The Road to Resolution in Conservation Conflict

By Jess Shute

Abstract

Ill-addressed problems create increasingly difficult conflicts to resolve, and in the case of effective conservation, the management of many wildlife species around the world suffer as a result. In a review of the literature, there is evidence for deeply psychological and social motivators that underpin conservation conflict and receptivity to change, thus affecting the development of effective resolution strategies. Conservation conflict transformation offers a reflective process that aims to identify and understand issues within a social context and avoid or reconcile conflict between stakeholders to increase conservation effectiveness. In this article, I discuss definitions and current limitations in addressing conflict in a conservation context, and describe the models used in Conservation Conflict Transformation and provide an adapted framework for considering conflict in the resolution planning process.

Introduction

Conflict in conservation is an emerging stream of important consideration within the discipline as we recognise social issues and psychological reasoning to be a large part of achieving conservation goals. The terminology used, as well as our approach to resolving conflict, determine the durability of solutions and can affect future efforts in conservation ecology. Here, I will discuss in depth the significance of terms we employ concerning conflict situations, the limitations of zero-sum perspectives, and offer a potential model to assist conservation practitioners in considering the social issues that may be at play in a conservation conflict context. If handled with care, a lasting solution can be implemented that builds rapport and fosters future cooperation and collaborations.

Defining Conservation Conflict

‘Human-wildlife’ conflict is a common term used in the literature (Dickman, 2010; Woodroffe et al., 2005; Madden, 2004), however, this implies that humans are at odds with threatened species (Redpath et al., 2015). However, it is not a clashing of opposing principles between humans and wildlife, but a conflict between conservationists and opposing stakeholders with wildlife caught in the middle. For example, troubles over the expansion of the palm oil Elaeis guineensis industry do not occur between Orangutans Pongo pygmaeus and oil palm. Instead, these conflicts are between those advocating to protect the orangutan and those wanting to promote oil palm plantations. Of course, oil palm plantations impact on the habitat of the great apes but the conflict dispute is between the conservationists and developers (Tan et al., 2009).

Why is it significant?

Some may see arguing the semantics of the definition as inconsequential, however, the way a problem is framed impacts our perceptions of an issue. Here, it may label nature as threatening which leads to a misassociation between nature and negative impacts. Further, the perception of nature as a threat directly impedes conservation efforts from the get-go. The militaristic language used in the campaign against invasive species here in New Zealand has led to debate over the fate of kiore (Pacific rat/Rattus exulans), a culturally significant species brought here by the Polynesian ancestors of Māori. Although an unusual case in which strong indigenous affiliations exist for an introduced species, the emotive propaganda has effectively demonised a species and advocated for its complete eradication. Meanwhile, conflict grew between conservationists and the Ngātiwai tribe, who see themselves as guardians of kiore, as they believe the species should persist due to their historical significance (Lyver et al., 2018).

Image: Kiore, Pacific rat, sailing with the Polynesian ancestors of the Māori.

Alternative Term

Current discourse advocates for transparency in the terminology used. Redpath (et al., 2015) urges for a clear distinction between human-wildlife impacts and human-human conflicts, saying that the distinguishing language shifts blame from wildlife, leading us away from formulating technical approaches and toward a path of open dialogue between stakeholders in order to understand the issue and negotiate appropriately.

Similarly, Madden (2004) argues for the adoption of a more positively framed phrase, such as “Human-wildlife coexistence”. This approach works in two ways. Firstly, it clearly defines what the topic concerns without placing blame and, secondly, it promotes a positive line of thinking from the outset.

Limitations of current approaches

Predictably, the approach to conflict in conservation is no clearer than its naming. Recent criticism of conservation conflict handling centres around the arguments of a zero-sum mindset, that is the idea of a win-lose situation in conservation,  and the hurried pursuit of technical solutions.

