathan J. Bennett

A group of colleagues and I have just published an open access paper titled “An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation” in Marine Policy. In this paper, we propose that:

Poor governance and social issues can jeopardize the legitimacy of, support for and long-term effectiveness of marine conservation.
A comprehensive set of social standards is needed to provide a solid platform for conservation actions.
This paper reviews key principles and identifies next steps in developing a code of conduct for marine conservation.
The objectives of a code of conduct are to promote fair, just and accountable marine conservation.
A code of conduct will enable marine conservation to be both socially acceptable and ecologically effective.

Abstract: Marine conservation actions are promoted to conserve natural values and support human wellbeing. Yet the quality of governance processes and the social consequences of some marine conservation initiatives have been the subject of critique and even human rights complaints. These types of governance and social issues may jeopardize the legitimacy of, support for and long-term effectiveness of marine conservation. Thus, we argue that a clearly articulated and comprehensive set of social standards – a code of conduct – is needed to guide marine conservation. In this paper, we draw on the results of an expert meeting and scoping review to present key principles that might be taken into account in a code of conduct, to propose a draft set of foundational elements for inclusion in a code of conduct, to discuss the benefits and challenges of such a document, and to propose next steps to develop and facilitate the uptake of a broadly applicable code of conduct within the marine conservation community. The objectives of developing such a code of conduct are to promote fair conservation governance and decision-making, socially just conservation actions and outcomes, and accountable conservation practitioners and organizations. The uptake and implementation of a code of conduct would enable marine conservation to be both socially acceptable and ecologically effective, thereby contributing to a truly sustainable ocean.

Press releases and coverage

Code of conduct needed for ocean conservation, study says – Eureka Alert
Does marine conservation need a “Hippocratic Oath”? – CBC
Marine conservation must consider human rights – Nereus Program

Policy Brief: An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation (PDF LINK)

Reference: Bennett, N.J., Teh, L., Ota, Y., Christie, P., Ayers, A., Day, J.C., Franks, P., Gill, D., Gruby, R.L., Kittinger, J.N., Koehn, J.Z., Lewis, N., Parks, J., Vierros, M., Whitty, T.S., Wilhelm, A., Wright, K., Aburto, J.A., Finkbeiner, E.M., Gaymer, C.F., Govan, H., Gray, N., Jarvis, R.M., Kaplan-Hallam, M. & Satterfield, T. (2017). An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation. Marine Policy, 81, 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.035 [OPEN ACCESS]

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Posted on July 19, 2016 by Nathan J. Bennett

I just published a co-authored Open Access article in the journal Conservation Biology titled “Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation“. In this article, we define conservation social science, examine the barriers to uptake of the social sciences in conservation, and suggest practical steps that might be taken to overcome these barriers.

Bennett, N., Roth, R., Klain, S., Chan, K., Clark, D., Cullman, G., Epstein, G., Nelson, P., Stedman, R., Teel, T., Thomas, R., Wyborn, C., Currans, D., Greenberg, A., Sandlos, J & Verissimo, D. (2016). Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology. Online, Open Access. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12788

Abstract

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society’s understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers – ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity – to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science – one that includes the natural and social sciences – will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

Download from here

Perceptions are Evidence and Key to Conservation Success

Posted on January 28, 2016 by Nathan J. Bennett

My latest publication, in the journal Conservation Biology, is titled “Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management”. In this article, I argue for a broader view of evidence in adaptive environmental management and evidence-based conservation. I clarify how perceptions can be used as a form of evidence to guide conservation decision making and action taking. Perceptions provide critical insights into how people view social impacts, ecological outcomes, governance processes and management. Peoples understandings and evaluations of these four factors ultimately determines their level of support for conservation. Conservation success depends on long-term local support.

Link to the article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12681/abstract

Reference: Bennett, N. J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. online.

