ArticlePDF Available

Social license as an emergent property of political interactions: Response to Kendal and Ford 2017

Wiley
Conservation Biology
Authors:
Stephen T Garnett at Charles Darwin University
Stephen T Garnett
Kerstin Zander at Charles Darwin University
Kerstin Zander
Cathy Jean Robinson at The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Cathy Jean Robinson
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Article impact statement: Recognition that conservation, like mining, needs a social license to operate can help avoid dangerous assumptions of approval.
Content uploaded by Kerstin Zander
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kerstin Zander on Apr 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
COBI cobi13113 Dispatch: March 30, 2018 CE:
Journal MSP No. No. of pages: 3PE: Sean Yaftali
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Comment
Social license as an emergent property of political
interactions: response to Kendal and Ford 2017
Stephen T. Garnett,1Kerstin K. Zander ,2and Catherine J. Robinson3
Q1
Q2 1Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia
2Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia
3CSIRO Land and Water, CSIRO Ecosciences Precinct, 41 Boggo Rd, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia
We are delighted that Kendal and Ford (2017) were
moved to comment on the use of the term social license
with respect to conservation as we (Zander et al. 2014;
Garnett et al. 2016; 2017) and others (Spies et al. 2010;
Hobday et al. 2015; Buckley 2016; Latham et al. 2017)
have used it. We of course agree that social license may
not always be a useful concept with which to describe the
relationship between conservation and the community
and that there is a need for “trusting, ongoing relation-
ships with the . . . community.” However, we question
their suggestion that social acceptance might be more
appropriate than social license when seeking community
support for conservation programs. We maintain there is
a role for both terms—indeed there may be a sequence
in which they are applied.
Use of social license in the mining industry has been
criticized for its ambiguity, the lack of a process to obtain
it, the way in which it is employed to maintain exist-
ing power imbalances, and its binary nature (Parsons &
Moffat 2014). The converse of these arguments is that
the term is flexible and that its adoption by companies
represents explicit acknowledgment that civil society
possesses the power to challenge a company’s right to
operate. The principal message of the report from which
the term gained its current popularity (International In-
stitute for Environment and Development 2002) was that
a failure to acknowledge and accommodate the concerns
of civil society constitutes a real threat to the industry’s
state-sanctioned licenses to operate.
We argue that social license is most useful when con-
ceptualized as binary and that its metaphorical similar-
ity to a formal state-sanctioned license is far closer than
email kerstin.zander@cdu.edu.au
Article impact statement: Recognition that conservation, like mining, needs a social license to operate can help avoid dangerous assumptions
of approval.
Paper submitted October 15, 2017; revised manuscript accepted December 30, 2017.
suggested by Gunningham et al. (2004) and adopted by
Kendal and Ford (2017). This definition, “The demands
on and expectations on a business enterprise that emerge
from neighbourhoods, environmental groups, commu-
nity members, and other member of the surrounding
civil society” (Gunningham et al. 2004), does not actu- Q3
ally capture the way in which it is being used by min-
ing companies or forestry operations. However vague,
social license can be considered a precursor and a nec-
essary condition to existing and ongoing legal licenses.
Although the thresholds for noncompliance may be ill-
defined, the consequences of failure can be extremely
expensive, as Rio Tinto discovered in Bougainville (Pike
2012).
We believe our definition of social license captures a
more realistic application of the term: the tacit permis-
sion of civil society for an activity to occur or continue
so that the state has the political confidence to grant
legal rights. The key difference between this definition
and that of Ford and Williams (2016) is that the license
is not explicitly granted by local communities or the en-
terprises concerned, which is why Parsons and Moffat
(2014) found it difficult to identify process in its grant-
ing. Rather, the license in our definition can be seen as
an emergent property of political interactions before and
during the operations of an enterprise. The license is
granted when an enterprise satisfies enough of the inter-
ests of civil society that the state believes that legislative
conditions are met and that there is political gain, or at
least no risk. Occasionally, enterprise advocates preempt
state processes if they conclude they lack social license
and risk reputational damage (e.g., Petrobas withdrew
1
Conservation Biology, Volume 0, No. 0, 1–3
C
2018 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
UNCORRECTED PROOF
2Social License
an application for deep-sea drilling off New Zealand in
the face of Maori opposition [Ruckstuhl et al. 2014]).
