84 V. Schreer et al.


TABLE 1 Summary of the three examples of co-reflexivity presented in this paper. Primary data


Example 1 focuses on the labour conditions within projects & sheds light on the inner workings of organizations


Example 2 is an autoethnographic account of conservation science fieldwork that problematizes the disjuncture between conservation & local people


Example 3 showcases an ethnographic vignette from social science research about the discrepancies between project schedules & biological timelines


Professional observa- tions of conservation practitioners


Critical perspectives


Projects’ organizational structure and the bureaucratic demands of project reporting create hierarchies & ultimately alienate staff from their work & colleagues


Personal experiences of a conservation researcher


Ethnographic field- work of a social scien- tist with conservation practitioners


Not only communities can feel alienated from conservation pro- jects, but also conservationists can experience feelings of disconnection from their work environment


The project model alienates con- servation activities from more-than-human rhythms


Responses


(1) Restructure organizations; (2) Advocate for reforms of fund- ing priorities; (3) Support efforts for enhancing social justice (e.g. through conser- vation basic income or democratic landscape governance)


(1) Rethink personal priorities; (2) Reformulate project objectives &redesign the process for defining objectives; (3) Advocate for reforms of fund- ing priorities


(1) Realign project timelines with more-than-human temporalities; (2) Collaborative research on multi-species entanglements; (3) Advocate for reforms of fund- ing procedures


Projects cut complex realities into simplified, manage-


able problems removed from their particular contexts. This favours technical, depoliticized and often ad hoc solu- tions over more fundamental, systemic changes (Li, 2016). The short-term nature of projects also hinders long-term planning and makes it difficult for conservation practi- tioners to develop long-lasting, trusting relationships (Adams et al., 2016). Additionally, the pressure to deliver quick results hampers the prioritization of reflexivity (Staddon, 2021). Moreover, having a fixed list of activities prevents conservation projects from adapting to local real- ities (Sayer&Wells, 2004; Lyons, 2013). Finally, competition for funding incentivizes success narratives through visible and documentable outputs (Büscher, 2014; Krause, 2014). This encourages the manipulation of evaluations (Mosse, 2005; Wahlén, 2014; Freeman & Schuller, 2020), leads to missed opportunities to learn from failures (Catalano et al., 2019) and impedes the institutionalization of reflexivity. Several attempts have been made to overcome the


restrictions of project-based funding. Some funders and organizations work within theories of change to account for the long-term, complex and contested dynamics through which conservation outcomes are achieved (Rice et al., 2020). Adaptive management and integrated landscape approaches also seek to alter the fixed nature of inputs and outcomes through a more iterative approach (Williams, 2011;Sayer et al., 2013). Furthermore, donors and conservation organiza- tions have in recent years started to emphasize the cultivation of long-term funding networks and relationships (Sauls & López Illescas, 2023). Nevertheless, projects still remain the dominant basis for conservation funding. The literature on the project model rarely integrates the reflections and analyses of conservation professionals, with


some notable exceptions (Lyons, 2013;Wahlén, 2014). This could be because of methodological hurdles that social scientists face when engaging with conservation profes- sionals, such as the difficulty of gaining access to organiza- tions and the high levels of mobility of their staff (Kiik, 2019; Milne, 2022; Saif et al., 2023). However, conservation profes- sionals may find their methodological toolkits and profes- sional incentives are not conducive to a critical analysis of bureaucratic structures. We argue, however, that there is potential for social scientists and conservation professionals to reflect jointly on how the project model structures and limits conservation efforts and to formulate responses to overcome some of the challenges involved in this model, as the following examples of co-reflexivity illustrate.


Three co-critiques of the project model in conservation


Example 1: The alienation of project implementers


Rooted in beliefs about the intrinsic value of nature, many conservationists are at least partly driven by ideological rea- sons (Sandbrook et al., 2011), such as giving back to the nat- ural world or learning from Indigenous Peoples how to mend our relationship with nature. Despite their heteroge- neous values (Sandbrook et al., 2011; Palmer, 2020), conser- vationists often share a feeling that they have a moral responsibility to save nature. Such personal motivations benefit conservation efforts because they foster connections amongst staff. However, the reality of working in conserva- tion often feels removed from these motivations. A lot of energy goes into the production of project documents to


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 81–90 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000747


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140