A diagnostic framework for biodiversity conservation institutions

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is a critical issue on the environmental agenda, with species based approaches failing to stem the decline. Landscape scale approaches offer promise, but require institutional change. This article describes a novel conceptual framework for 1 assessing institutional arrangements to tackle this persistent problem. In doing so, two critical issues for biodiversity governance are addressed. The first is a need to enrich largely theoretical descriptions of adaptive governance by considering how the practical realities of institutional environments (e.g. public agencies) limit achievement of an adaptive governance 'ideal'. The second is enabling explicit consideration of the unique aspects of biodiversity as a 'policy problem' in the analysis of institutional arrangements. The framework contributes to efforts to design more adaptive institutional arrangements, through supporting a more sophisticated and grounded institutional analysis incorporating insights from institutional theory, especially literature on organizational environments and public administration.Concepts from Pragmatism also contribute to this grounding, providing insight into how public agencies can play a more productive role in biodiversity conservation and building public consent for management actions. The diagnostic categories in the framework include the attributes of the biodiversity problem and the involved players; the political context; and practices contributing to both competence and capacity. Guidance on how to apply the framework and an example of its application in Australia illustrate the utility of this tool for institutional diagnosis and design.Development of this diagnostic framework could be further enhanced by empirically informed elaboration of the relationships between its components, and of the nature of and factors influencing key concerns for adaptation, particularly learning, self organizing and buffering.

Fit-for-Purpose Institutions? An Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation in the Agricultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Midlands, Australia

“…The novel conceptual framework underpinning this study (Clement et al, 2016) (Fig. 1) derives from Young's (2002Young's ( , 2008 efforts to diagnose international institutions.…”

“…This means that in practice many countries, such as Australia, tend to focus time and investment on the first two categories. While efficient, this can be a source of institutional misfit, as it tends to neglect the broader social--ecological context and underlying causes of biodiversity decline (Clement et al, 2016;Curtis and Lefroy, 2010).…”

“…first by adopting a broader concept of misfits, that includes cognitive and political fit (Clement et al, 2016), and second by using a framework that attends to gaps in the adaptive governance literature, as discussed in the next section. 5 2.0 Conceptual framework, study area, and diagnosis…”

Letting the managers manage: analyzing capacity to conserve biodiversity in a cross-border protected area network

“…A novel conceptual framework (Clement et al 2016) guided diagnosis. The framework has four categories of focus: problems and players, politics, competence, and capacity ( Fig.…”

“…1 Clement et al (2016), 2 Ansell (2011), 3 Head and Alford (2013), 4 Rijke et al (2012), 5 Ebrahim (2005), 6 Boyd and Folke (2011), Lockwood et al (2011), Koontz et al (2015, 7 Allen and Gunderson (2011), 8 Chapin III et al (2009) Hutchcroft (2001), 13 Berman et al (2012) and trampling by feral horses, and fire (Lockwood et al 2014). Invasive species such as feral horses, and frequent, intense, and large-scale wildfires are already significant ecological issues, with warmer climatic conditions expected to exacerbate them (Lockwood et al 2014).…”