Group items tagged

An effective response to the wide variety in governance and ecological systems therefore calls for the creation of new decision-making forums that engage diverse constellations of actors and knowledge across spatial and temporal scales, in ways relevant to specific decisions (Paavola et al. 2009). This in turn raises issues of democratic legitimacy and accountability, because for citizens it may become difficult to assume democratic responsibilities when being part of overlapping sites of decision-making (Peters & Pierre 2005).

The second step will be to ensure that scientists, policy makers, and practitioners participate in the cocreation of policy-relevant science, going beyond identifying stakeholder-relevant questions for systematic reviews. From the outset, scientists and decision-makers should jointly consider how administrative and ecological scales fit in order to balance democratic legitimacy and ecological efficacy.

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.