Prioritising stakeholder engagement for forest conservation during austerity

Conservation is essential to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services, but also to protect places that define communities, support livelihoods, enable outdoor activities and (merely?) to know that nature is flourishing.... [ view full abstract ]

Conservation is essential to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services, but also to protect places that define communities, support livelihoods, enable outdoor activities and (merely?) to know that nature is flourishing. The perceived needs and priorities for conservation and forms of management strategies will thus differ depending on an individual’s role, culture and experience. ‘Participation’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’ are widely understood to offer better conservation options, enhance buy in, develop shared learning and create a stronger democratic dialogue. However, in an era of austerity, resources are limited, despite the need to prioritise collaborative processes. In this study we ask: with whom, why and how should we engage across spatial, temporal and governance scales and with limited resources to achieve philosophical and practical goals regarding conservation? How do we prioritise engagement efforts to obtain ‘best value’?  We draw on empirical data from two projects, both addressing tree health as an aspect of forest management and conservation in UK. We both used and explored the concept of ‘stakeholder engagement’, firstly, in a project investigating the concept of resilience with tree health stakeholders; secondly, examining how stakeholder engagement can enhance technology development for the early detection of tree pests and pathogens. Tree health offers particular challenges for stakeholder engagement. A wide range of stakeholders are potentially involved, stakeholders are present at different spatial scales (local, regional, national and global) and they need to be engaged over different temporal scales, sometimes to develop crisis interventions but also for long term planning. Hence, we need to know not only with whom we couldengage, but also with whom we mustengage. We conducted a total of 33 interviews, 3 focus groups and experiential interactive activities and ran workshops and collaborative field trips with a range of stakeholders. We found that stakeholders did not align with single roles; rather individuals moved across roles and hybrid organisations spanned traditional public/private/third sector divisions. This complex network of stakeholders was overlaid on a projectscapecomprising research, management and policy initiatives. As well as project specific engagement, it proved important to support the development of networks and alliances to facilitate collaboration. Interactive, experiential and creative modes of engagement were more effective, such as fieldtrips to plant nurseries and inspections at ports. However, conversation and communication costs money! State bodies with constrained budgets have tried to devolve responsibility, but we found that structural constraints, resource restrictions and knowledge gaps limit the capacity of other stakeholders to meet conservation needs. We conclude that, despite the current era of austerity, we need to continue to invest in relationships and networks, support normative and substantive forms of engagement and recognise the value of innovative, human centred interactions, rather than aiming only for instrumental, easily measurable, specific gains. These lessons have wider implications for other conservation contexts.