Main text
Numerous policy instruments11In policy studies, public
instruments are defined as “the myriad techniques at the disposal of
governments to implement their public policy objectives” (Howlett,
1991). have been elaborated and implemented over the years to halt
the decline of biodiversity loss. The most widespread policies (i.e.
protected areas [PAs], protected species lists, and environmental
impact assessments) aim to, among other things, prevent damage to
species and ecosystems, decrease the drivers of biodiversity loss,
ensure adequate genetic diversity, and maintain connectedness in related
species populations. However, the ever-increasing rate of species
extinction and ecosystem loss (Díaz et al., 2019) calls into question
the efficiency of such policy tools. In this context, a growing body of
ecological literature seeks to assess the scientific relevance of
biodiversity conservation instruments. For instance, numerous studies
highlight the inefficiency of PAs to cover the full range of
biodiversity (Rodrigues et al., 2004; Wiersma & Nudds, 2009; Jenkins et
al., 2015), the absence of numerous imperiled species (Harris et al.,
2012) and the bias in taxa representation (Cardoso, 2012; Dorey &
Walker, 2018) in protected species lists, or the inability to correctly
assess the biodiversity impact of development projects (e.g. cumulative
impacts, impacts on common or low detectable species) in environmental
impact assessments (Garrard et al., 2015; Bigard, Pioch & Thompson,
2017). To address such issues, part of the ecological scientific
community has produced conservation-oriented knowledge by, for example,
elaborating technical tools to improve the design of PAs, refining
knowledge about the state of species populations needing protection, or
searching for new methods to better evaluate the potential damage of
development projects. Without denying the benefits of such approaches,
this research suggests that the current lack of knowledge and/or
technical tools is responsible for our inability to solve conservation
issues. However, in our view, this assumption is based on a
misconception or misunderstanding about the nature of the policymaking
processes responsible for the elaboration and implementation of policy
instruments. Improving conservation-oriented knowledge without
understanding how it is currently used by policymakers can undermine the
efforts of the scientific community. Yet the study of policy processes
and the way in which scientific results are integrated into decisions
represent a blind spot in ecological research in general and journals in
particular.
Policy outcomes result from multiple policy decisions involving multiple
actors, data, and rationales combined in a complex process that policy
scientists label the policymaking process. This process includes the
elaboration and selection of the policy instrument chosen to solve a
particular issue as well as the implementation and evaluation of the
selected solution. The outcome of a policy instrument is not only
related to the allocation of means (e.g. PAs) to attain a specific goal
(e.g. save particular ecosystems or species), but also to the way in
which this approach is concretely implemented (e.g. decisions concerning
the location and management of PAs). Since a significant body of
ecological scientific research is focused on improving policy tool
implementation, we wanted to focus on this particular step. As in each
phase of the policy process, scientific knowledge is only one of many
factors (e.g. technical feasibility, tolerable cost, value
acceptability, stakeholder interests and power) on which policymakers
base their decisions. Policy studies demonstrate that the interaction of
these rationales often leads to highly contingent and “irrational”
decisions on which relevant scientific and policy-oriented knowledge has
little influence (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972; Kingdon, 2014). The
careful deliberation and technical assessment of the best options are
not the most common aspects influencing the implementation process. This
suggests that producing knowledge and making it available are only one
small step in the process of solving a policy issue. Considering these
facts, we are convinced that a better understanding of the mechanisms
driving the implementation decisions of conservation policies is crucial
in order to improve instrument efficiency. However, by mostly focusing
on technical solutions, the scientific community often overlooks the key
objective of biodiversity conservation issues.
