Search

Georgina Mace introduced a compelling perspective on the major shifts in conservation science's framing and purpose from 1960 to 2010. A decade ago, she proposed that the conservation community had begun to move into a new framing of 'people and nature' based on changes in perspectives on the relationships between people and nature and new interdisciplinary concepts and methods used in conservation. Progress in using this frame is clear as 'two-way dynamic relationships between people and nature' have since taken centre stage in science, practice and policy. Now, responding to concerns raised that current approaches to conservation are still not meeting the scale and complexity of the challenges of the Anthropocene, we explore a newly emerging framing of 'people with nature'—an inextricably intertwined perspective on people–nature relationships. This framing builds on Mace's recognition of interconnections and change, as well as new directions offered by conservation's recent transdisciplinary engagements, to go beyond the notion of two-way flows connecting people and nature to emphasize the relationships and inseparability of 'people with nature'. This emerging framing suggests new directions for conservation science and practice to make visible, improve and reimagine degraded people–nature relationships needed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to present the third position statement from the International Learning Collaborative (ILC). The ILC is the foremost global organization dedicated to transforming fundamental care. Internationally, fundamental care is reported to be poorly delivered, delayed or missed, negatively impacting patients, their families/carers and healthcare staff and systems. Overcoming this global challenge requires profound transformation in how our healthcare systems value, deliver and evaluate fundamental care. This transformation will take both evolutionary and revolutionary guises. In this position statement, we argue how this [r]evolutionary transformation for fundamental care can and must be created within clinical practice. Design: Position paper. Methods: This position statement stems from the ILC's annual conference and Leadership Program held in Portland, Maine, USA, in June 2023. The statement draws on the discussions between participants and the authors' subsequent reflections and synthesis of these discussions and ideas. The conference and Leadership Program involved participants (n = 209) from 13 countries working primarily within clinical practice. Results: The statement focuses on what must occur to transform how fundamental care is valued, prioritized and delivered within clinical practice settings globally. To ensure demonstrable change, the statement comprises four action‐oriented strategies that must be systematically owned by healthcare staff and leaders and embedded in our healthcare organizations and systems: Address non‐nursing tasks: reclaim and protect time to provide high‐value fundamental care.Accentuate the positive: change from deficit‐based to affirmative language when describing fundamental care.Access evidence and assess impact: demonstrate transformation in fundamental care by generating relevant indicators and impact measures and rigorously synthesizing existing research.Advocate for interprofessional collaboration: support high‐quality, transdisciplinary fundamental care delivery via strong nursing leadership. Conclusion: The ILC Maine Statement calls for ongoing action – [r]evolution – from healthcare leaders and staff within clinical practice to prioritize fundamental care throughout healthcare systems globally. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: We outline four action‐oriented strategies that can be embedded within clinical practice to substantially transform how fundamental care is delivered.Specific actions to support these strategies are outlined, providing healthcare leaders and staff a road map to continue the transformation of fundamental care within our healthcare systems. Impact: Fundamental care affects everyone across their life course, regardless of care context, clinical condition, age and/or the presence of disability.This position statement represents a call to action to healthcare leaders and staff working specifically in clinical practice, urging them to take up the leadership challenge of transforming how fundamental care is delivered and experience globally. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, service users and caregivers were involved in the ILC annual conference, thus contributing to the discussions that shaped this position statement. What Does this Paper Contribute to the Wider Global Clinical Community?: The strategies and actions outlined in this position statement are relevant to all clinical settings globally, providing practical strategies and actions that can be employed to enhance fundamental care for all patients and their families/carers.By outlining the importance of both evolutionary and revolutionary change, we identify ways in which healthcare systems globally can begin making the necessary steps towards radical fundamental care transformation, regardless of where they are in the change journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science–policy interfaces (SPI), such as IPCC and IPBES, are key mechanisms by which scientists can contribute to policy making to tackle socio-environmental problems. To capture recent and ongoing developments, we examine the evolution of global and European SPI landscapes in the biodiversity domain grounding a novel concept of "transformative science–policy interfacing", which is a collective effort to enable fundamental societal change by enhancing connectivity between co-production of knowledge and policy implementation. We consider that transformative science–policy interfacing is not in conflict with, but rather extends the currently prevailing co-production paradigm into directions that rethink the relationships between science, SPI, and policy. It shifts the balance of knowledge co-production from "making sense together" towards "enabling transformative change". It employs the Science & Technology Studies concept of "co-production of science and social order" by focusing on orchestration of the science–policy interface landscape with a normative agenda leaning towards transformative change. Based on the overview of the evolution of SPI landscape in global and European biodiversity domains, we identify and discuss eight key directions for transformative science–policy interfacing. Further work will be needed to test whether the development towards transformative science–policy interfacing can be observed also in domains beyond environmental topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]