Abstract: The conservation community is increasingly focusing on the monitoring and
evaluation of management, governance, ecological, and social considerations as part of a broader move toward adaptive management and evidence-based conservation. Evidence is any information that can be used to come to a conclusion and support a judgment or, in this case, to make decisions that will improve conservation policies, actions, and outcomes. Perceptions are one type of information that is often dismissed as anecdotal by those arguing for evidence-based conservation. In this paper, I clarify the contributions of research on perceptions of conservation to improving adaptive and evidence-based conservation. Studies of the perceptions of local people can provide important insights into observations, understandings and interpretations of the social impacts and ecological outcomes of conservation; the legitimacy of conservation governance; and the social acceptability of environmental management. Perceptions of these factors contribute to positive or negative local evaluations of conservation initiatives. It is positive perceptions, not just objective scientific evidence of effectiveness, that ultimately ensure the support of local constituents thus enabling the long-term success of conservation. Research on perceptions can inform courses of action to improve conservation and governance at scales ranging from individual initiatives to national and international policies. Better incorporation of evidence from across the social and natural sciences and integration of a plurality of methods into monitoring and evaluation will provide a more complete picture on which to base conservation decisions and environmental management.

Keywords: monitoring and evaluation; evidence-based conservation; conservation social science; environmental social science; protected areas; environmental governance; adaptive management

What is environmental governance?

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Nathan J. Bennett

Environmental governance is a topic that has received a fair amount of attention in the academic and applied literatures on conservation and environmental management in the last few years. However, there remains a significant amount of confusion about what governance is, how governance is different than management, and what topics and questions governance scholars examine. In this open access extended review in the journal Conservation Biology, I provide answers to these questions while reviewing Peter Jones’ book “Governing Marine Protected Areas: Resilience through Diversity“. Excerpts from the text of “Governing marine protected areas in an interconnected and changing world” follow below.

What is governance? – “Governance is an umbrella term that refers to the structures, institutions (i.e., laws, policies, rules, and norms), and processes that determine who makes decisions, how decisions are made, and how and what actions are taken and by whom.”

How does governance differ from management? – “Although the umbrella of governance facilitates (or undermines) effective environmental management, it can be differentiated from management as the resources, plans, and actions that result from the functioning of governance (Lockwood 2010). The objectives of both environmental governance and management are to steer, or change, individual behaviors or collective actions and, ultimately, to improve environmental and societal outcomes. Without good governance combined with effective management, [environmental management and conservation initiatives] are unlikely to succeed socially or ecologically (Bennett & Dearden 2014).”

What topics do environmental governance scholars examine? – “Scholarship on environmental governance has grown significantly over the last few decades, ranging in ecological scale from individual species (e.g., whales) to resources or ecosystems (e.g., forests, coral reefs) to global concerns (e.g., climate, oceans). Specific policy realms (e.g., fisheries, agriculture, or MPAs) are also the subject of governance analyses and planning. Environmental governance studies focus on 2 central and interrelated areas: governance design and implementation and governance performance…Environmental governance can be evaluated either or simultaneously on whether processes are fair and legitimate and whether outcomes are socially equitable or ecologically sustainable…Disagreement remains about whether outputs of governance analyses should be descriptive or prescriptive.”

What questions do environmental governance scholars explore? – “Questions and ideas that have been taken up by environmental governance scholars…[include]: How are individual and collective behaviors shaped by different governance institutions? What is the ideal governance structure for managing people and resources: community based, top down, or comanagement? How and why do governance institutions change and to what effect? What decision-making processes are more socially acceptable and lead to better ecological outcomes? What are the roles of different actors and organizations (e.g., governments, NGOs, private sector, local stakeholders, and resource users) in shaping governance processes and determining outcomes? How can governance address interconnected social-ecological systems and interactions across ecological, social, and institutional scales? How can governance be designed to fit different sociopolitical and ecological contexts? What limits are placed on governance by different social, political, and ecological factors? What norms or ideals (e.g., transparency, accountability, trust) should guide governance? What is the appropriate scale for governance to occur? How can collaboration and cooperation be facilitated most effectively? How can governance be designed to be stable and also to adapt to mounting social and ecological changes and unpredictable circumstances? These are not merely academic concerns. Insights provided by answers to these questions would help in the formulation of appropriate, acceptable, and supportive environmental governance policies and processes, enabling more effective management and ultimately enhancing…social and ecological outcomes.”

