Exploring common dialectical tensions constraining collaborative communication required for post-2020 conservation

Abstract

Contemporary conservation requires improved collaboration characterized by greater recognition and incorporation of multiple and diverse actors. Effective communication is central to this endeavour. However, the expression of concerns, perspectives, and the exchange of knowledge between actors and across multiple scales (i.e., collaborative communication), must navigate inevitable competing systems of meaning and motivation (i.e., dialectical tensions). Yet, a lack of understanding of how to improve collaborative communication within conservation interventions persists within the literature. Consequently, this paper reviews relevant literature to propose a framework that identifies common sources of dialectical tensions in collaborative conservation interventions that if managed effectively can improve required collaborative communication. The framework is then revised based on interviews conducted with 277 respondents in three African coastal-marine collaborative conservation interventions. Findings reinforce the effect of continued marginalization of certain actors' ‘voices’ within governance processes. More specifically, enabling collaborative communication requires managing several identified institutional-, agenda-, cultural-, and perception-based tensions. In particular, tensions emerging from formal-informal institutional interactions; gender-based exclusion; conflicting livelihood-ecological and economic-environmental agendas, and project-funder objectives; between indigenous/local-scientific knowledge and values; and perceived necessary-acceptable change. Furthermore, specific local-scale tensions identified included those associated with local-customary institutions; democratic-meritocratically elected local representatives; and exclusion based on cultural diversity. Consequently, these tensions require the ‘co-creation’ of communicative strategies amongst all actors to promote greater social equity that better aligns with local priorities to achieve ‘positive’ post-2020 ecological and social outcomes. Findings should be relevant to diverse conservation actors, and many others working within multi-stakeholder environmental interventions.