Q4
Gradually, many of the actions undertaken to alleviate
social impact that are granted social license are codi-
fied into legal conditions. However, as noted by Dare
et al. (2014), new social expectations arise so that social-
license requirements evolve over time, usually becoming
more stringent as communities learn to exercise power
at multiple scales.
In a conservation context, obtaining and maintaining
a social license requires governance models in which
priority conservation values are negotiated rather than
mandated and that embrace diverse sites of authority
through formal (e.g., comanagement) or informal regimes
(Berkes 2007). Often existing conservation governance
regimes are a product of the historical legacy of earlier
political contest, which has had a patchy history around
the globe. Mining and other sectors repeatedly test and
target social-licence mandates and approaches (Dare et al.
2014), which contrasts with the many perpetual conser-
vation arrangements that exist. The lack of review of the
social license afforded to conservation can lead to the
original mandates being eroded and contested.
If, as we believe, a binary definition of social license is
actually being applied by enterprises, then many of the
criticisms of the term and its application to the conser-
vation sector fall away. It is unsurprising that companies
talk more of maintaining their social license than of ac-
quiring it (Parsons & Moffat 2014) because the granting
of their existing legal license will be predicated on the
political judgment that they already have a social license,
even if that was granted under a different set of social
norms. As civil society continues to apply pressure on
enterprises to provide more to local communities or do
less damage to the environment, the more a future legal
license to operate requires investment in actions not yet
legally required. Such voluntary contributions are often
portrayed as altruistic, but such investment must have
commercial benefit if obligations to shareholders are to
be met.
We therefore think social license is conceptually dif-
ferent from the broader term social acceptance.Inmany
ways, social acceptance can be seen as a precursor to
obtaining a social license—it is through seeking social
acceptance that a social license is created. We do not
agree that multiple social licenses are needed; rather,
social license can be seen as the outcome from multiple
conversations about social acceptance. These conversa-
tions about social acceptance are held not just with lo-
cal communities wishing to emphasize environmental or
social outcomes or advocacy groups lobbying on their
behalf, but also with communities that rely on mines for
employment and the many influential players who stand
to make material profit from development.
The reason we argue that conservation also needs a
social license is that there are winners and losers in con-
servation interventions; that is, there are political trade-
offs for those authorizing the activity, whether they are
representatives of the state or the community, and rep-
utational risks to conservation advocates. This trade-off
is complex. Many countries have committed to the Aichi
targets (CBD 2010) of preventing extinction and secur-
ing 17% of terrestrial land for conservation. But in some
places,itwillbepossibletomeetsuchtargetsonlyifin-
digenous peoples and other minority groups collaborate
(i.e., allow their lands to be used to pursue a conservation
agenda) (United Nations Human Rights 2015; Robinson
et al. 2016). As another example, governments need to be
confident they have a social license before they authorize
assisted colonization of species outside their historical
range to address the effects of climate change (Garnett
et al. 2017; Latham et al. 2017). Just as with mining, a
license to initiate or maintain a conservation interven-
tion entails not only agreement with the communities
in places directly affected, but also agreement from the
broader group of players with an interest in the process.
Significant resistance from any group to a conservation
initiative is likely to lead to a denial of social license,
given the combination of outcome uncertainty and lim-
ited political benefit. Only after social license is perceived
to have been granted is the state likely to invest in the
necessary policy, legislation, and public funding needed
to make the idea for a conservation initiative a reality.
Other ways of describing government actions in relation
to society, such as public interest, public benefit, public
value, social acceptance and legitimacy, have a role in
describing the nuances of governance but do not capture
the binary nature of social license in terms of whether
support is provided or not.
Conservation advocates are particularly in need of so-
cial license when dealing with groups who have histori-
cally had little power, such as indigenous peoples. In the
past, mining companies extracted minerals indiscrimi-
nately. In the same way, conservation advocates could
persuade politicians to secure lands for nature regardless
of indigenous rights. That is no longer the case. Although
conservation advocates may be able to match the eco-
nomic power of extractive industries with moral suasion,
such arguments do not always work with indigenous
peoples. Instead, they are increasingly exercising their
right to grant social license when faced with conserva-
tion actions proposed for biodiversity hotspots on their
lands. And, conservation advocates cannot and should
not assume indigenous peoples share their world view
and aspirations for nature (Kohler & Brondizio 2017).
Although developing trusting relationships with the com-
munity to engender social acceptance may be a precursor
to gaining a social license, there are other means to do so,
such as market transactions and fees for service, that may
be more honest than proselytizing conservation under
the guise of partnership and collaboration. It is no more
or less honest than a mineral company buying the right
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Garnett et al. 3
to mine through granting of royalties or supporting local
football teams.
