BOX 1. Lessons learned
Our involvement with the post 2020 GBF led to several lessons about
generating conservation policy change, some of which have been
highlighted previously
(Hoban
et al. 2013, 2020; Taylor et al. 2017; Holderegger et al. 2019; Taft et
al. 2020; Kershaw et al. 2022). These are:
- It is vital to strengthen direct connections to decision makers-
persons present in the rooms where policy is debated, written and
revised. For the CBD, it is vital to correspond directly and
frequently with the national representatives attending CBD meetings
(https://www.cbd.int/information/nfp.shtml). Decision makers helped us
evaluate which wording proposals were feasible, understand
perspectives of other decision makers, and present proposed wording.
- Global and two-way engagement is required. It is necessary to connect
with countries with a diversity of resources and concerns, not just
‘developed’ nations. It is also insufficient to create scientific
outputs without interpretation and outreach, or to expect information
to flow only one way, e.g. from scientists to policy makers. Dialogue
is needed to provide voice to issues of national capacity, to ensure
that Goals, Targets and Indicators meet the needs and capabilities of
all nations.
- Continual engagement is required. The process required a marathon
commitment and an ability to rapidly act and sprint with very high
levels of work at certain periods.
- A large team with diverse skills, background and connections is
helpful. For instance, forming the Coalition for Conservation Genetics
(Kershaw et al. 2022)
allowed wide dissemination of policy briefs and messages, leveraging
the reputation of globally respected organizations (e.g. IUCN),
assistance with multi-lingual translation of documents, collaborations
with NGOs, and more. Involving non-academic researchers and policy
makers with some academic training also helped bridge the science
policy divide.
- Virtual interactions helped collaboration, discussion, knowledge
sharing, and constructive critique. Despite many technical
difficulties, virtual platforms were more inclusive and allowed us to
meet people we otherwise could not have, and participate with higher
frequency than in person meetings allow. One regret is that although
we did gather suggestions through dialogue, we did not use our many
webinars to collect systematic feedback through surveys and polls.
- Engagement must occur via many modes: webinars, mass emails to policy
makers, direct and frequent personalized emails, numerous digital
meetings, journal articles, navigating bureaucracies for institutional
approval, and frequent submission of document reviews, feedback and
comments - often with deadlines of days to several weeks. We created
three policy briefs, 13 journal articles, four Statements sent to 500+
recipients, a SBSTTA information document, 12+ webinars, dozens of
email chains to various groups, a side event proposed for COP 15 which
was co-sponsored by 50+ institutions and NGOs, several multi-page
comment submissions to CBD, and ad hoc responses to many inquiries.
Unfortunately, a small fraction of geneticists are currently involved
in international biodiversity discussions (directly or indirectly)- a
gap which continues to need to be filled
(Laikre 2010).
- Progress made depended on intensive commitment from several
‘champions’ in research and policy, far outside their normal job
obligations, to create outputs, bring people and groups together, and
constantly track many moving parts