Search

Mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society is recognised by international policy as critical to achieving positive conservation outcomes. With ‘participatory governance’ increasingly being applied to achieve collective action in conservation, there are growing calls to critically review such processes to capture their complexity and manage for emergent outcomes. This paper critically reviews a case study, aiming to give a broad range of stakeholders a voice in setting biodiversity priorities for New Zealand's agricultural landscape, in relation to four principles for knowledge co‐production in sustainability: context‐based, pluralistic, goal‐orientated and interactive. Aiming to facilitate an inclusive but rapid participation process, while not overburdening those willing to participate, three pathways for engagement were offered. Stakeholder participants were recruited from public, private and civic sectors involved in managing New Zealand's farmland biodiversity. An initial scoping exercise helped elevate biodiversity groups and management actions distinct to New Zealand's social and environmental context. Online surveys then gave stakeholders, from a diverse range of roles and sectors, a nationwide voice to express their own biodiversity interests and needs; these were reviewed by an advisor panel to reach consensus on final priorities that reflected the biodiversity outcomes that matter most to stakeholders involved in managing New Zealand's agricultural landscape and the management practices they considered most relevant to achieving those outcomes. This knowledge co‐production process delivered multiple gains that would not have been achieved had a more traditional science‐based process been applied, such as wide stakeholder engagement, identification of a tangible starting point, mitigation of bias or conflict risks, enhanced researcher and practitioner capabilities and a shared understanding of the opportunities and challenges for future development. Institutes addressing conservation challenges within local contexts need to: be ‘boundary‐spanning’ to manage cross‐scale influences and enable desired conservation behaviours; plan explicitly for the substantial effort required to overcome existing power hierarchies and facilitate transparent and structured decision processes that deliver social justice; better capture the relational values of nature to more successfully leverage peoples’ connection to nature in conservation policies and practices; and incorporate wider environmental (e.g. biosecurity), social, economic and political considerations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Using biodiversity management within New Zealand's agricultural landscape as a case study, we apply ‘boundary science’ approaches to overcome two persistent deficiencies in environmental decision‐making: ‘evidence disparity’, the discrepancy between evidence desired and evidence generated, and ‘evidence complacency’, where evidence is not sought or used, or is out of date, incomplete or biased. Specifically, we assess how recent innovations in gathering, evaluating and communicating of evidence syntheses can: give local stakeholders from a diversity of roles and interests a voice in setting biodiversity priorities, systematically tailor global evidence to meet local needs and make wise use of local biodiversity specialists to enhance the accuracy and reliability of their judgements. Initial case study material comprised comprehensive lists of 18 biodiversity outcome groups and 84 management actions of potential value to New Zealand farms. Of the 40 management actions that mattered most to stakeholders, 90% of actions required editing in preparation for the expert assessments. The final list of priorities encompassed 43 management actions and 11 biodiversity groups. New Zealand evidence gaps were detected for the two actions and 10 biodiversity groups assessed, with half of these gaps plugged using global studies. Six experts then systematically evaluated this evidence to tailor its interpretation to the local context, mitigating the risks of using different evidence subsets and evaluation criteria. The effectiveness of each action in delivering biodiversity benefits was also assessed by a panel of 10 experts using their specialist judgement to mitigate the risks of: (a) a skewed assessment derived from one or two experts; (b) overwhelming panellists with a long list of issues to debate; and (c) conflicts arising from misunderstandings about action outcomes. The stakeholder priorities delivered useful insights, which could be used to direct and facilitate inclusive policy investments beyond our project. Auditing local studies using existing evidence synopses is recommended to help improve local conservation evidence bases. Our study highlights the crucial role that a boundary‐spanning team can play in gathering, organising, summarising and integrating datasets to address evidence disparity and complacency issues affecting local biodiversity management decisions required by global policy. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high-level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi-dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio-economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land-use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular. © 2021 The Authors. Restoration Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Ecological Restoration. We are particularly thankful to experts participating in the Delphi process for their generosity in sharing their time and knowledge, and the European Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SERE), Réseau d'Échanges et de Valorisation en Écologie de la Restauration (REVER), Finnish Board on Ecological Restoration (FBER), Working Group on Ecological Restoration of the Spanish Association for Terrestrial Ecology (ER-AEET), Dutch Knowledge Network for Restoration and Management of Nature (OBN), German Restoration Network (GRN), UK Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), Portuguese Network of Ecological Restoration (RPRE), Iberian Center for River Restoration (CIREF), and European Federation of Soil Bioengineering (EFIB) for suggesting candidates to the consulting process. We appreciate the support given by BiodivERsA (project funded under the EU Horizon 2020 ERA-NET COFUND scheme), and the EKLIPSE project (European Union Horizon 2020 grant agreement 690474), and particularly by Juliette C. Young. JCS research is financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Universities and European Regional Development Funds (FEDER; project COSTERA, RTI2018-095954-B-I00). PMRG research is funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through FCT Investigator Program grant number IF/00059/2015, and Centro de Estudos Florestais is supported by FCT grants UID/AGR/00239/2019 and UIDB/00239/2020.