In the same way, we believe use of the term social
license to describe the relationship conservation advo-
cates are seeking to have with the broader polity is also
more honest than one that pretends to make conservation
socially acceptable to the whole community.
Literature Cited
Berkes F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:15188–
15193.
Buckley RC. 2016. Triage approaches send adverse political signals for
conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4:39.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2010. COP decision X/2.
Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. CBD, Montreal. Available
from http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id =12268 (accessed Jan-
uary 2018).
Dare M, Schirmer J, Vanclay F. 2014. Community engagement and so-
cial licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
32:188–197.
Ford RM, Williams KJH. 2016. How can social acceptability research in
Australian forests inform social licence to operate? Forestry 89:512–
524.
Gunningham N, Kagan RA, Thornton D. 2004. Social license and envi-
ronmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law
& Social Inquiry 29:307–341.
Garnett ST, Lawes MJ, James R, Bigland K, Zander KK. 2016. Portrayal
of sustainability principles in the mission statements and on home
pages of the world’s largest organizations. Conservation Biology
30:297–307.
Garnett ST, Zander KK, Hagerman S, Satterfield T, Meyerhoff J.
2017. Social preferences for adaptation measures to conserve
Australian birds threatened by climate change. Oryx 52:1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001058.
Hobday AJ, Chambers LE, Arnould JPY. 2015. Prioritizing climate
change adaptation options for iconic marine species. Biodiversity
and Conservation 24:3449–3468.
International Institute for Environment and Development. 2002. Min-
ing, minerals. Breaking new ground: the report of the Mining, Min-
erals and Sustainable Development Project. International Institute
for Environment and Development, London.
Kendal D, Ford RM. 2017. The role of social license in conservation.
Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12994. Q5
Kohler F, Brondizio ES. 2017. Considering the needs of indigenous and
local populations in conservation programs. Conservation Biology
31:245–251.
Latham ADM, Warburton B, Byrom AE, Pech RP. 2017. The ecology and
management of mammal invasions in forests. Biological Invasions
19:3121–3139.
Parsons R, Moffat K. 2014. Constructing the meaning of social licence.
Social Epistemology 28:340–363.
Pike R. 2012. Social license to operate. Research paper. Schroders,
London.
Robinson CJ, Renwick AR, May T, Gerrard E, Foley R, Battaglia M,
Possingham H, Griggs D, Walker D. 2016. Indigenous benefits and
carbon offset schemes: an Australian case-study. Environmental Sci-
ence and Policy 56:129–134.
Spies TA, Giesen TW, Swanson FJ, Franklin JF, Lach D, Johnson KN.
2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of
the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic
perspectives. Landscape Ecology 25:1185–1199.
United Nations (UN) Human Rights. 2015. Special rapporteur on
human rights and the environment. UN, New York. Available from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Pa
ges/SRenvironmentIndex.aspx (accessed January 2018).
Zander KK, Ainsworth G, Meyerhoff J, Garnett ST. 2014. Threatened
bird valuation in Australia. PLoS ONE 9:e100411. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0100411.
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2018
... Many definitions of SLO have since arisen, but one that encompasses the breadth of SLO comes from Moffat and Zhang, who describe it as "the ongoing acceptance and approval of a project by local community members and other stakeholders" (Moffat and Zhang, 2014). SLO is granted by communities (Boutilier et al., 2012;Garnett et al., 2018;Gunningham et al., 2004;Prno and Slocombe, 2012;Syn, 2014), however who makes up community and the influences on communities are often context specific. The extent to which communities can grant social license is related to the economic power that both communities and industry have, mediated by the states and governments, and under the influences of media and cultural norms (Dare et al., 2014;Gunningham et al., 2004;Prno and Slocombe, 2012). ...
... These components provide a good overview of the multitude of components that have been suggested to be part of SLO. Reputation, transparency and permission are posited as vital for SLO but these arguably form a part of the wider legitimacy of an industry (Garnett et al., 2018;Gehman et al., 2017;Rooney et al., 2014). Mutual understanding has also been suggested as an important part of SLO, but this is also an essential component in relationships with high levels of trust (Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006;Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2018). ...
