Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study

context of the Natura 2000 governance network [66], indicating that our findings may not be unique to PC biodiversity conservation network. Effective biodiversity conservation requires information exchange between diverse stakeholder categories [37, 42], which awards greater stakeholder ownership to conservation outcomes and ensures equal spreading of the costs and risks of conservation actions [67]. Therefore, more interaction between NGOs and other stake- holders will likely benefit conservation of PC biodiversity. Conservation implications of the Romanian vs. Ukrainian networks According to network theory [35, 41, 54] the observed landscape of stakeholder interactions in Romania is structurally suboptimal–it is decentralized, has few and unreciprocated ties, and few structurally well positioned stakeholder organizations which lack incentives to utilize their favorable positions to initiate PC biodiversity related actions (Fig 2 and Tables 2 and 3). Decentralized networks are suitable for long-term environmental planning and complex prob- lem solving, as a result of stakeholders across multiple disciplines contributing to the solution of a problem [35]. A centralized network with one or few very central stakeholders, however, usually is more effective in the initial phase of the conservation process when resources need mobilization and the central coordination of joint actions is required [35, 43]. While social and political setting in Romania and Ukraine to deal with biodiversity conservation issues are

different, in terms of PC biodiversity conservation it can be argued that the two countries are in a similar, initial phase. In both countries PC biodiversity is recognized to be threatened and partly included in legal documents [e.g. see 68–70], but is not yet included in conservation planning processes and implementation as it is absent from collaboration relations between relevant stakeholders in both countries (Fig 3 and Tables 4 and S1). If supplied with knowledge on PC biodiversity and the right incentives, in the initial phase of conservation a well-con- nected, centralized network in Ukraine is better placed to translate knowledge into effective conservation actions [17] through engaging the central, powerful stakeholders [35, 43]. The Romanian network on the other hand in its current stage is less suited to facilitate improve- ments as it is decentralized with marginal involvement of governance actors and NGOs (Tables 2 and 4). Besides the lack of knowledge on PC biodiversity and the incentives to initiate conservation actions, the stakeholder networks in both countries are challenged by the additional social var- iables, most notably the limited available funding for biodiversity conservation (S2 Table). In Romania collaboration stopped when the funding period was finished and projects were con- cluded. In Ukraine, organizations continued to collaborate and exchange information beyond the duration of projects [17]. Romanian stakeholders were involved in many more projects than Ukrainian stakeholders (Fig 3 and S1 Table), and many of these projects were EU funded

[62]. Yet, the Romanian network was less dense than the Ukrainian one due to the difficulty of implementing EU projects, which prevented organizations awarded an EU project to partici- pate in other projects [62], resulting in a low network density (Fig 2 and Table 2). Similarly, the authoritative state governance system was more consequential for PC biodiversity conser- vation in Romania (S2 Table; theme ‘political constraints’) than in Ukraine [17], resulting in lack of collaboration between governance actors and other stakeholder categories in Romania (Tables 2 and 4). Contrary to our findings, it was suggested that the accession to the EU has played a major role in transposing the environmental governance and biodiversity conserva- tion practices towards more collaborative, inclusive system in Romania [16]. However, chal- lenges remain, which are suggested to be caused by lack of previous experience with the participatory conservation practices [16]. Consequently, improvements can be expected in Romania as the collaborative system of conservation matures. Importantly, while in Ukraine PLOS ONE Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833 October 23, 2020 14 / 20