Dear Eric, as a conglomerate group of concerned scientists and NGO members we have just successfully influenced the decision by the Cameroonian government to stop the American based Company Herakles Farms from clearing land in Southwest Cameroon for a 700 km² industrial oil palm plantation. We re-analysed data from the company's own EIA report and showed that the avifauna of the forest to be cleared was similar to primary forest in the region. We also instigated own large mammal surveys and are now able to document presence of key wildlife species such as forest elephant, chimpanzee and other large wildlife, concluding that the forest is of high conservation value. We submitted respective complaints to RSPO which led the company to leave RSPO and not seek certification. We also communicated via an open scientist letter and reported directly to the German government who invests in sustainable development in that region since several decades and seemingly also exerted pressure. Several other scientists, organised in NGOs, have pointed out the serious direct consequences for local livelihoods. However, all scientific input was largely dependent on the scientist's own commitment to get engaged (without their time having been covered) and counteract those consultants which were recruited by the company. I see the strong need for more scientific inquiry to be included in tropical land use planning at higher administrative levels, and in an independent manner. We need to work on that but there needs to be willingness at all levels and at least a basic funding.

Nothing to add for now, but I am also very interested in this. Following.

A very well known example in Mexico is the case of the land of an indigenous community in Central Mexico called Nuevo San Juan, where scientists of UNAM and other institutions have been working for many years positively influencing land use decisions and many other conservation issues. There are several publications about it, but I am attaching one of them.

Thanks Manuel. I read the abstract and this looks very relevant. I will read the rest of the paper today. As it dates back to 2001 though I would be interested to know if any follow up studies were conducted and published that demonstrated the long-term impact the scientific studies had had. Do such studies exist and did they indeed show change compared to some baseline?

Hi Erik. To be honest, I don't know if there are any follow up studies, but I will check and get back to you. Cheers

How about this one in Kenya? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138111000161

Also much work by William F Laurance might be good examples..

Thanks Sean, that indeed looks relevant. Our particular challenge is one of scale though. We are working at the level of all of Borneo (some 725,000 km2 across three countries). On the ground stakeholder consultation is part of our approach but obviously logistically challenging when there are over 20 million people to target. Our processes might need to be higher level, without forgetting the potential power of bottom-up change though. Are there are similar examples from larger parts of the Amazon or tropical Africa, where science has been used to effectively change perceptions about and implementation of land use?

Is it possible to ask a more important question here? I will follow this closely, as I am doing research that could in part be relevamt to conservation, but havs not been active at changing anything (yet!). I think this is true for many researchers. At least I believe that simply the pressence fo researcyhers in an area provide some source of information and protection. I usually cite Struhaker's report on this matter (see attached)

Here is the attachment.. (Previous message shot if unexepectedly, sorry for spelling problems)

Invasive species impact, control and management effectiveness science on tropical islands.

Hi, Erik! Here in Brazil we have the Program for Biodiversity Studies (PPBio). One of the program's targets is to improve studies on biodiversity in Brazil by integrating large scale studies and using standardized protocols. The ppbio website is in Portuguese but the English version is under construction (www.ppbio.inpa.gov.br). It's a very interesting program! On this site you can find all the information about the program (articles, guides, trainning, database etc...). I am attaching a publication that can help.

Good point Konstans. I guess the issue goes back to the complexity of conservation (also see comments under this question; https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_important_concept_an_undergraduate_student_of_Conservation_Biology_can_learn?ev=tp_feed_post_xview). Conservation success is only for a small part determined by environmental or ecological knowledge, and to a much greater extent by an understanding of how we can influence human processes (politics, economics, psychology etc.).

Erik: Though this is not my area of expertise, we have a new faculty member, Taal Levi who has been involved with research in the Amazon basin. He provided 2 references, and would be happy to direct you towards others, depending on the nature of your questions...

Those citations are: Ohl et al 2007 is more a presentation of empirical data, and Levi et al. 2009 is more of a combination of models and data.

Looks like you've generated a lot of interest, so these may be redundant for you.

Thanks Judith, I had a look at Levi et al., which turned out to be very relevant for another study we are involved in on illegal killing and hunting of orangutans, but which still does not get to the heart of my question about science having a tangible impact on land use in large tropical landscapes. From what I understand, land use optimization science was effectively used in the Wet Tropics of Queensland to convince key decision-makers that it made more economic sense to protect those forest areas rather than log or convert them. But that's Australia, which has a massive tourism industry, and possibly a relatively supportive public that understands non-use forest values (but correct me if I am wrong there). Are there any similar examples from Central and South America, or tropical and subtropical Africa and Asia?