The role of community and company identities in the social license to operate for fin-fish farming
Article
  • Mar 2022
  • AQUACULTURE
Scotland is currently one of the major aquaculture producers of salmon. However, alongside its rapid growth over the last two decades, advocacy and conservation groups have initiated petitions, campaigns, and legal challenges, resulting in a perception that Scottish fin-fish farming is having a crises of social acceptance. A qualitative, grounded, case study approach was taken to explore this issue in-depth, using the theoretical framework of social license to operate. The Isle of Lewis and Harris and the county of Argyll and Bute were chosen due to their shared maritime cultures, the prominence of fin-fish aquaculture, and cultural and socio-economic differences between them. Interviews with community members and stakeholders were thematically analysed and showed that perceptions of fin-fish farming are complex. Community identity, as well as industry identity are shown to play an important role in perceptions of the industry. This has impacts upon SLO for the fin-fish farming industry, and the actions that the industry takes to integrate with local communities. Further, this work adds to the expanding evidence base within SLO literature, that context is key, and should be a significant consideration in an industry’s corporate social strategy.
View
... With restoration becoming a primary means for managing marine ecosystem repair and function, the term 'social license' becomes increasingly relevant. For practitioners and governing bodies, social license can represent a form of permission from civil society for an activity to occur, which thereby empowers the state with the political confidence to pursue the activity (Garnett et al., 2018;Thomson and Boutilier, 2011). Restoration initiatives that achieve high levels of social license are supported by the community to the extent that they themselves become advocates and agents of the project. ...
View
... However, more radical suggestions involving interbreeding species and genome-editing technologies for conservation may cause some alarm in a large portion of the public if not communicated adequately, and thus require more caution. Finally, ethical support and social acceptability can change and erode over time (Garnett et al., 2018b). Monitoring of the social preferences may change over time, which monitoring it can help evaluate, thus supporting policy development that considers community views (Vanclay, 2017). ...
Measuring social preferences for conservation management in Australia
Article
  • Sep 2021
  • BIOL CONSERV
Conservation management is a rapidly evolving field in which scientific innovation and management practice can run ahead of social acceptability, leading to dispute and policy constraints. Here we use best-worst scaling (BWS) to explore the social preferences for two broad areas of threatened species management in Australia as well as support for extinction prevention as a whole. Of the 2430 respondents to an online survey among the Australian general public, 70% stated that extinction should be prevented regardless of the cost, a sentiment not fully reflected in existing policy and legislation. There was strong support for existing measures being taken to protect threatened species from feral animals, including explicit support for the killing of feral animals, but the demographic correlations with the results suggest approval is lower among women and younger respondents. There was a particularly high level of support for moving species to new places, which does not match current capabilities of managers responsible for assisted migration, suggesting messaging about the current limitations needs to be improved, or for resources to overcome them greatly increased. There was less support for genetic interventions than the feral animal control and other land management measures. A small majority of respondents thought it would be better for a species to cope without assistance than invasively alter their genome. This suggests that greater community consultation is desirable before applying genetic management approaches more interventionist than interbreeding subspecies.
View
... These patterns suggest that large carnivore hunting is vulnerable to erosion of SLH. In considering the mechanism, we specifically refer to an updated SLO model offered by Garnett et al. (2018), which invoked political processes. These authors argue SLO is granted when operators satisfy enough of the stakeholders' interests to convince governmental agencies that legislative conditions are met and that there is political gain, or at least no risk, in such granting of SLO. ...
Large carnivore hunting and the social license to hunt
Article
Full-text available
The social license to operate framework considers how society grants or withholds informal permission for resource extractors to exploit publicly owned resources. We developed a modified model, which we refer to as the social license to hunt (SLH). In it we similarly consider hunters as operators, given that wildlife are legally considered public resources in North America and Europe. We applied the SLH model to examine the controversial hunting of large carnivores, which are frequently killed for trophies. Killing for trophies is widespread, but undertaken by a minority of hunters, and can pose threats to the SLH for trophy‐seeking carnivore hunters and potentially beyond. Societal opposition to large carnivore hunting relates not only to conservation concerns but also to misalignment between killing for trophies and dominant public values and attitudes concerning the treatment of animals. We summarized cases related to the killing of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupus), and other large carnivores in Canada, the United States, and Europe to illustrate how opposition to large carnivore hunting, now expressed primarily on social media, can exert rapid and significant pressure on policy makers and politicians. Evidence of the potential for transformative change to wildlife management and conservation includes proposed and realized changes to legislation, business practice, and wildlife policy, including the banning of some large carnivore hunts. Given that policy is ultimately shaped by societal values and attitudes, research gaps include developing increased insight into public support of various hunting policies beyond that derived from monitoring of social media and public polling. Informed by increased evidence, the SLH model can provide a conceptual foundation for predicting the likelihood of transient versus enduring changes to wildlife conservation policy and practice for a wide variety of taxa and contexts.
