Collaboration Networks in Applied Conservation Projects across Europe

Abstract

The main funding instrument for implementing EU policies on nature conservation and supporting environmental and climate action is the LIFE Nature programme, established by the European Commission in 1992. LIFE Nature projects (>1400 awarded) are applied conservation projects in which partnerships between institutions are critical for successful conservation outcomes, yet little is known about the structure of collaborative networks within and between EU countries. The aim of our study is to understand the nature of collaboration in LIFE Nature projects using a novel application of social network theory at two levels: (1) collaboration between countries, and (2) collaboration within countries using six case studies: Western Europe (United Kingdom and Netherlands), Eastern Europe (Romania and Latvia) and Southern Europe (Greece and Portugal). Using data on 1261 projects financed between 1996 and 2013, we found that Italy was the most successful country not only in terms of awarded number of projects, but also in terms of overall influence being by far the most influent country in the European LIFE Nature network, having the highest eigenvector (0.989) and degree centrality (0.177). Another key player in the network is Netherlands, which ensures a fast communication flow with other network members (closeness—0.318) by staying connected with the most active countries. Although Western European countries have higher centrality scores than most of the Eastern European countries, our results showed that overall there is a lower tendency to create partnerships between different organization categories. Also, the comparisons of the six case studies indicates significant differences in regards to the pattern of creating partnerships, providing valuable information on collaboration on EU nature conservation. This study represents a starting point in predicting the formation of future partnerships within LIFE Nature programme, suggesting ways to improve transnational cooperation and communication.

Movement ecology of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the Romanian Eastern Carpathians

“…As brown bears may use multiple GMUs annually or during a single season, a regional approach to monitoring based on remote cameras and track counts (Popescu et al 2017) or non-invasive DNA techniques (Proctor et al 2010) is likely to yield better results and will require coordination between multiple adjacent GMUs. Additionally, conservation initiatives should cover large areas, which seems to be difficult in Romania given the tendency of conservationists to work at a local scale (Nita et al 2016). This study provides important information for future brown bear research and conservation, such as habitat selection studies, habitat connectivity and population estimates for Romania's brown bear population.…”

Governance principles for community‐centered conservation in the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework

“…For example, Holmes-Watts and Watts (2008) found that while policy and even practice of participatory forest management in South Africa emphasizes community participation, this is largely passive, subject to a "tick-box" mentality amongst practitioners and lacks the forms of devolution necessary to sustain community support. Such challenges are experienced in a range of other jurisdictions as well, including Europe (Kluvánková-Oravská et al, 2009;Nita et al, 2016). It is imperative that conservation interventions are framed around institutionalized processes that encourage the coproduction of knowledge and solutions in which meaningful partnerships are formed.…”

Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration

“…) and other large carnivores (lynx [ Lynx lynx ], wolf [ Canis lupus ]) was banned by the Ministry of Environment in part because of the weak scientific basis for setting bear hunting quotas (Popescu et al. ), the perceived influence of certain economic interests in determining annual quotas (i.e., trophy hunting in the case of bears), and intense public campaigns seeking a ban on hunting of protected large carnivores (WWF ). Because this policy change was implemented without due consideration of other measures to prevent human–large carnivore conflict and efficient compensation, some stakeholders responded by successfully requesting that the government reinstate hunting.…”

“…Academia does not always have a direct and facilitative role in their formation, but it can contribute to their functioning through training, knowledge sharing, critical thinking and analysis, and innovation and monitoring (e.g., Nita et al. ; Rozylowicz et al. ).…”

“…Novel institutions can emerge from the initiatives of one or more institutions. Academia does not always have a direct and facilitative role in their formation, but it can contribute to their functioning through training, knowledge sharing, critical thinking and analysis, and innovation and monitoring (e.g., Nita et al 2016;Rozylowicz et al 2017). One form of crosssectoral governance structure that represents a promising way to address human-large carnivore coexistence is the community of practice (CofP) (Watkins et al 2018).…”