Search

Negative interactions between humans and animals are becoming increasingly frequent, as wild habitats shrink and human presence and activities expand throughout the world. Conflicts between people over conservation are one of the outcomes of this increased interaction, with severe consequences for both wildlife and people. Globally, conflicts can arise across diverse ecosystems, species and circumstances. Even if most attention in wildlife-related conflicts has been on mammals, birds are also often at the centre of such conflicts, but conflict research is still not explicitly present in ornithological literature. Examples of such conflicts include those related to birds and agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and public health interests. Conflicts are often more complex than initial assessments might suggest, involving ecological, economic, cultural, social and political elements. Reflecting the complexity of these issues and their increasing relevance to bird conservation, a British Ornithologists' Union conference was organized in November 2021 that aimed to highlight examples of conflicts that exist between people over birds and their conservation. Building on this conference, we provide here a review of key themes relating to the understanding of conflicts, including the importance of conflict perceptions, the collaboration between multiple disciplines and the different types of knowledge needed to better understand conflicts. We then consider the management of bird conservation conflicts, including the key issues of dealing with uncertainty, the role of technical solutions and the importance of collaboration and building trust, illustrating each theme with real-world examples. Finally, we outline potential future conflicts around bird conservation and how best to address them proactively.

Negative interactions between humans and animals are becoming increasingly frequent, as wild habitats shrink and human presence and activities expand throughout the world. Conflicts between people over conservation are one of the outcomes of this increased interaction, with severe consequences for both wildlife and people. Globally, conflicts can arise across diverse ecosystems, species and circumstances. Even if most attention in wildlife-related conflicts has been on mammals, birds are also often at the centre of such conflicts, but conflict research is still not explicitly present in ornithological literature. Examples of such conflicts include those related to birds and agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and public health interests. Conflicts are often more complex than initial assessments might suggest, involving ecological, economic, cultural, social and political elements. Reflecting the complexity of these issues and their increasing relevance to bird conservation, a British Ornithologists' Union conference was organized in November 2021 that aimed to highlight examples of conflicts that exist between people over birds and their conservation. Building on this conference, we provide here a review of key themes relating to the understanding of conflicts, including the importance of conflict perceptions, the collaboration between multiple disciplines and the different types of knowledge needed to better understand conflicts. We then consider the management of bird conservation conflicts, including the key issues of dealing with uncertainty, the role of technical solutions and the importance of collaboration and building trust, illustrating each theme with real-world examples. Finally, we outline potential future conflicts around bird conservation and how best to address them proactively.

•Background: Why do some zoonotic diseases receive priority from health policy decision-makers and planners whereas others receive little attention? By leveraging Shiffman and Smith’s political prioritisation framework, our paper advances a political economy of disease prioritisation focusing on four key components: the strength of the actors involved in the prioritisation, the power of the ideas they use to portray the issue, the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself (e.g., overall burdens, severity, cost-effective interventions). These components afford a nuanced characterisation of how zoonotic diseases are prioritised for intervention and highlight the associated knowledge gaps affecting prioritisation outcomes. We apply this framework to the case of zoonoses management in India, specifically to identify the factors that shape disease prioritisation decision-making and outcomes. •Methods: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with national, state and district level health policymakers, disease managers and technical experts involved in disease surveillance and control in India. •Results: Our results show pluralistic interpretation of risks, exemplified by a disconnect between state and district level actors on priority diseases. The main factors identified as shaping prioritisation outcomes were related to the nature of the zoonoses problem (the complexity of the zoonotic disease, insufficient awareness and lack of evidence on disease burdens and impacts) as well as political, social, cultural and institutional environments (isolated departmental priorities, limited institutional authority, opaque funding mechanisms), and challenges in organisation leadership for cross-sectoral engagement. •Conclusion: The findings highlight a compartmentalised regulatory system for zoonoses where political, social, cultural, and media factors can influence disease management and prioritisation. A major policy window is the in

Forest-based communities manage many risks to health and socio-economic welfare including the increasing threat of emerging zoonoses that are expected to disproportionately affect poor and marginalised groups, and further impair their precarious livelihoods, particularly in Low-and-Middle Income (LMIC) settings. Yet, there is a relative dearth of empirical research on the vulnerability and adaptation pathways of poor and marginalised groups facing emerging zoonoses. Drawing on a survey of 229 households and a series of key-informant interviews in the Western Ghats, we examine the factors affecting vulnerability of smallholder and tribal households to Kyasanur Forest Disease (KFD), an often-fatal tick-borne viral haemorrhagic fever endemic in south India. Specifically, we investigate how different socio-demographic and institutional factors interact to shape KFD vulnerability and the strategies employed by households to adapt to disease consequences. Although surveyed households generally perceived KFD as an important health issue in the study region, there was variability in concern about contracting the disease. Overall results showed that poor access to land (AOR = 0.373, 95% CI: 0.152–0.916), being at or below the poverty line (AOR = 0.253, 95% CI: 0.094–0.685) and being headed by an older person (AOR = 1.038, 95% CI: 1.006–1.071) were all significant determinants of perceived KFD vulnerability. Furthermore, KFD vulnerability is also modulated by important extra-household factors including proximity to private hospitals (AOR = 3.281, 95% CI: 1.220–8.820), main roads (AOR = 2.144, 95% CI: 1.215–3.783) and study location (AOR = 0.226, 95% CI: 0.690–0.743). Our findings highlight how homogenous characterisation of smallholder and tribal communities and the ‘techno-oriented’ approach of existing interventions may further marginalise the most vulnerable and exacerbate existing inequalities. These findings are important for designing context-specific and appropriate he