Persistence of the zero-sum game

The idea presented by Redpath (et al., 2015) is the “zero-sum” game in which one’s gain is the other’s loss. The aim of conflict transformation is to move parties away from a win or lose mindset and seek alternative outcomes where both sides are, at least, content with the compromises made. Most aim for win-win situations, however, if issues are not communicated effectively, solutions can also be lose-lose.

Image: A lose-lose situation: Conservationists attempt a fix without effectively communicating and resolving issues. We all sink.

Social Science exclusions

Rooted in physical and spatial analysis, conservationists focus less on human nature and more on ecological understanding. As a result, in most cases, an empathetic approach to conflict is not often employed. In order to effectively protect and preserve, efforts focussed on the psychological processes of conflict would be more effective in identifying and reconciling issues of those involved.

For instance, in understanding the cultural significance of the kiore to the Māori people an effective solution was achieved (Lyver et al., 2018). The species would be preserved and be managed on select offshore islands by the Ngātiwai, where the species’ damage is limited. The cultural values of the Māori were satisfied and the aims of conservationists were met. The way in which we frame a problem is key to successful negotiations.

Conservation Conflict Transformation

Conservation Conflict Transformation (CCT), as described by Madden & McQuinn (2014), is the combination of two key conflict transformation frameworks; the Levels of Conflict Model and the Conflict Intervention Triangle.

Levels of Conflict Model

The Levels of Conflict Model (LCM), adapted by Madden and McQuinn from Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution (2000), is an analytical tool used by the authors to determine the type and severity of the conservation conflict and apply appropriate measures to achieve effective resolutions. Figure 1A shows the adapted version of this model, with the root cause pictured at the top of the triangle with underlying issues below which are described as the ‘deeper, less visible sources of conflict’.

Conflict Intervention Triangle

The Conflict Intervention Triangle (CIT), Figure 1B, is a practical adaptation by Madden & McQuinn (2014). With the purpose of providing a balanced focus across the full range of potential sources of conflict, the model shows three areas that are crucial in resolution planning (Substance, Process and Relationships: ‘relationship’ as the rapport between involved parties, ‘substance’ as the tangible issues that are disputed, and ‘process’ being the way in which the planning process is designed and acted on).

Figure 1. A. The adapted Levels of Conflict Model my Madden & McQuinn (2014) B. Conflict intervention triangle model also adapted by Madden & McQuinn (2014).

The authors describe the components of the Levels of Conflict model as being potentially ‘deeper’ issues and ‘core’ sources of conflict. As such, the models provided did not accurately depict this nested dynamic of conflict. I have adapted the ideas of Madden & McQuinn (2014) and have formed the model shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. My own adaptation of the CIT and LCM models used in Madden & McQuinn (2014).

The “Dispute” being the overarching and apparent problem encompasses all deeper concerns and may or may not be part of a larger problem. The underlying issues of “Pre-existing issues”, and deeper still, the notion of “Compromised core values” are nested within. Additionally, I have superimposed the idea of the CIT onto the LCM. This way it is easier to identify where the real issues lie. For example, a conflict that exists purely at the dispute level with no underlying causes but stems from a lack of mutual respect in relationship terms can be illustrated by the yellow bar in Figure 3A or, in the case of kiore, a deep-seated issue concerning cultural values that expresses itself at the dispute level, jeopardising relationships and encouraging resistance to the overall process, as represented in Figure 3B. This visual comparison serves to highlight how conflicts may appear outwardly but can be fundamentally different beneath the surface of the conflict.

Figure 3. A. Conflict at the dispute level only. B. A representation of the kiore conflict scenario, with underlying issues and compromised core values/beliefs expressed as a substance based dispute.

Practical Applications

The adapted model above offers valuable perspective but is also limited in its ability to provide context. Visual representation provides a clear overview of issues at hand and can indicate possible root causes, however social issues are far more complex than a simple diagram. The framework does not provide reasoning and may imply false causality if incorrectly applied. The model is only as good as our own understanding.