View
Animal-based entertainment industries, animal death and Social Licence to Operate (SLO): an analysis of ‘The Final Race’ and the 2019 Melbourne Cup
Article
  • Mar 2022
Animal-based entertainment industries, predicated on asymmetrical human-animal relations, often operate legally but face growing opposition, focused particularly on animal death. In 2019, the documentary ‘The Final Race’ screened about two weeks before Australia’s most famous thoroughbred horse race, the Melbourne Cup, and exposed the secretive slaughter of unwanted racehorses in the ‘deep backstage’. This article highlights the importance of animals being made killable and what happens when animals supposedly being cared for are killed. Temporal and spatial boundary construction and movement are examined. Building on critical approaches to Social Licence to Operate (SLO), the article presents evidence that due mainly to animal death, social identification with horse racing is declining and social identification with resistance is rising, yet some pushback is occurring. This includes acknowledgement of past failings, presenting a united industry voice and slowly shifting boundaries to construct some horses as killable.
View
Análise de impactos da Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo sobre os serviços ecossistêmicos e os stakeholders
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2021
O trabalho propõe uma análise de impactos de áreas marinhas protegidas que integre a análise de stakeholders e a avaliação de impactos sobre os serviços ecossistêmicos, a fim de ampliar o aprendizado social na adoção de estratégias de gestão e engajamento, utilizando a Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo (ReBio) como estudo de caso. Esta protege um arquipélago localizado no litoral de Santa Catarina, entre Florianópolis e Bombinhas, contribuindo para manutenção da biodiversidade e produção pesqueira da região. A integração metodológica teve três etapas: Mapeamento e Análise dos Stakeholders, Identificação dos Serviços Ecossistêmicos, e Análise dos impactos da ReBio Arvoredo sobre os serviços ecossistêmicos. Foram encontradas 21 categorias de partes interessadas, distribuídas em todos os 8 grupamentos possíveis e possuindo características distintas de engajamento: poder, legitimidade e rede de relacionamento. Um total de 21 serviços ecossistêmicos marinhos foram identificados, sendo dois de provisão, oito de regulação e onze culturais. A análise dos impactos sobre os serviços ecossistêmicos e os stakeholders possibilitou verificar cinco impactos negativos e dezesseis impactos positivos decorrentes da implementação e manutenção da ReBio, todos os impactos se distribuem de maneira diferenciada e com intensidades variadas. A metodologia conseguiu enaltecer a interdependência das implicações sociais da gestão por meio do entendimento dos impactos sobre os serviços ecossistêmicos e os efeitos sobre os stakeholders categorizados, destacando os principais pontos a serem trabalhados no relacionamento da ReBio com seu entorno. Esta abordagem pode ser replicada em outras áreas protegidas e o conhecimento produzido pode ser usado para mudar crenças e entendimentos sobre o papel dos ecossistemas no bem-estar humano e, estrategicamente, ajudar os órgãos ambientais na articulação e comunicação de seus interesses em mitigar a distribuição de impactos negativos e a ampliação da repartição dos benefícios gerados pelas unidades de conservação brasileiras.
View
Análise de impactos da Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo sobre os serviços ecossistêmicos e os stakeholders
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2021
The research proposes an impact analysis of marine protected areas integrating a stakeholder analysis and ecosystem services impact assessment, in order to expand social learning and help the adoption of new management and engagement strategies, using the Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo (ReBio) as a case study. ReBio protects an archipelago located on the coast of Santa Catarina, between Florianópolis and Bombinhas, contributing to biodiversity maintenance and fisheries production in the region. The methodological integration had three stages: Stakeholders Mapping and Analysis, Ecosystem Services Identification and Impact Assessment on ecosystem services. Twenty-one stakeholders categories were found, distributed in all 8 possible groups with different engagement characteristics: power, legitimacy and relationship network. A total of twenty-one marine ecosystem services have been identified, two are provision, eight are regulation and eleven are cultural ecosystem services. The impact assessment on ecosystem services and stakeholders made it possible to verify five negative impacts and sixteen positive impacts, resulting from the creation and maintenance of ReBio activities, all impacts are differently distributed and have varying intensities. The method adopted was able to highlight the interdependence of the social implications of management decisions by understanding the impacts on ecosystem services and this effects on the stakeholders, this result highlights the main issues to be worked on future relationship between ReBio and its surroundings. This approach can be replicated in other protected areas and the knowledge produced can be used to change beliefs and understandings about the role of ecosystems in human well-being and, strategically, help environmental agencies in articulating and communicating their interests to mitigate the distribution of negative impacts and the enhancement of shared benefits generated by Brazilian conservation units.