Entre 2021 et 2022, le groupe Enjeux transversaux biodiversité (GET biodiversité) de l'Alliance nationale de recherche pour l'Environnement (AllEnvi) a travaillé à une prospective pour la recherche française sur la biodiversité. Depuis les derniers travaux publiés par la FRB en 2012, le paysage de la recherche sur la biodiversité a fortement évolué et une actualisation des projections et perspectives s'avérait nécessaire. Dans ce cadre, la Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité a animé les discussions et coordonné la rédaction d'un document rassemblant membres des Conseils scientifiques de la FRB entre 2021 et 2023, experts du GET d'AllEnvi et collaborateurs externes. Le présent document constitue un travail d'identification, d'analyse et de catégorisation des différents axes de recherche en biodiversité sans pour autant en former une liste exhaustive et impartiale. Fondation de coopération scientifique, la Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité a pour mission de favoriser les activités de recherche sur la biodiversité en lien avec les acteurs de la société. Susciter l'innovation, développer et soutenir des projets, diffuser les connaissances et mobiliser l'expertise sont au coeur de ses actions.

There is increased global and national attention on the need for effective strategies to control zoonotic diseases. Quick, effective action is, however, hampered by poor evidence-bases and limited coordination between stakeholders from relevant sectors such as public and animal health, wildlife and forestry sectors at different scales, who may not usually work together. The OneHealth approach recognises the value of cross-sectoral evaluation of human, animal and environmental health questions in an integrated, holistic and transdisciplinary manner to reduce disease impacts and/or mitigate risks. Co-production of knowledge is also widely advocated to improve the quality and acceptability of decision-making across sectors and may be particularly important when it comes to zoonoses. This paper brings together OneHealth and knowledge co-production and reflects on lessons learned for future OneHealth co-production processes by describing a process implemented to understand spill-over and identify disease control and mitigation strategies for a zoonotic disease in Southern India (Kyasanur Forest Disease). The co-production process aimed to develop a joint decision-support tool with stakeholders, and we complemented our approach with a simple retrospective theory of change on researcher expectations of the system-level outcomes of the co-production process. Our results highlight that while co-production in OneHealth is a difficult and resource intensive process, requiring regular iterative adjustments and flexibility, the beneficial outcomes justify its adoption. A key future aim should be to improve and evaluate the degree of inter-sectoral collaboration required to achieve the aims of OneHealth. We conclude by providing guidelines based on our experience to help funders and decision-makers support future co-production processes.

Smallholder farmer and tribal communities are often characterised as marginalised and highly vulnerable to emerging zoonotic diseases due to their relatively poor access to healthcare, worse-off health outcomes, proximity to sources of disease risks, and their social and livelihood organisation. Yet, access to relevant and timely disease information that could strengthen their adaptive capacity remain challenging and poorly characterised in the empirical literature. This paper addresses this gap by exploring the role of disease information in shaping the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmer and tribal groups to Kyasanur Forest Disease (KFD), a tick-borne viral haemorrhagic fever. We carried out household surveys (n = 229) and in-depth interviews (n = 25) in two affected districts–Shimoga and Wayanad–in the Western Ghats region. Our findings suggest that, despite the generally limited awareness about KFD, access to disease information improved households’ propensity to implement adaptation strategies relative to households that had no access to it. Of the variety of adaptation strategies implemented, vaccination, avoiding forest visits, wearing of protective clothing and footwear, application of dimethyl phthalate (DMP) oil and income diversification were identified by respondents as important adaptive measures during the outbreak seasons. Even so, we identified significant differences between individuals in exposure to disease information and its contribution to substantive adaptive action. Households reported several barriers to implement adaptation strategies including, lack of disease information, low efficacy of existing vaccine, distrust, religio-cultural sentiments, and livelihood concerns. We also found that informal information sharing presented a promising avenue from a health extension perspective albeit with trade-offs with potential distortion of the messages through misinformation and/or reporting bias. Altogether, our findings stress the importance