The full text of the article can be downloaded from the blue links below:

Bennett, N. J. (2015). Governing marine protected areas in an interconnected and changing world. Conservation Biology, 29(1), 303–306. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12458 [OPEN ACCESS]

Ocean Grabbing: Robbing Small Scale Fishers and Coastal Communities of Marine Resources or Spaces

Posted on April 15, 2015 by Nathan J. Bennett

The following open access article on Ocean Grabbing has just been published in Marine Policy: Bennett, N. J., Govan, H., & Satterfield, T. (2015). Ocean grabbing. Marine Policy, 57, 61–68

Highlights:

Ocean grabbing refers to acts of dispossession or appropriation of marine resources or spaces.
Ocean grabbing robs fishers and communities of use, control or access to resources, land or the sea.
This paper presents a framework to evaluate conservation or development initiatives for ocean grabbing.
Three factors, governance, human security and well-being, determine what constitutes ocean grabbing.
A systematic program of research into the phenomenon of ocean grabbing is proposed.

Abstract: The term “ocean grabbing” has been used to describe actions, policies or initiatives that deprive small-scale fishers of resources, dispossess vulnerable populations of coastal lands, and/or undermine historical access to areas of the sea. Rights and access to marine resources and spaces are frequently reallocated through government or private sector initiatives to achieve conservation, management or development objectives with a variety of outcomes for different sectors of society. This paper provides a definition and gives examples of reallocations of marine resources or spaces that might constitute “ocean grabbing”. It offers a tentative framework for evaluating whether marine conservation, management or development is ocean grabbing and proposes an agenda for future research. For a reallocation to be considered ocean grabbing, it must: (1) occur by means of inadequate P1020882 governance, and (2) be implemented using actions that undermine human security and livelihoods, or (3) produce impacts that reduce social–ecological well-being. Future research on ocean grabbing will: document case studies, drivers and consequences; conduct spatial and historical analyses; and investigate solutions. The intent is to stimulate rigorous discussion and promote systematic inquiry into the phenomenon of ocean grabbing.

The publication can be downloaded from here or here.

New Report: The Conservation Social Sciences: What?, How? and Why?

Posted on December 19, 2014 by Nathan J. Bennett

This post is to alert you to the publication of a new report titled “The Conservation Social Sciences: What?, How? and Why?” that I edited with Robin Roth. The report can be downloaded from here.

Citation: Bennett, N. J. & Roth, R. (eds.) (2015). The Conservation Social Sciences: What?, How? and Why? Vancouver, BC: Canadian Wildlife Federation and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2664.3529

Overview of Report

Each of the fields of conservation social science has made and can make a unique contribution to understanding the relationship between humans and nature and to improving conservation outcomes. Conservation scientists, practitioners and organizations recognize the importance of the conservation social sciences and are increasingly engaging in and funding conservation social science research. Yet conservation organizations and funders often lack a clear understanding of the breadth of the conservation social sciences, the types of questions that each field of conservation social science poses, the methods used by disciplinary specialists, or the potential contribution of each field of conservation social science to improving conservation practice and outcomes. Limited social science capacity and knowledge within conservation organizations may also mean that conservation practitioners and organizations looking to fund conservation social science research do not know where or how to begin defining a social science research agenda.

This report presents a series of papers that were given as part of a workshop titled “The conservation social sciences: Clarifying ‘what?’, “how?’ and ‘why?’ to inform conservation practice” that occurred at the North American Congress for Conservation Biology in Missoula, Montana in July 2014. The workshop brought together specialists from the breadth of the conservation social sciences to define the contributions of their disciplines and fields to conservation through exploring the ‘what?’, ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ of each area of expertise. The resultant report aims to stimulate dialogue among conservation organizations, foundations, agencies, practitioners and researchers about the role of the conservation social sciences. It is intended to build capacity, promote knowledge and foster engagement with conservation social sciences in order to improve conservation practice and outcomes.

