Collaborative Conservation for Inclusive, Equitable, and Effective Systems of Protected and Conserved Areas

Insights from Brazil 


Baixe aqui o artigo de nosso banco de dados, ou clique aqui para acessar o artigo publicado no volume 15 da revista científica Sustainability, p. 16609, 2023. DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416609. ISSN 2071-1050. 

Abstract

Protected and conserved areas (PCAs) are increasingly recognized as essential tools for their effectiveness in conservation and the benefits they provide. However, their challenges are still significant. The concepts, legislation, and governance surrounding PCAs are the results of social contexts. Due to the evolution of scientific knowledge, human rights, and diversified demands, new approaches are necessary to fulfill their functions. To better understand the context and possibilities, a study group was established to evaluate the current research, exchange experiences, guide dialogues, and identify lessons from experiences. The core of the experiences and cases considered and the reflections developed focused on the Brazilian context. This article analyzes the collected information and reflections related to several themes associated with challenges. The results reinforce the importance of PCAs but warn about the limitations of current conservation strategies to respond to social actors’ expectations, the needs of the vulnerable social groups, and evolving demands. The complexity of PCA systems is evident in view of the multiplicity of interests, potential contributions, and possibilities for participatory arrangements. There is a need to improve management and governance conceptions to promote the reconnection between society and nature. Therefore, the concept of collaborative conservation is proposed as an instrumental approach to advance towards inclusive and effective conservation strategies.


1. Introduction

As an introduction to their importance, context, and evolution, protected and conserved areas (PCAs) are considered essential tools for the biodiversity conservation agenda due to their high effectiveness with respect to nature conservation and the variety of other benefits they can provide [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Historically, several factors have influenced the shaping of spatial (or area-based) nature conservation tools, especially PCAs, as most important conservation strategies. Among those factors, conditioning the concepts and evolution of PCAs, are the history of ecosystem degradation and the evolving interests associated with the material and immaterial benefits of nature conservation (for example, those related to water supply, food security, wood exploitation, hunting, protection of scenic landscapes, recreation and tourism experiences, health promotion and psychological well-being, conditions for education and research, and mystic beliefs) [7,8,9]. More recently, in the context of the progressive loss of biodiversity, their importance and recognition have become even more evident, especially when considering their role in the new 2030 Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which is an upgrade from the 2020 Aichi Targets [6,10,11]. Additionally, being among the nature-based solutions, PCAs tend to contribute to facing the consequences of climate change emergency and their mitigation [1,8,12]. And, they should similarly be considered important tools for social well-being, including for those commitments expressed in the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals [13,14,15].
The definition of protected areas by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas is the most internationally accepted one, which is also aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). IUCN’s definition considers nature conservation as the main objective and includes references to the associated ecosystem services and cultural values. Brazil has a similar approach to defining PAs under national legislation (legally called unidades de conservação—UCs) (Law 9985/2000, Brazil; [16,17]).
However, PCAs are in a state of continuous transformation due to historical and social-economical-cultural contexts. Most technical and scientific documents refer to the origin of PCAs as the creation of the first national parks (NPs), considered emblematic of the modern protected area (PA) concept, while others recognize some previous efforts as part of the history of PCAs [9,18,19,20,21,22,23]. It is also important to consider, in recent decades, the change marks of ”New Paradigm” (of PAs), the Indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs), and the other area-based effective conservation mechanisms (OECMs), for example [6,8,22,23,24,25].
The 10th Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the CBD, in 2010, was essential in establishing global goals for PAs, as the Global Biodiversity Strategic Plan promoted the expansion of PCAs, particularly to the marine realm, although the expansion also continued in the continental areas as well [6,7,8,26,27]. Since 2010, the concept of OECMs (or conserved areas—CAs) has become more used, particularly with the definition in the CoP-14, in 2018, to recognize areas other than PAs that contribute to biodiversity conservation, and strengthened in the CBD Kunming–Montreal Target 3 [8,10,11,25].
Nevertheless, to introduce the problem considered in this article, conflicts have been a constant issue in the creation, declaration, and management of PCAs. Solutions may not have occurred quickly enough or not gone sufficiently far. At the same time that PCAs are demanded for new functions, their governance dynamics and management have not yet sufficiently responded to the expectations of the plurality of stakeholders around them (Decree 7747/2012, Brazil; [7,8,22,23,28,29,30]).
To better understand the related context and possibilities, a study group was established in Brazil to evaluate and learn from current research, experience, and dialogues. The main questions guiding that work were related to the diversity of realities of PCA management and governance (M&G) and their connections with the social diversity and its demands. To support the understanding of these demands, and beyond their importance for biodiversity and sociodiversity (or sociobiodiversity, as used in Brazil), the work here looks at the relationship with different social actors and how those relations can achieve improved effectiveness through better social support—therefore considering governance links to inclusiveness, equity, and effectiveness. The authors considered a general approach of the subject at the global level but had a main focus on the Brazilian context, searching for lessons learned with a broad interest that could open pathways for more inclusive, equitable, and effective PCAs. Furthermore, a key underlying problem of PCA governance is related to the challenges of obtaining further social support for PCAs to overcome the associated obstacles in order to achieve their management effectiveness ([10,11,22,23,28,30,31]; Decree 7747/2012, Brazil).
In this context, this article is based on the analysis and systematization of the literature and the accumulated experience of PCA management practitioners, researchers, and other social actors, such as members of Indigenous peoples and traditional and local communities, as a means of contributing to a sound definition and implementation of PCA-related strategies. In order to do that, it proposes and evaluates the contribution of the concept of collaborative collaboration across several topics related to PCAs.


