Grand strategy for human–wildlife coexistence

Conservationists and their allies worldwide are dedicated to effective management of human–wildlife interactions in order to minimize conflicts for coexistence (CBD 2022). Despite varying definitions of human–wildlife coexistence (Gao and Clark 2023), coexistence as a goal generally requires humans to share landscapes and natural resources with wildlife in sustainable ways (IUCN 2023). But it presents three interconnected challenges. The first challenge primarily concerns the practical aspects of coexistence, particularly the ecological dimension involving human interactions with wildlife and related ecological processes. Living closely with wildlife poses actual and perceived risks to local livelihoods and personal safety. Examples include snow leopards killing livestock, elephants raiding crops, primates damaging properties, and bears attacking humans. Such negative impacts of wildlife on humans are commonly believed to decrease people's tolerance toward wildlife, reduce support for conservation efforts, and encourage possible retaliation. Subsequent management actions might include modifying wildlife behavior and distribution through lethal or nonlethal techniques (via installation of barriers and deterrents; translocation; and hazing) and fostering tolerance (through compensation, insurance, or conservation performance payments; and awareness-raising and educational initiatives). The second challenge has to do with the social dimension of coexistence, which involves multiple sectors and domains within society, such as political, economic, religious, and other institutional structures and functions that govern the creation and distribution of natural and cultural resources. At the heart of this challenge is governance: who has the authority and control to decide how and where people and wildlife will be able to share the landscape in the long term, and how formal and informal decisions are made, implemented, evaluated, and adjusted. People's varying identities, expectations, and demands often lead to different views on human–wildlife interactions and disagreements on the means and ends of coexistence. Unlike practical challenges, governance issues do not have rigid spatiotemporal boundaries. Decisions made at international and national levels, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, may enable or constrain how subnational (including local) communities interact with their wildlife cohabitants. Similarly, past decisions can create historical encumbrances that impact present-day social and decision-making processes. The third challenge pertains to the cultural dimension of coexistence, which involves fundamental aspects of persistent patterns of conduct and underlying societal rules that shape decision-making processes. It encompasses people's cultural beliefs about reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and ethics (axiology), as well as their sense of self and accepted modes of problem solving (Clark 2022). Often taken for granted and operating at a subconscious level, these beliefs form the foundation of our sociocultural fabric, enabling us to construct shared meaning from our individual life experiences as well as imposing limitations on our thoughts, words, and actions through social norms. A critical aspect of the coexistence challenge is the existence of contradictory cultural beliefs, leading to conflicting views on how to perceive and manage our relationship with wildlife and one another. In many societies, cultural beliefs tend to dichotomize people and wildlife, emphasizing positivistic scientific management, economic efficiency, and technical rationality. However, such beliefs can conflict with the worldviews of many Indigenous peoples and local communities. Furthermore, as contexts change over time, traditional cultural beliefs may become less relevant, necessitating the construction of new meanings and meaning-making processes. Addressing these three challenges is a formidable task. Achieving coexistence, an integral part of the global vision to “live in harmony with nature by 2050” (CBD 2022), does not imply the complete absence of negative human–wildlife interactions, but rather creating conditions where conflicts can be managed in socially, ecologically, and economically acceptable ways, enabling both people and wildlife to thrive. This requires communities to integrate diverse objectives and practices across various societal domains, including biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, and protection of human rights. In addition, the financial and sociocultural capital available for conservation often falls short of the magnitude of the problems at hand. Conservation efforts also contend with numerous other pressing and competing demands. Moreover, the allocation of scarce resources tends to favor paths of least resistance, and, consequently, coexistence efforts often become reactive, superficial, or symbolic in nature, addressing immediate management issues and short-term exigencies while neglecting more proactive, far-sighted, and strategic options. How can we achieve the crucial goal of human–wildlife coexistence within the constraints of limited resources and complex contexts? Our experience suggests that the theory and practice of grand strategy (Table 1) can greatly enhance the effectiveness of conservation professionals and allies. In any realm of human affairs, despite bounded rationality and the uncertainty inherent in decision making, a strategic approach is believed to surpass mere tactical or random actions (Freedman 2015). Strategy involves deliberately deploying means to achieve desired ends as stipulated by a policy (Lasswell 1952), and grand strategy entails a long-term orientation, a broad scope across societal domains, and deep analysis. Historically, grand strategy has encompassed how nation-states employ all available resources to pursue their most vital national interests (Balzacq and Krebs 2021), but today this kind of thinking is being applied in international relations, public health, and fisheries management, among other fields. Conceptually, grand strategy can be thought of as a theory of change, as a process, and as a habit of mind (Balzacq and Krebs 2021). As a theory of change, grand strategy can help us delineate the desired outcomes of coexistence, the means to realize those outcomes, and a causal mechanism to explain how these means can bring about the desired human–wildlife relationship. It encourages us to look beyond immediate, direct determinants of human–wildlife interactions to identify other factors that enable or hinder coexistence. Thus, it offers a cohesive roadmap to guide the allocation of resources and coordinate collective action. Notably, it can demonstrate how collaborative efforts by diverse participants can synergistically achieve long-term coexistence. As a process, grand strategy requires broad participation, consideration of multiple perspectives, and service to common interest outcomes. It does not prescribe fixed rules of conduct for every situation, but instead encourages people to navigate ever-changing social processes, including the entanglement of interests in decision making across different spatiotemporal and institutional scales. It requires continuously realigning means and ends in response to evolving contexts. It can help optimize our use of limited resources and enhance effectiveness by maintaining an overarching direction and making necessary adjustments in strategy and tactics over time. As a habit of mind, grand strategy compels us to embrace multiple, diverse, and sometimes opposing perspectives, interests, and demands while maintaining the ability to function effectively. It embodies a personal disposition and cognition that consciously integrates a long-term sense of direction with short-term sensitivity to surroundings (Gaddis 2018). This habit of mind requires people to transcend unmindful, deeply engrained conventions and practices, such as focusing on single species, organizational self-interests, or bounded disciplinary and political domains. Grand strategy can foster a standpoint of thoughtful pragmatism that simultaneously embraces simplicity and complexity, selectiveness and comprehensiveness, resourcefulness and purposefulness: all oriented toward common, rather than special, interests. In conclusion, we believe that grand strategy holds immense potential for conservation professionals working on challenges associated with human–wildlife coexistence. This conceptual tool can help us navigate the complexities inherent in conservation work and align our finite resources and ambitious commitments.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.