For example, the kiore issue was a dispute between iwi and conservationists, with the iwi saying no one could kill the rats. If taken at surface value, there would be no representation of a core value at risk here and would be depicted as a dispute level conflict only. As the significance of kiore is a core belief, there is no technical solution or quick fix to address this. Instead, it is our understanding of the cultural significance that paved the way for open dialogue leading to the eventual compromise of offshore island kiore populations. The recognition of something beyond the peripheral factors informs the model appropriately.

While the kiore conflict has been resolved, there is continuing debate over the use of 1080 poison in pest control methods (Daley, 2018; Hubbard, 2015). Due to early issues of the community being cut out of discussions, there are the fundamental ethical values regarding mass poisoning and the core belief of having a community voice on matters as well the basic issues across all three areas of:

• Substance: disputing the use of a poison drop that harms all animals not only the pests,
• Process: the way in which the plans were developed and implemented,
• Relationships: developing a community versus science dichotomy.

Figure 4. Representation of the 1080 poison conflict.

Core issues that could have been addressed through the sharing of information and balanced discussion, rather than blindsiding those that may object, has led to a drawn-out debate spanning decades (Hubbard, 2015). The process to undo initial blunders has created more work for conservationists, but, if led by our model, efforts should focus on developing balance in the process and fostering trusting relationships as that is where most of the conflict now lies. A collaborative board of participants that endeavours to restore the relationship between the science community and the general public and to encourage discussion, as the apparent non-negotiables can be worked into a compromise on the science side of the conflict (perhaps the development of a more humane 1080 derived poison).

Conclusion

The way in which we frame a conflict can inhibit conservation efforts. The widely used terminology of ‘Human-wildlife conflict’ should instead be phrased as a plan for ‘Human-wildlife coexistence’ in order to promote a positive outlook and avoid associating wildlife with impacting human needs.

In our urgency to save a vulnerable species, we may rush to implement solutions that only deal with the superficial aspects of a given conflict, failing to transform the underlying source of conflict that may be present. Thus, we fail to establish a plan with any likelihood of long-term success. The adapted combination of the CIT and LCM frameworks may be used to slow the process of implementing solutions in order to understand underlying issues and effectively resolve the deeper psychological conflicts that may be present. Science should not be used to make a case one way or another, but to objectively inform stakeholders and guide us to resolutions through compromise in a value-driven society. In doing so, this enables us to think innovatively and produce durable solutions that appeal to all concerned parties and to implement swift and effective resolutions. Promoting transparency and being empathetic and socially conscious of stakeholder perspective allows us to cast off the shroud of ambiguity and advocate for durable solutions in cooperation and collaboration in future conservation efforts.

References

Daley, M. (18, October 18). Department of Conservation hits out at ‘fake news’ around use of 1080 poison. Retrieved May 24, 2019, from https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107934252/department-of-conservation-hits-out-at-fake-news-around-use-of-1080-poison

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13(5), 458-466.

Hubbard, A. (2015, March 15). A toxic history of 1080 in New Zealand. Retrieved May 24, 2019, from https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/67386321/

Lyver, P. O. B., Ruru, J., Scott, N., Tylianakis, J. M., Arnold, J., Malinen, S. K., … & Peltzer, D. A. (2018). Building biocultural approaches into Aotearoa–New Zealand’s conservation future. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1-18.

Madden, F., & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, 97-106.

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human dimensions of wildlife, 9(4), 247-257.

National Maritime Historical Society. (2018, May 31). Kiore Polynesian Rat. Retrieved May 12, 2019, from https://seahistory.org/sea-history-for-kids/kiore-polynesian-rat/

Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S., & Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. Oryx, 49(2), 222-225.

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., … & Gutierrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(2), 100-109.

Tan, K. T., Lee, K. T., Mohamed, A. R., & Bhatia, S. (2009). Palm oil: addressing issues and towards sustainable development. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13(2), 420-427.

Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., & Rabinowitz, A. (Eds.). (2005). People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence? (No. 9). Cambridge University Press.