Hi Erik

In the north of the Congo Republic, the wildlife surveys done by Fay et al (gorillas, elephants) resulted in the creation of the Nouabale Ndoki National Park in 1993

Fay, J., Agnagna, M., 1992. Census of gorillas in northern Republic of Congo. American Journal of Primatology 27, 275-284.

Fay, J.M., Agnagna, M., 1991. A population survey of forest elephants Loxodonta africana cyclotis in northern Congo. African Journal of Ecology 29, 177-187.

Again in Congo, WCS did an assessment of the logging concessions east of the Odzala National Park in the Republic of Congo. As a consequence, a new National Park was created (Ntokou-Pikounda) - just last year- due to high gorilla density:

WCS, 2009. Large mammal abundance and distribution in the southern sector of Odzala and in the UFAs Ngombe and Pikounda, p. 12. WCS Congo.

In Cameroon, a new National Park (Deng Deng) was recently created due to high gorilla density discovered during surveys of the area. The Park creation, its limits, and a corridor connecting it to the nearby logging concessuion that also has high gorilla density were a direct result of the surveys:

Maisels, F., Ambahe, R., Ambassa, R., Fosso, B., Puomegne, J.-B., Fotso, R., 2011. Gorilla Population in Deng Deng National Park and a Logging Concession. Gorilla Journal 42, 18-19.

Maisels, F., Ambahe, R., Fosso, B., Puomegne, J.-B., Fotso, R., 2010. Wildlife and human impact surveys of the Deng Deng National Park and UFA 10065, p. 35. WCS.

Maisels, F., Warren, Y., Ambahe, R., Fotso, R., 2009. Summary of the wildlife and human impact surveys of the Deng Deng area, 2008, p. 25. WCS.

Warren, Y., Ambahe, R., 2009. Guided Recce Survey of Great Apes of the area north of the Deng Deng sanctuary, p. 19. WCS, Yaounde, Cameroon.

There are quite a few more examples but these will do for starters

Cheers

Boo

Hi Erik,

Sorry for the abscence and the long time it took me to get back to you about the Nuevo San Juan example on science & conservation. I did a literature search and it seems that most of the work in this indigenous community was done during the 80s & 90s up to 2003 (the most recent paper). So basicaly, it seems that there is no follow up to this case. However, I still believe that it is one of the best examples in Latin America of scientists positively influencing conservation decisions in indigenous land. All the best for your Borneo project! Cheers.

Hi Erik

You probably know a bit about our MLA work in Kalimantan. Our guiding principle was that changing practices in a (young) democracy requires to inform people about the issues and ensure that they gain attention ... science fed into this process as one key ingredient. We have a lot of publications (see http://www.cifor.org/mla/_ref/publications/journal.htm for many free downloads). The main point being that conservation does not simply reflect foreign pressures -- but can conservation planning can reflect the need and wish from local stakeholders. These needs concerns exist! One example paper is attached.

Did it change outcomes ... I believe it did, but hard to disentangle the role of the many "pro-forest" voices and the economic pressures in the region (what would have happened otherwise?) .

See also our video "Our forests our prosperity: exploring local views on the future of tropical rain forests" at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVIsN5-C1AA,

At a larger scale the work by Chris Barr and others a few years ago looking at pulp and fibre sourcing in the region had a major impact on international business investment practices and reining in the cowboys who were pulping Sumatra's forests in particular.. Companies have really tried to "be green" since then ... they have some way to go, but they DO care..

I am interested to see what else you come up with.

Best wishes

Douglas

Article Finding and promoting a local conservation consensus in a gl...

In hindsight and in response to my own question from a few years ago I can now say that we have influenced policy on Borneo, but maybe not quite like we expected. It is very hard to change political thinking directly with science, because few politicians ever read the science and if they did they probably wouldn't take the time to really understand it. Our way of communicating in peer-reviewed journals is not a good way to communicate with policy-makers. So, we need to communicate better. This is where in Borneo Futures we have been successful on at least two occasions when our communications in popular media was followed by a clear change in political thinking and announcement of new policies (in 2015 during Indonesia's major fires and in 2017 with the cancelled development of the Sungai Putri peat swamp and its 1500 orangutans). I think we were successful because we are credible as scientists, and because of that credibility our communications in newspaper were influential So conservation science can lead to change but in a more indirect way than many of us would have expected.