Table 1. Workflow of the GECCAP (study group).
PhasesActivities
EstablishmentStudy group establishment (100 + active participants) (After inviting management practitioners, researchers, and community members—some 200–300).
Definition of subthemes and establishment of subgroups (from preliminary ideas of subthemes—more than 40).
Studies and workshopsStudies by subgroups: bibliographical studies; exchange of experiences; and dialogues with complementary social actors.
Monthly guided interactions in the larger study group.
Guided workshops (15), including: recommended bibliography offered; presentations; invited guests; and broader dialogues.
Workshops recorded and synthetic written reports available. Internal workshops evaluation.
ComplementsComplementary workshops and dialogues, as well as technical and academic collaborative reports and papers. Social media.
AnalysesBy the leaders of thematic subgroups and coordinators of the study group.

(...)
Figure 2. Social understandings and support to PCA systems.

5. Conclusions

This article’s analyses show the assumptions, foundations, and insights that must be considered to overcome the difficulties and challenges, in addition to bringing practical and innovative proposals, to move forward in order to achieve equitable, inclusive, and effective PCA systems. As the focus of the GECCAP was concentrated in Brazil, these analyses consider the international scene, and although the conclusions here presented are directly applied to Brazilian PCA M&G, the authors propose that the concept presented below and the following recommendations are considered as possibly valid in other regional, national, and local contexts.
The results presented throughout this article show that PCAs are part of complex systems and are very important, not only to ensure the maintenance of ecosystem services and biodiversity, but for the promotion of a good quality of social life as well as a multiplicity of society–nature connections for a broad array of social actors. The concepts and practice of PCA M&G are constantly evolving and should be considered as socio-cultural constructs, embedded in their historical and regional and socio-economic contexts. In recent decades, better approaches have been developed with respect to rights recognition, the inclusion of social actors, good governance, inclusiveness, and equity. PCAs and their systems have progressively been incorporating new functions, such as facing the consequences of climate change. Additionally, there is increasing recognition of other benefits, such as those related to the promotion of human health and well-being and the consideration of cultural values. But these are not enough to meet current and future needs (Figure 2).
Even when considering the NP paradigm as the beginning of the modern PA concept, it is imperative to pay more attention to what occurred before its inception, and what was occurring in parallel to or outside this model. With respect to broader spatial conservation strategies, there is currently a need for the best possible integrated approach, with a good understanding of the differences and the maximum consideration for their complementarities, taking particular note of the New Paradigm (of PAs), ICCAs, local PCAs, and now OECMs.
PCAs must receive further and better economic, political, and, above all, social support, taking into consideration the multiplicity of partnership models with diverse stakeholders in multiple arrangement models. For that, the greater recognition, understanding, and participation of IPTCs in activities related to nature conservation, especially with respect to their interaction with PCAs, can help researchers, as well as governmental and non-governmental agents, to apprehend and develop new, more collaborative solutions.
Also, the science related to PCAs must evolve in order to understand the new paradigms and the complexity of M&G of PCAs and their systems. In this sense, through scientific and technical analyses, reports, and guidelines, PCA systems should be considered as integrated functioning systems consisting of complex, integrated, and functioning structures and processes.
