By being clear as to the types and scales of knowledge needed, and the limitations of existing knowledge to inform policy, decision-makers will also play a role in highlighting knowledge gaps. We thus frame decision-makers as actively participating stakeholders in shaping what evidence base is needed for conservation, rather than framing conservation policy as something that must respond to the agenda of scientists who produce evidence. As a consequence, there is a strong need to develop practical solutions, based on a joint effort by researchers, decision-makers and land-use planners, on how to integrate evidence-based practices and general ecological principles within a multilevel governance framework. Through embedding locally implemented conservation interventions within a broader context, we are confident they would gain both in legitimacy and effectiveness.
3BL Media on 13 Oct 09To "refresh your recollection" (I am a former lawyer, after all), let me take you back. Good Guide is a beta site that rates products on three scales: environmental, nutritional, and social justice (my terms, not theirs). They reduce a product and its producer to three numerical scores, with 10 being the top score. Then they combine the three scores to a single score purporting to rate a product/producer overall. More than a month ago, I wrote to Good Guide through its website asking for help in understanding how it could rate a commercial "lite" yogurt (Yoplait) with all its additives, so much higher than an organic, plain whole milk (Straus) made from nothing more than organic whole milk and live yogurt cultures, and higher than an organic nonfat plain (Nancy's) made from nothing more than organic nonfat milk and live yogurt cultures.