This statement can be illustrated by briefly highlighting some
preliminary results of our recent historical study conducted in France
on the implementation decisions surrounding the creation of a specific
kind of PAs known as national nature reserves (NNRs). Our findings
highlight that scientific interest (e.g. presence of a particular
species or ecosystem, site richness), which was evaluated for each NNR
project by a specific expert body, was necessary but far from sufficient
to create a NNR. After acknowledging the scientific relevance of the
project, their creation was mostly influenced by the involvement of
local authorities, the financial feasibility of the project, the
strength of opposition, or the ability to use personal networks to
obtain the desired outcomes. These results raise two important concerns
regarding the link between scientific knowledge and concrete
implementation decisions in the case of PAs.
First, our study suggests that improving knowledge about the theoretical
best location of PAs would not have changed the result of the
decision-making process. In the end, the creation of PAs would still
have depended on non-ecological factors, thus undermining any scientific
efforts to build a scientifically based network. Moreover, it is
probable that this situation, most likely responsible for the observed
bias in PA locations (Pressey, 1994; Gaston et al., 2008; Joppa &
Pfaff, 2009), is generalizable to other biodiversity conservation
instruments. The decisions relating to the integration of endangered
species in the protected species lists are likely to follow similar
mechanisms, making scientific knowledge about population status futile.
Similarly, the biodiversity impact assessment is only one step in the
process of land-use planning, and its influence should not be
overestimated compared to other factors. Increasing the accuracy of the
methods does not necessarily imply a change in the way in which concrete
and final policy decisions are taken. In such cases, our ability to
solve the problem is less related to knowledge production and
availability than to the identification of the obstacles responsible for
the shallow use of scientific knowledge observed in policy decisions.
Second, the way in which scientific knowledge was used actually limited
the possibility of creating protected areas by establishing a few
requirements (i.e. validation of the scientific interest by a scientific
committee) without being able to build a scientifically based network.
Beyond the simplistic observation that the policy process often
underuses scientific arguments, this last finding also stresses the
issue of the way in which knowledge is used. Following Soulé (1985), we
consider that biological conservation is a crisis discipline that
sometimes needs “intuition as well as information” and that the use of
the latter must not narrow the possibility of implementing actions for
biodiversity conservation. Focusing on the sole criterion of
biodiversity representativeness, for instance, ignores the fact that PAs
can also be used as a tool to stop development projects. Consequently,
their benefits in terms of biodiversity go beyond that measured by
scientific models and studies. This example of the possible undesired
effects of knowledge suggests that producing knowledge cannot be
separated from the thoughts about the way in which ecological knowledge
is used in the policy process.
Without denying the importance of theoretical and disciplinary research,
we believe that addressing the biodiversity crisis requires a change in
our way of producing ecological knowledge. We must not only ask if
specific species populations or ecosystems are at risk but rather how
the body of knowledge can be better translated into elaborating and
implementing tools for species and ecosystem protection. We should not
ask how to improve models to assess biodiversity damage for land
development, but rather whether such an improvement would be able to
influence the decisions that damage biodiversity. This relationship
between science and policy has long been studied by the social sciences
and policy studies (e.g. Nutley, Walter & Davies, 2007; Jordan &
Russel, 2014), and we are convinced that increasing communication
between these two communities is now crucial. Although some general
mechanisms (e.g. presence of skilled intermediaries between science and
policy to enhance the use of scientific knowledge in policy decisions)
and approaches (e.g. legitimizing, avoiding decisions, persuasion,
justification) have been identified, this remains highly dependent on
the policy domain, the level of governance, and the policy instrument.
What we have learnt from our study is that the presence of non-binding
opinions from scientists in expert bodies for PA implementation is not
sufficient to build a scientifically based network. The ecological
scientific community cannot be satisfied by the multiplication of
scientific committees that play a minor role; other research must be
conducted in order to better understand and improve the way in which the
scientific community, stakeholders, and policymakers interact with each
other. Determining the conditions under which science can enlighten
policy decisions must be specifically studied to address current
biodiversity conservation issues. This matter inevitably begs the
question as to the openness of ecological journals to the social
sciences. We would therefore like to illustrate the benefits from such
cooperation, as we strongly believe that conservation issues will not be
overcome without an interdisciplinary approach.