How to make (in)effective conservation projects: look at the internal context!

Conservation practitioners have to deal with strategies and actions in projects that are aimed at solving problems associated with complex socio-ecological systems (Holling, 2001; Provencher, Schneider & Taylor, 2007). To improve the efficiency of this process, many approaches have been developed that fall within the project management framework (Margoluis et al., 2009). For example, the IUCN has developed a project cycle framework aimed at management effectiveness evaluation (Hockings et al., 2006): this framework refers to project design issues relating to complex, real world, socio-ecological contexts, and addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of management, and delivery of objectives. The framework has six steps (context, planning, input, process, outputs and outcomes). For the last 20 years, I worked as a conservation practitioner in a public agency, managing six nature reserves in central Italy (Battisti, Franco & Luiselli, 2013): carrying out either the usual day-to-day conservation actions or projects focused on a range of challenging conservation issues (sensu Angelici, 2016: e.g. managing wild boar, coypu and other alien species, as well as bird species of conservation concern, and carrying out threat analyses). Having been involved in a number of project cycles, I have observed that the analysis of the external socio-ecological context of a specific project, although strategic, was not enough to understand the reasons why many projects were ineffective, often failing immediately after they had started. Paradoxically, I think that the first problem affecting a project process can be found within the project team, which itself might be considered to be a system with a specific structure, dynamics and internal behavior. In my experience, these problems are often as important as any ‘external’ problems in determining whether a project succeeds or fails. Indeed, in the day-to-day management of nature reserves my experience is that internal problems are the first cause of failure. Reviewing the available literature, I observed that all the problems in the project management arena are already known; nevertheless, they have rarely been recognized by conservation practitioners as having strong implications for the effectiveness of their conservation projects. Here, I try to synthesize these issues, hopefully stimulating colleagues working in the conservation front-line to complete the framework. First, at the structural level, I have often noted (1) a lack of flexibility in project team members; indeed highly specialized experts may show lack of systems-thinking and open-mindedness (‘idiot savant’; Jacobson & Duff, 1998), epistemic arrogance (Stohl & Schell, 1991; Taleb, 2007) and may not be adaptable to ‘real world’ contingencies. Even though experts are often involved in the operational phase of a conservation project, they may seem more interested in performing analyses than in searching for solutions (‘analysis-paralysis’ syndrome and consequent operational inaction; Peterson, Cumming & Carpenter, 2003; Zuckerberg, 2008). I have also observed (2) lack of redundancy in the specific background expertise and skills of team members: in such cases each person is necessary and indispensable, so that an unforeseen absence of a team member could affect the whole project process; or that (3) the experts belong to only a few disciplines: I have often noted an asymmetry favoring biological scientists to the detriment of socio-economic and historical disciplines, or local knowledge. This low disciplinary heterogeneity and the consequent low cognitive diversity (Shin et al., 2012), together with conservatism and conformism, polarization, and dogmatic behavior may adversely affect the decision-making phase of a project where particularly creativity and multiple approaches are important (Adams, 1996). Secondly, at the dynamic level, I have observed that the project team could be affected by (1) a drift towards bureaucracy (the means becomes the end) with administrative loops (inducing frustration and time-wasting); (2) unnecessary use of regulations and laws to induce fear in potential defaulters (often to justify a role for administrative and jurisprudence professionals); (3) organizational and politically driven bad behaviors, for example, lack of time management, presence of ‘alien’ components inside the project team with the imposition of political outsiders who do not have any background in conservation projects (‘time-thieves’; Carr & Hancock, 2006), or strong top-down hierarchy (inducing de-motivation in operators); and (4) poor behaviors, both at the individual and group level, such as procrastination (Gafni & Geri, 2010), negative/destructive thinking and cynicism (Smol, 2016), exclusion, and the ‘boss-effect’ (Battisti & Amori, 2016). In recent decades, a large number of tools have become available to make team members aware of their internal problems (e.g. SWOT approach, Hill & Westbrook, 1997; Leigh, 2009; causal chains pressure-impact, Salafsky et al., 2008). Such tools are commonly used in many disciplines (e.g. development in Poland, Kasztelan, 2014; forest management in Spain, Marino et al., 2014), but are scarcely used in conservation. Once weaknesses have been identified, we should proceed both at the structural and the dynamic level. At first, we should improve resilience in the project team structure, thus reducing its vulnerability to unpredictable events. To improve resilience, we need to increase technical redundancy, flexibility as well as cognitive diversity, which is particularly useful in the search for original solutions and making decisions in complex real-world contexts (with also using crowd-sourcing; Pimm et al., 2015). At the behavioral level, we should firstly create an effective organizational environment, reducing possible top-down hierarchy (delegating, motivating, assigning roles and improving mutual confidence), helping positive/constructive thinking (Luthans, 2002), improving creativity (Osborn, 1963; Mumford, 2003) and training professionals to engage with conservation projects without epistemic arrogance, conformism or dogmatic approaches. Time management (by removing bad behaviors, for example procrastination) is also strategic. Finally, administration and regulation should only be involved on an ‘as-needed’ basis (they are only tools!). The same way as external ecological and social systems, the ‘internal’ organizational system, with its further complexity, may play a primary role in conservation projects. Therefore, I propose to include a further step in the IUCN project cycle for conservation (Hockings et al., 2006): the ‘internal context analysis’. This step should consider both the structure and the dynamics of the organizational system, evidencing any weaknesses and pathologies. In conservation biology, the role of non-biological disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, has been highlighted as important when analyzing the human dimension (Machlis, 1992; Saunders, Brook & Myers, 2006). Furthermore, I suggest that psychologists, social scientists and project consultants should be involved in conservation projects not only in the external context analysis, but also in the internal context. Therefore, at the start of a project, practitioners should devote time to analyzing the organizational team as a true system with proper structural components, dynamic relationships and emergent properties. It might also be useful if ‘front-line’ experiences of ineffectiveness and failure due to internal structural weaknesses and pathological dynamics are sent for publication in conservation journals, in order to model the behavior of this system and build a new framework. My advice is that before analyzing the external ‘real world’ (conservation targets, threats and driving forces), look at the internal context: problem-solving starts from there. This letter has been stimulated by F.M. Angelici (FIZV, Rome) and F. Perco (Sibillini National Park), during the Third National Congress in Problematic Wildlife (24–26 November 2016, Cesena, Italy) where I presented a lecture (‘Problematic Wildlife: the problem is not only in wildlife’). I wish to thank many colleagues and friends with whom I shared experiences within ‘critical’ project teams in Public Agencies: F. Marini (Protected Area Service, Rome), P. Ciucci (University of Sapienza, Rome I), S. Gippoliti (IUCN Specialist Group), G. Amori (CNR, Rome), L. Luiselli (Demetra srl and University of Rome III), A. Guidi (Ecological Network Service, Rome), D. Franco (Plandland Org.), F. Cerfolli (University of Tuscia, Viterbo), F. Perco (Sibillini National Park, Visso), F.M. Angelici (University of Tuscia, Viterbo), G. Fanelli (University of Tor Vergata, Rome II), C. Teofili (FederParchi, Rome), R. Maggini (WWF Italy). A special thank goes to A. Zocchi for his theoretical insights. Thanks also to Elina Rantanen and the Editor Iain Gordon who largely improved a first draft of this Letter.