Constructive conflict for biodiversity

In this paper we claim that to increase biodiversity we need constructive conflict. Even though biodiversity loss is related to many debilitating conflicts, conflict is also a positive factor in realising changes in human behaviour that leads to biodiversity improvement. Starting from the idea that conflict is inevitable, this paper deals with the question of how we can use conflict in a constructive way in order to support social learning, trust-building and finding integrative solutions in the context of biodiversity restoration. As nature conservation and restoration policies typically follow socio-ecologically defined boundaries of landscapes, people with different stakes and perceptions are confronted with each other which often leads to conflicts. The challenge is how to deal with these conflicts. For this reason, we explore the concept of constructive conflict to develop an analytical framework for interaction processes around biodiversity restoration. Here we place constructive conflict in between hot and cold conflict. Hot conflicts are interaction processes in which people try to convince or coerce their perspective over others, whereas in cold conflict differences are suppressed and not made explicit. In contrast, in a constructive conflict parties not only express their views, but also listen to those of others, are willing to reframe their views during a conflict, and are wary not to take a decision before new insights on the problem or its solution have emerged. Dealing with conflict in a constructive way requires balancing several dynamic tensions. For example, you need sufficient diversity in order to support learning process. There should be a balance in the level of diversity so different perspectives are expressed but people still understand each other. In this paper we describe and illustrate several of these balancing acts by drawing on the literature of conflict studies, governance & planning, interdisciplinary cooperation and organization & management studies and our empirical research in the field of biodiversity restoration. To conclude, we reflect on the possibilities and limits of these balancing acts for constructive conflict, while taking into account existing power structures and the broader institutional setting in which nature conservation and restoration processes take place.