The first chapter of the report introduces the conservation social sciences. The body of the report provides succinct synopses of the different conservation social sciences by specialists in Psychology, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science and Governance, Human Dimensions, Political Ecology, Ethics, Education and Communication, Conservation and Development, and Science and Technology Studies. The concluding chapter a) provides a broad overview of the topics explored, questions asked, methods used and contributions made by each field of conservation social science and b) presents a process by which conservation organizations or funders can define and prioritize a conservation social science research agenda. We propose five steps to guide organizations wishing to better employ the conservation social sciences: 1) Recognize and overcome organizational barriers to incorporating conservation social sciences and build support for and understanding of the conservation social sciences; 2) Identify the conservation problem(s) that the organization aims to address and highlight their social dimensions; 3) Partner with social scientist(s) to frame key topics, questions and approach; 4) Brainstorm key topics for investigation or research questions and prioritize them to establish a conservation social science agenda; and 5) Partner with, contract or hire conservation social scientist(s) to carry out the work.

Introducing the Conservation Social Sciences – Nathan J. Bennett & Robin Roth
A Primer on Environmental Anthropology for Conservation Biologists – Georgina Cullman
Conservation and Sociology – Richard C. Stedman
Ecological Economics and Its Potential Role in Conservation – Kai M. A. Chan, Michael Barkusky & Sarah C. Klain
A (Social) Psychology Approach in Conservation – Tara L. Teel, Alia M. Dietsch & Michael J. Manfredo
Political Science, Environmental Governance and Conservation – Graham Epstein
Conservation Ethics as a Conservation Social Science – Michael Paul Nelson & John A. Vucetich
Beyond ‘the Gap’: Connecting Conservation Science with Policy and Practice – Carina Wyborn
Informing Conservation Practice Through Environmental Education: The “What”, “How” and “Why” – Rebecca E. W. Thomas
Win-Win or Trade-Offs?: The Study of Conservation and Development at Local, National and Global Scales – Nathan J. Bennett
Conservation of What for Whom?: A Political Ecological Approach to Conservation – Robin Roth
Human Dimensions and the Evolution of Interdisciplinary Approaches in Conservation Social Science – Douglas A. Clark
The Conservation Social Sciences: An Overview and A Process for Setting a Research Agenda – Nathan J. Bennett, Robin Roth, Sarah Klain, Kai M. A. Chan, Douglas A. Clark, Georgina Cullman, Graham Epstein, Michael Paul Nelson, Richard Stedman, Tara L. Teel, Rebecca E. W. Thomas & Carina Wyborn

Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management

Posted on December 18, 2014 by Nathan J. Bennett

A paper titled “Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management” co-authored by Sarah Klain, Rachelle Beveridge and myself was just published in Ecology & Society. The article asks: a) whether natural resource management can be ecologically sustainable but unjust at the same time, and b) if distribution of harvesting rights and socio-economic benefits and inclusion in management is unfair, how might access to resources and governance institutions be re-oriented. We explore these questions through a case study of indigenous peoples’ involvement in commercial sea cucumber and geoduck fisheries on the central coast of British Columbia, Canada using Elinor Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework and common pool resource design principles.

Klain, S., Beveridge, R, Bennett, N.J. (2014). Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology & Society 19(4), 52.

ABSTRACT: Under appropriate conditions, community-based fisheries management can support sound resource stewardship, with positive social and environmental outcomes. Evaluating indigenous peoples’ involvement in commercial sea cucumber and geoduck fisheries on the central coast of British Columbia, Canada, we found that the current social-ecological system configuration is relatively ecologically sustainable according to stock assessments. However, the current system also results in perceived inequities in decision-making processes, harvesting allocations, and socioeconomic benefits. As a result, local coastal resource managers envision a transformation of sea cucumber and geoduck fisheries governance and management institutions. We assessed the potential robustness of the proposed institutions using Elinor Ostrom’s common-pool resource design principles. Grounded in the region’s legal, political, and historical context, our analysis suggests that greater local involvement in these invertebrate fisheries and their management could provide more benefits to local communities than the status quo while maintaining an ecologically sustainable resource. Our research highlights the importance of explicitly addressing historical context and equity considerations in social-ecological system analyses and when renegotiating the institutions governing common-pool resources.

The article can also be downloaded from this page.

Nathan J. Bennett

Exploring diverse relationships between humans and the environment with a solution-oriented lens.

Tag Archives: environmental governance

What is environmental governance?

Ocean Grabbing: Robbing Small Scale Fishers and Coastal Communities of Marine Resources or Spaces

Abstract

Overview of Report

Table of Contents