View
Impact assessment of the Arvoredo Marine Biological Reserve on ecosystem services and its stakeholders
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Sep 2021
The research proposes an impact analysis of marine protected areas integrating a stakeholder analysis and ecosystem services impact assessment, in order to expand social learning and help the adoption of new management and engagement strategies, using the Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo (ReBio) as a case study. ReBio protects an archipelago located on the coast of Santa Catarina, between Florianópolis and Bombinhas, contributing to biodiversity maintenance and fisheries production in the region. The methodological integration had three stages: Stakeholders Mapping and Analysis, Ecosystem Services Identification and Impact Assessment on ecosystem services. Twenty-one stakeholders categories were found, distributed in all 8 possible groups with different engagement characteristics: power, legitimacy and relationship network. A total of twenty-one marine ecosystem services have been identified, two are provision, eight are regulation and eleven are cultural ecosystem services. The impact assessment on ecosystem services and stakeholders made it possible to verify five negative impacts and sixteen positive impacts, resulting from the creation and maintenance of ReBio activities, all impacts are differently distributed and have varying intensities. The method adopted was able to highlight the interdependence of the social implications of management decisions by understanding the impacts on ecosystem services and this effects on the stakeholders, this result highlights the main issues to be worked on future relationship between ReBio and its surroundings. This approach can be replicated in other protected areas and the knowledge produced can be used to change beliefs and understandings about the role of ecosystems in human well-being and, strategically, help environmental agencies in articulating and communicating their interests to mitigate the distribution of negative impacts and the enhancement of shared benefits generated by Brazilian conservation units.
View
MPI 18607 Project Report Building engagement and social licence: Unpacking Social Licence to Operate and partnerships -developing rubrics for guidance and assessment. Prepared for the Ministry for Primary Industries
Technical Report
Full-text available
  • Jul 2019
Efforts to develop and maintain both Social Licence to Operate (SLO) and engagement are often hampered by a lack of clarity around the different components that underpin these concepts, and a lack of tools to guide and evaluate progress in these areas. SLO is most often described in the literature as intangible and impermanent, subject to continual review and renewal by the different stakeholders involved. These very hard to define qualities also perpetuate the difficulty that agencies have in defining the concept and their efforts to develop and maintain it. Similar problems face the role of those charged with planning and evaluating engagement in a more collaborative biosecurity system. This report describes and develops rubrics as a tool for planning and assessing initiatives in SLO and engagement associated with systems change. Biosecurity 2025 emphasises the need for a ‘partnership’ between people, organisations, Māori, and central, local and regional government (Biosecurity New Zealand n.d.). We have focussed specifically on partnerships as a particular form of engagement involving two-way communication and shared responsibility. Our development of rubrics builds on both the experience of the research team and a review of international and national literature for strengthening activities that support engagement and SLO. This work also builds on, and links with, findings from the other research initiatives in this theme which look specifically at the New Zealand Myrtle Rust incursion response experience.
View
Social license to operate – the perspective of professionals from Brazilian extractive companies
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2019
Goal: Contribute to the academic literature on the theme social license to operate, of the perception and experience of professionals from Brazilian extractive companies involved in the process. Design / Methodology / Approach: In-depth interviews with professionals with great experience in community relations processes, evaluating their perception regarding social license to operate, especially with the companies they work. Results: Two products are presented: a) illustration with a conceptual analysis of the terms related to the social license process to operate; b) basic model of community relationship based on recommendations of the professionals to obtain and maintain the social license to operate and the literature visited. Limitations of the investigation: the survey heard 12 professionals with extensive experience in the extractive sector in Brazilian companies to understand how companies act and their perceptions regarding Social License to Operate (SLO). However, other important actors, such as communities, Nonprofit Organizations and community leaders were not heard throughout the research, and a corporate vision was presented throughout the article, but only against the literary review. Practical implications: It presents a consistent picture regarding the behavior of companies in relation to SLO. It allows a better understanding of the relationship of concepts and terms that overlap in company practice and proposes a community relationship management model. Originality / Value: The research brings an important contribution to the academic literature, when evaluating, from interviews with professionals in the extractive industry involved in the management of community relations, the way Brazilian extractive companies operate in this segment and the understanding with regard to SLO.