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area-based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country-level legislation, we found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. We argue for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. We also argue for maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and performed a literature review that shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Oddi, Facundo José. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Miguez, Fernando E.. University of Iowa; Estados Unidos Fil: Bartomeus, Ignasi. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Sevilla; España Fil: Orr, Michael C.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China Fil: Jobbagy Gampel, Esteban Gabriel. Instituto Sudamericano de Estudios de Resiliencia y Sostenibilidad; Uruguay. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Luis. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi". Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Ciencias Físico, Matemáticas y Naturales. Instituto de Matemática Aplicada de San Luis "Prof. Ezio Marchi"; Argentina Fil: Kremen, Claire. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Schulte, Lisa A.. University of Iowa; Estados Unidos Fil: Hughes, Alice C.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China Fil: Bagnato, Camilo Ernesto. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Abramson, Guillermo. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Bariloche; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Gerencia del Área de Energía Nuclear. Instituto Balseiro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Bridgewater, Peter. Utrecht University; Países Bajos. University of Canberra; Australia Fil: Gómez Carella, Dulce Sol. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Dicks, Lynn. University of Cambridge; Reino Unido. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido Fil: Ellis, Erle C.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos Fil: Goldenberg, Matías Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Huaylla, Claudia Alejandra. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Kuperman, Marcelo Nestor. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Bariloche; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Gerencia del Área de Energía Nuclear. Instituto Balseiro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Locke, Harvey. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative; Canadá Fil: Mehrabi, Zia. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Santibañez Ossa, Fernanda Andrea. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina Fil: Zhu, Chao Dong. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China

Funder: Royal Entomological Society; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013849, Funder: Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government, Funder: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005156, Funder: Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs, Funder: Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, 1. Entomology is key to understanding terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems at a time of unprecedented anthropogenic environmental change, and offers substantial untapped potential to benefit humanity in a variety of ways, from improving agricultural practices to managing vector-borne diseases and inspiring technological advances. 2. We identified high priority challenges for entomology using an inclusive, open, and democratic four-stage prioritisation approach, conducted among the membership and affiliates (hereafter ‘members’) of the UK-based Royal Entomological Society (RES). 3. A list of 710 challenges was gathered from 189 RES members. Thematic analysis was used to group suggestions, followed by an online vote to determine initial priorities, which were subsequently ranked during an online workshop involving 37 participants. 4. The outcome was a set of 61 priority challenges within four groupings of related themes: (i) ‘Fundamental Research’ (themes: Taxonomy, ‘Blue Skies’ [defined as research ideas without immediate practical application], Methods and Techniques); (ii) ‘Anthropogenic Impacts and Conservation’ (themes: Anthropogenic Impacts, Conservation Options); (iii) ‘Uses, Ecosystem Services and Disservices’ (themes: Ecosystem Benefits, Technology and Resources [use of insects as a resource, or as inspiration], Pests); (iv) ‘Collaboration, Engagement and Training’ (themes: Knowledge Access, Training and Collaboration, Societal Engagement). 5. Priority challenges encompass research questions, funding objectives, new technologies, and priorities for outreach and engagement. Examples include training taxonomists, establishing a global network of insect monitoring sites, understanding the extent of insect declines, exploring roles of cultivated insects in food supply chains, and connecting professional with amateur entomologists. Responses to different challenges could be led by amateur and professional entomologists, at all career stages. 6. Overall, the challenges provide a diverse array of options to inspire and initiate entomological activities, and reveal the potential of entomology to contribute to addressing global challenges related to human health and well-being, and environmental change.