Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation

What is the role of scientists in meeting the environmental challenges of the twenty-first century?

We live at a time of rapid and accelerating biodiversity loss and climate change that pose an existential risk to the environment, humanity, and social justice and stability. Governmental responses are seen by many citizens, including scientists, as inadequate, leading to an increase in civil protests and activism by those calling for urgent action to effect change. Here we consider the role(s) of scientists in responding to those challenges and engaging with policy given that when a scientist moves into political advocacy, reflecting their values and preferences, their objectivity and the value of scientific opinion may be seen as compromised. We then consider whether institutional setting and career stage may affect decisions to engage with policy or activism. Against this backcloth, we ask whether it is sufficient for scientists to act as impartial 'brokers' in societal decisions, arguing they should consider acting as 'Honest Advocates' in policy formation in some circumstances. Such advocacy can contribute to decision-making in a purposeful, well-informed manner, doing societal good without damaging the reputation of science. We encourage scientists to each reflect on their multiple roles in addressing the environmental challenges of our time.

Collaboration and engagement with decision-makers are needed to reduce evidence complacency in wildlife management

There exists an extensive, diverse, and robust evidence base to support complex decisions that address the planetary biodiversity crisis. However, it is generally not sought or used by environmental decision-makers, who instead draw on intuition, experience, or opinion to inform important decisions. Thus, there is a need to examine evidence exchange processes in wildlife management to understand the multiple inputs to decisions. Here, we adopt a novel approach, fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM), to examine perceptions of individuals from Indigenous and Western governments on the reliability of evidence which may influence freshwater fisheries management decisions in British Columbia, Canada. We facilitated four FCM workshops participants representing Indigenous or Western regulatory/governance groups of fisheries managers. Our results show that flows of evidence to decision-makers occur within a relatively closed governance network, constrained to the few well-connected decision-making organizations (i.e., wildlife management agencies) and their close partners. This implies that increased collaboration (i.e., knowledge co-production) and engagement (i.e., knowledge brokerage) with wildlife managers and decision-makers are needed to produce actionable evidence and increase evidence exchange.

Effectiveness of physical barriers in mitigating human–elephant negative interactions in North-East India

Physical barriers, like solar fences, elephant-proof trenches, stone, or rubble walls, are installed as conflict mitigation interventions in India’s major Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) ranges. However, installations lacking a priori scientific assessment of site specificity for reducing elephant incursion in the human settlements often fail in the intended goals of the resource-intensive management interventions. Since humans are central to conflict issues, research focusing on social aspects is essential for devising solutions. Despite the use of barriers in the Golaghat district in Assam, human–elephant conflict (HEC) cases are increasing, which offers an opportunity to evaluate their efficacy. Optimized hotspot analysis of the historic HEC records from 2010 to 2019 was done to check the spatial extent of the conflict and its dispersion in the district. We also assessed the efficiency of a 4.2-km long solar fence and a 2-km long elephant-proof trench through generalized linear modeling. We evaluated the encounter rates of elephant signs and other site covariates at the barrier and non-barrier sites. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to assess the perception of local people on the barriers and overall HEC in their areas based on their willingness to pay (WTP) for maintenance of the barriers. The highest cases occurred between 2016 and 2017, making up 25% of the total conflict cases. It was noticed that the extent of these hotspots was concentrated, and there was no dispersion of the conflict to other areas. Furthermore, a significant difference in the encounter rates of elephant signs between barriers and no barrier sites was observed. Solar fenced areas showed relatively lower encounter rates than areas with the trench, suggesting better efficiency of solar fencing than trench in the landscape. In addition, only five out of seven explanatory variables, viz., the persistence of HEC cases, amount of ex-gratia compensation, time taken in getting compensation, change in elephant behavior (incursion), and crop-raiding frequency significantly explained people’s perception of the barrier and non-barrier sites. According to local people, physical barriers are essential in managing HEC; hence, installing and maintaining solar fences in the high conflict hotspots is crucial for this landscape.

Fostering Policy Change in Anti-Poverty Schemes in Italy: Still a Long Way to Go

This article explores the poverty phenomenon and anti-poverty policies in Italy, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to contribute to the mainstream literature on policy change, looking at how the convergence of multiple streams (problem, policy, and political) contributed to achieving the adoption of the Italian Minimum Income scheme, the Citizenship Income. Despite increasing political and public awareness of poverty, the 2022 Budget Law failed to achieve a structural reform—considering amendments proposed by the Ministry of Social Policy’s Commission and the Italian Anti-Poverty Network—to improve both the equity and efficiency of the anti-poverty measure. Strong path dependency in the conceptualization and implementation of the anti-poverty tool is still evident; policy change thus has a long way to go.

Country Representatives’ Perceptions of the Biodiversity Science-Policy Interface

Biodiversity knowledge is communicated by scientists to policymakers at the biodiversity “science-policy interface” (SPI). Although the biodiversity SPI is the subject of a growing body of literature, gaps in our understanding include the efficacy of mechanisms to bridge the interface, the quality of information exchanged between science and policy, and the inclusivity of stakeholders involved. To improve this understanding, we surveyed an important but under-studied group—biodiversity policymakers and scientific advisors representing their respective countries in negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We found that a wide variety of SPI mechanisms were being used. Overall, they were considered to be sufficiently effective, improving over time, and supplied with information of adequate quality. Most respondents, however, agreed that key actors were still missing from the biodiversity SPI.

Facilitating Change for Climate-Smart Agriculture through Science-Policy Engagement

Climate change impacts on agriculture have become evident, and threaten the achievement of global food security. On the other hand, the agricultural sector itself is a cause of climate change, and if actions are not taken, the sector might impede the achievement of global climate goals. Science-policy engagement efforts are crucial to ensure that scientific findings from agricultural research for development inform actions of governments, private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international development partners, accelerating progress toward global goals. However, knowledge gaps on what works limit progress. In this paper, we analyzed 34 case studies of science-policy engagement efforts, drawn from six years of agricultural research for development efforts around climate-smart agriculture by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Based on lessons derived from these case studies, we critically assessed and refined the program theory of the CCAFS program, leading to a revised and improved program theory for science-policy engagement for agriculture research for development under climate change. This program theory offers a pragmatic pathway to enhance credibility, salience and legitimacy of research, which relies on engagement (participatory and demand-driven research processes), evidence (building scientific credibility while adopting an opportunistic and flexible approach) and outreach (effective communication and capacity building).