View
The role of social license in conservation
Article
Full-text available
Threatened species programs need a social license to justify public funding” (Zander et al. 2014). Or do they? There is growing acceptance within conservation science that community support for and engagement in ecosystem management programs is likely to lead to better conservation outcomes (Marvier & Wong 2012). However, the language used to characterize relations between conservation and the community is important, and use of the term social license may not always be a useful way to describe this relationship. Since the mid-1990s, the term social license has been widely used in the mining sector to describe implicit acceptance and approval of a mining operation by the community in which it operates (Lacey & Lamont 2014). Other industries such as forestry, aquaculture, and agriculture have begun using the term in a similar way (Edwards & Trafford 2016; Ford & Williams 2016; Moffat et al. 2016). Now social license is beginning to appear in conservation discourse (e.g., Garnett et al., 2015; Oakes et al., 2015). At the same time, the use of social license in other sectors has been criticized (e.g., Owen & Kemp, 2013) because it frames relationships with communities as more singular, binary, and tangible than is feasible or desirable (Parsons & Moffat 2014). The use of social license in conservation needs critical evaluation, particularly given the broad contextual differences between conservation and industries such as mining. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
View
The ecology and management of mammal invasions in forests
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2017
  • BIOL INVASIONS
Populations of invasive wild mammals have contributed significantly to the total unwanted impacts of biological invasions. They are known to impact forest ecosystems globally, but reviews summarizing this information are currently lacking. Here we (1) review the ecological characteristics of mammal invasions in forests; (2) characterize the range of ecological impacts on forest communities and the economic consequences of those impacts; (3) review what is known about interactions between the impacts of invasive mammals and other drivers of global change; and (4) consider the complex ecological and socio-economic challenges of simultaneously managing multiple invasive mammals and native biota affected by them. The unwanted impacts of invasive herbivores and predators are intensifying in many parts of the world and the need to manage their impacts to prevent further loss of indigenous biodiversity and damage to productive assets is greater than ever. However, management needs to be conducted within appropriate social, cultural, ethical, and animal welfare frameworks. Achieving effective management of populations of mammals invasive in forest ecosystems will require the filling of many knowledge gaps, including: better understanding their impacts; strategic options and tactical solutions for managing them; and achieving social licence to operate.
View
Social preferences for adaptation measures to conserve Australian birds threatened by climate change
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2018
Debate about climate change adaptation for biodiversity, and the ethics and consequences of assisted colonization in particular, has polarized professional opinion but the views of the wider community are unknown. We tested four hypotheses about the acceptability of adaptation strategies among a sample of the Australian general public using a combination of direct questions and a choice experiment. We found that (1) among the 80% who wanted extinction avoided, increased in situ management of wild populations was preferred to captive breeding or assisted colonization, (2) preferences for adaptation strategies were not explained by gender, income, education or knowledge about birds, (3) genetically distinctive taxa were not actively preferred, (4) > 60% of respondents were content for conservation managers to make decisions about strategies rather than local communities or the general public. The results provide Australian policy makers with a mandate to bolster efforts to retain existing populations but suggest that assisted colonization and captive breeding could be accepted if essential.
View
Considering the needs of indigenous and local populations in conservation programs
Article
Full-text available
Local rural and indigenous communities have assumed increasing responsibility to manage conservation units buffering zones of agro-industrial and extractive expansion in different parts of the world. Empowering local communities as central partners in conservation and climate change mitigation has allowed many of them to gain access to land rights and citizenship, but have provided limited improvements in access to social services and economic opportunities. In the meantime, expectations about their role as environmental stewards is growing. These expectations, however, often overlook a different reality on the ground. Focusing on Brazil, we suggest that public policies and conservation programs cannot be limited to delegating responsibility for managing protected areas to local and indigenous communities without considering local needs and expectations as separated from their attitude towards conservation. In other words, environmental behavior cannot be treated as "tradition" based on outside expectations. Framing local populations as traditional environmentalists creates contradictions and frustrations for local populations and for those implicated in conservation. Experiences from multiple field studies carried out in Brazil by the authors since the mid-1980s illustrate the discrepancies between conservation programs and local conditions and expectations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
View
Triage Approaches Send Adverse Political Signals for Conservation
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2016
Conservation can be analyzed as a political game between advocates and opponents, and games include signals. Triage approaches aim to trade off conservation gains and losses for different species, populations and sites, in an attempt to reduce aggregate net losses. These approaches send a political signal that some local or global species extinctions are socially acceptable. This permits conservation opponents to argue that any species may become extinct where convenient to development interests. Endorsement of triage by any one conservation advocate undermines the efforts and strategies of other conservation advocates. This increases expected aggregate net conservation losses.
