Carl, thanks for the urgent question! But this is a common situation - the gap between theory and practice. Of course, it takes more time to better understand the current environmental events, and there is little time for making decisions. A very good example is Edmondson (W. T. Edmondson. "The Uses Of Ecology". Not immediately, but it was established and the situation was restored). Solution of the issue through a general increase in the general level of education (and practitioners and officials). But, in my opinion, the gap between practice and theory (science) will always be.

Nikolay

My professional life over the decades is an alternation between practitioner, from apprentice, over private consultant to high level civil servant (P5 UN; National Chief Environmental Officer ) and academic researcher (three universities). Successes (e.g. heath-land management; unpublished) and failures (e.g. invasive alien control efficacy; partly published) in the interface of (applied) research and nature conservation have been experienced. From that perspective, I broadly agree with the issues raised in the opening statement of this Q&A and would enjoy working up various cases for a better understanding. An additional issue is the well-known (particularly in the medical sciences) publication bias. 'Negative' results are more difficult to pass the peers. Try to get a manuscript published on a protection area or or protection measure that proves to be ineffective or counterproductive in achieving its stated goals.  

The opening statements on 'local expert knowledge' and international or local 'pressure groups' are always linked in my experience. An external researcher may be well advised to work (and publish) together with staff of the protection agent (e.g. my Majella publications) to identify and consider the underlying conflicts of interest, particularly on land ownership and use right (e.g. deforestation in Bolivia) and consequently who benefits and/or who bears the costs of the interventions.

As a practitioner and manager, I had and used always access to 'results in peer-reviewed journals', but found these generally of very limited practical value. In case of lacking time, inherent in EIA/SEA, a budget for consultants to carry out the background literature research has often been available. However, recruiting a consultant or academic able and willing to deliver timely and relevantly often failed. Mostly, I found academic experts over-specialized for any practical purpose. Even once recruitment is successful, the product is in many cases below standard for various reasons (e.g. my article on SEA).

Dear Nikolay and Hein! (and hopefully others)

What strikes me first is the fact that both of you (like myself) have extensive experience in both Research and Pracitice.

I am waiting for more comments and ideas. Hopefully, this will lead us towards a comprehensive work / product / Statement etc. that highlights this issue and stimulates the development of Coping (Linking) Strategies because we obviously need them.

best

Carl

Dear all

Some suggestions and caveats from our team:

Article How to build science-action partnerships for local land-use ...

Much of this question boils down to what implicit theory of change is held by the science-policy practitioners, and I think we would more effectively answer it if those ideas were explicit.

The use of the word 'enforce' is highly suggestive of the traditional relationship between the 'state' (which stands in for 'policy') and 'conservation.' What I find fascinating, in particular for freshwater anadromous fishes, is that many countries have had strong 'science based' (which were also common sense) regulations/rules as to fishing, habitat loss, building infrastructure etc... for hundreds if not thousands of years but during industrialization these rules were rarely enforced/honored due to the relative political and economic strength of the actors involved, who not coincidentally, were supported by other agencies of the state in their transformations of landscapes.

Academically, these power-knowledge-management relationships have long been studied by folks in Geography and STS. I would argue that there is a broader turn and awareness occurring within 'Conservation Science' of realizing that the question of what knowledge counts for shaping different types of landscape/ecosystem change is inherently a social and political question. So, we have plenty of theory and methods for examining why different types of knowledge are adopted into different policy arenas, but not necessarily within conservation science.

The bigger issue, which folks hint at so far, is what are the most effective ways of addressing the drivers of conservation need (biodiversity and habitat loss and degradation), which means explicitly transforming institutions, society, and complex sets of infrastructures.

This question can also be investigated empirically, but we require a shift in thinking of conservation that examines the systemic connections between different institutions, social actors, and technologies transforming landscapes.

I pose that the most powerful investigations will realize that they are in fact politically and socially situated within the broader social field creating the need for conservation, and the outcome of their work will be determined by their capacity to stimulate new forms of social organization.

Scientists, like most humans, typically rely on discourse to achieve cognitive and organizational change in other humans. 'Scientific facts' are seen as very powerful objects within discourse, as they imply truth. However, as scientists our way of speaking/writing is generally very biased towards the implicit value systems and causal frameworks of our disciplines, making communication with other social actors not only difficult, but often counterproductive. Building relationships with decision makers at various scales is increasingly seen as the solution to these communication barriers. However, if these unequal social systems themselves are producing the situations generating the need for conservation, simply embedding ourselves as discursive/communicative actors more deeply within them is unlikely to lead to necessary change.

To prevent co-option by powerful actors, conservationists need to align their agendas and material practices with non-state actors and participate in transformative politics across social levels and spatial scales.