Capacity building for conservation: problems and potential solutions for sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

To achieve their conservation goals individuals, communities and organizations need to acquire a diversity of skills, knowledge and information (i.e. capacity). Despite current efforts to build and maintain appropriate levels of conservation capacity, it has been recognized that there will need to be a significant scaling-up of these activities in sub-Saharan Africa. This is because of the rapid increase in the number and extent of environmental problems in the region. We present a range of socio-economic contexts relevant to four key areas of African conservation capacity building: protected area management, community engagement, effective leadership, and professional e-learning. Under these core themes, 39 specific recommendations are presented. These were derived from multi-stakeholder workshop discussions at an international conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2015. At the meeting 185 delegates (practitioners, scientists, community groups and government agencies) represented 105 organizations from 24 African nations and eight non-African nations. The 39 recommendations constituted six broad types of suggested action: (1) the development of new methods, (2) the provision of capacity building resources (e.g. information or data), (3) the communication of ideas or examples of successful initiatives, (4) the implementation of new research or gap analyses, (5) the establishment of new structures within and between organizations, and (6) the development of new partnerships. A number of cross-cutting issues also emerged from the discussions: the need for a greater sense of urgency in developing capacity building activities; the need to develop novel capacity building methodologies; and the need to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches.

Post‐normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation

“…We anticipate that the wholesale adoption of PNS in other countries is conditional on local context of history, politics, and existing capacity for conservation (Magliocca et al, 2018). By contrast, in developing countries the more urgent issue is probably lack of capacity in the extended peer community, which could be addressed by formal scientific training as well as opportunities for knowledge exchange and shared learning (O'Connell et al, 2019). In these instances, formal institutions would be more important for mobilizing collective effort toward shared goals (Amel et al, 2017) because the capacity for an extended peer community already exists.…”

“…In these instances, formal institutions would be more important for mobilizing collective effort toward shared goals (Amel et al, 2017) because the capacity for an extended peer community already exists. By contrast, in developing countries the more urgent issue is probably lack of capacity in the extended peer community, which could be addressed by formal scientific training as well as opportunities for knowledge exchange and shared learning (O'Connell et al, 2019).…”

The state of protected and conserved areas in Eastern and Southern Africa

“…developed, allowing the cross analysis of PAME information from a range of different assessment methodologies (Leverington et al, 2010). This can be used, in conjunction with qualitative analysis of management effectiveness reports and other literature, to generate detailed analyses and reports of management effectiveness, including key issues, strengths and weaknesses and threats, across regions of the world (Leverington et al, 2010;Nolte et al, 2010) (see Box 10.1). Unfortunately, the analysis has not been conducted since 2010.…”

Merging social equity and conservation goals in IPBES

“…Assessments "humble listener" (Pascual et al 2017;Rantala et al 2017): to respect and be open to learning new things across cultures, positions, and values; can take place via engaging stakeholders as coauthors to assessments and as equal advisors in expert groups to enrich global assessments with local and regional knowledge "adaptive expert" (Pullin et al 2016;Rantala et al 2017): to adapt the scope and insights of assessments to issues raised during knowledge coproduction processes; can take place via extended stakeholder review processes, double-sided critique, and expert consultations by focus groups or Delphi panels "officer" (Pullin et al 2016;Crouzat et al 2018): to synthetize and formalize diverse views to robust and legitimate definitions, methods, and interpretations; can take place by structuring diversity, identification of commonalities and differences, and ranking alternatives Capacity building "empathetic visitor" (Rantala et al 2017): to show understanding for stakeholders' concerns and enable their capacity to act; can take place via considering scientists as visitors who can learn from local communities and by supporting horizontal relationship building within and between local communities "trustworthy matchmaker" (Michaels 2009;Rantala et al 2017): to earn trust by providing knowledge and networks; can take place via inclusion of local communities to networks of knowledge by identification of what expertise local communities need, who can provide it, and the best ways to make required connections "conservation supporter" (O'Connell et al 2019): to use best available science to provide support for local institutions for conservation; can take place by enhancing local capacities for environmental monitoring and supporting predetermined capacity-building processes replicated in various sites. Policy support "policy enabler" (Berkes 2007): to enable local communities and institutions to design, implement, and evaluate policies that ease the problems local communities face; can take place via providing resources (e.g., time, expertise, finances, equipment, tools) with flexible opportunities for their use "fair deliberator" (Michaels 2009;Rantala et al 2017): to facilitate interactions and negotiations to address key issues related to codefined policy problems; can take place via workshops and meetings with linkages to policy makers at local and other levels.…”