View
View
Prioritizing climate change adaptation options for iconic marine species
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2015
  • BIODIVERS CONSERV
Adaptation options in response to climate impact scenarios for marine mammals and seabirds were developed based on the IPCC vulnerability framework. Under this framework, vulnerability to the physical effects of climate change can be reduced by adaptation options that reduce exposure of individuals, reduce the sensitivity of individuals, and increase the adaptive capacity of individual/species to cope with climate change. We evaluated options in each vulnerability category with three screening tools collectively forming an approach we term sequential adaptation prioritization for species. These tools were designed to evaluate (i) technical aspects (cost-benefit-risk, CBR), (ii) institutional barriers, and (iii) potential social acceptability. The CBR tool identified which adaptation options were high cost and low benefit, might be discarded, and which were high benefit and low cost, might be rapidly implemented (depending on risk). Low cost and low benefit options might not be pursued, while those that are high cost, but high benefit deserve further attention. Even with technical merit, adaptation options can fail because of institutional problems with implementation. The second evaluation tool, based on the conceptual framework on barriers to effective climate adaptation, identifies where barriers may exist, and leads to strategies for overcoming them. Finally, adaptation options may not be acceptable to society at large, or resisted by vocal opponents or groups. The social acceptability tool identifies potentially contested options, which may be useful to managers charged with implementing adaptation options. Social acceptability, as scored by experts, differed from acceptability scored by the public, indicating the need to involve the public in assessing this aspect. Scores from each tool for each scenario can be combined to rank the suite of adaptation options. This approach provides useful tools to assist conservation managers in selecting from a wide range of adaptation strategies; the methodology is also applicable to other conservation sectors.
View
How can social acceptability research in Australian forests inform social licence to operate?
Article
  • Sep 2016
For forest managers, 'social licence to operate' involves implicit acceptance and approval of practices by local communities and stakeholders. Based in social relations of trust rather than formal agreements, social licence overlaps with a psychological concept, 'social acceptability', which has been used in examining similar issues with a focus on understanding public perspectives on forest management. This paper draws on social acceptability research conducted in forested landscapes in Australia over the past two decades to explore how social acceptability can inform understanding of social licence. This body of work reveals the diversity of views among publics and local residents, the multiple factors underpinning social acceptability judgements (scenic beauty, trust, beliefs about impacts, normative beliefs, and - most centrally - social values), how social acceptance changes across time, and the complex task of influencing social acceptance. The findings confirm that social licence should be considered as multiple 'licences', as acceptance varies among a given group of people, and that establishing social licence depends not only on trust, but on changes in practice to mitigate both short-term and long-term negative consequences of forestry on valued outcomes. The main new insight for social licence from acceptability studies is that variations in social acceptance have a basis in social values. This evidence challenges a common focus on community engagement and impact assessment as strategies for achieving social licence; rather it suggests that forest managers must also consider how their fundamental management objectives align with the mix of values in society. While academic research into social licence is more nuanced, there is a risk that the metaphor of a social 'licence' that implies something tangible, enduring and singular may not provide the desired encouragement to managers to develop the deep understanding of public and community perspectives on their activities that is needed to achieve lasting social relationships.
View
Community engagement and social licence to operate
Article
  • Jul 2014
Achieving ‘a social licence to operate’ is important for organisations with long time horizons, high exposure to global markets and with a wide range of interested stakeholders. Community engagement is critical to achieve a social licence to operate, but its capacity to influence social licence is not well understood. Using case studies from forestry in New Brunswick, Canada and Tasmania, Australia, this article considers what social licence is, how community engagement plays a role in achieving social licence and how an alternative conceptualisation of social licence may improve the influence of community engagement in achieving a social licence to operate. Social licence is often conceived of as a single licence granted by a ‘community’. We argue that social licence is better conceptualised as a continuum of multiple licences achieved across various levels of society. Viewed in this way, we can consider what is needed to achieve social licences at given points along that continuum, and identify the strengths and weaknesses of specific engagement techniques in achieving particular social licences.
View
View