Setting conservation priorities in multi-actor systems

Abstract

Nature conservation is underresourced, requiring managers to prioritize where, when, and how to spend limited funds. Prioritization methods identify the subset of actions that provide the most benefit to an actor's objective. However, spending decisions by conservation actors are often misaligned with their objectives. Although this misalignment is frequently attributed to poor choices by the actors, we argue that it can also be a byproduct of working alongside other organizations. Using strategic analyses of multi-actor systems in conservation, we show how interactions among multiple conservation actors can create misalignment between the spending and objectives of individual actors and why current uncoordinated prioritizations lead to fewer conservation objectives achieved for individual actors. We draw three conclusions from our results. First, that misalignment is an unsuitable metric for evaluating spending, because it may be necessary to achieve actors’ objectives. Second, that current prioritization methods cannot identify optimal decisions (as they purport to do), because they do not incorporate other actors’ decisions. Third, that practical steps can be taken to move actors in the direction of coordination and thereby better achieve their conservation objectives.

Challenges to Implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

“…This can create tensions and lead to counterproductive conservation interventions [8,18,19]. Harmonising these contradictions requires careful consideration of diverse stakeholder interests and local imperatives coupled with optimal resource allocation in a multi-actor and multi-level governance system [8,19,20]. Such coherence is a prerequisite to ensuring that local actions effectively contribute to the high-level conservation aspirations set by the GBF.…”