The strategies promoting the reconnection between nature and society (and opening possibilities for reconnection with other human beings and social groups) is key to increasing awareness about the importance of nature and could potentially trigger actions related to its conservation and the better use of natural resources. However, these aspects need to be considered in social networks in order to make real the necessary collective societal change. The sense of community needs to be built in connection with the PCAs and the benefits arising from conserved nature. Related processes should include dialogue among different types of knowledge. The decolonization of thought and speech, including taking a strong position against all discrimination, such as that related to gender, race, age, disability, and others, is a must.
Considering the results, the discussions, and the concluding remarks above, it is clear that the experiences, dialogues, studies, reflections, and insights compiled herein explored the contexts and evolution of different kinds, models, and possibilities of PCAs. And, additionally, these showed the importance of considering integrated PCA functioning systems. Also, the relationships between PCAs and a diversity of conditions and social groups’ interests were explored in some depth. The main rationale advocated in this approach has considered the real or practical effectiveness of nature conservation as being strongly dependent on social, economic, political, and cultural support. In this sense, good results can only be achieved through engagement with society in all its diversity. This is only possible when PCA systems respond to the diverse interests of social groups inclusively and equitably.
Based upon this, the concept of collaborative conservation, as instrumental for the promotion of more equitable, inclusive, and effective PCA systems, can be understood as being a combination of elements, including: (i) the recognition of the strong diversification of the interests of social actors in nature conservation (going beyond classical PCA management program approaches, such as those related to visitation, academic biodiversity research, enforcement, patrolling, administration, etc., including, for instance, cultural values, health benefits, and resilience facing the climate emergency); (ii) the comprehension that PCA management includes multiple de facto partnership arrangements (official or not) with different types of organizations and social actors (rather than monolithic management on the part of a single governmental institution or other, a similar governance type); and (iii) the need to update and renew M&G approaches on the basis of adequate concepts and priorities, better responding to the diverse interests of social groups, not only with the aim of achieving more democratic systems, but also in order to promote further social engagement with respect to their support by means of more inclusive and effective PCA systems. Those elements of collaborative conservation need to be combined with a renewed approach to PCA M&G concepts and practices and the understanding of the complexity of functional PCA systems, through the comprehension and perceptions by social groups through the potential benefits of PCAs and nature conserved.
Evidence concerning the contribution of the concept of collaborative conservation in making the M&G of individual and systems of PCAs M&G more equitable, inclusive, and effective was presented in this work. Nevertheless, this is the beginning of an improved understanding of the revised conceptualization of these systems. Therefore, further consideration, applications, reflections, and research about the concept of collaborative conservation should promote the needed renovation in the concepts related to PCAs and their systems.

___________

Continue lendo...

Clique aqui para baixar o artigo de nosso banco de dados.

Clique aqui para acessar o artigo publicado no volume 15 da revista científica Sustainability, p. 16609, 2023. DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416609. ISSN 2071-1050. 

Marcadores: , , , , ,

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)