Communication between producers and users of knowledge has been identified as essential for developing credible and relevant institutional and technological solutions to environmental management challenges (Cash et al., 2003; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007). Unfortunately, there are worldwide examples of public policies for biodiversity conservation lacking support of scientific evidence, such as the recently sanctioned Brazilian Native Vegetation Protection Law (also referred to as the New Forest Code; Metzger, 2010; Brancalion et al., 2016; Soares-Filho et al., 2014), the Canadian Fisheries Act (Favaro et al., 2012; Schindler et al., 2012), and the establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Australia (Devillers et al., 2014). There is a widely recognized gap between the data obtained by researchers and the information required by decisionmakers (Sutherland et al., 2011). It is also common to observe a lack of engagement of conservation scientists in the implementation or execution of conservation actions (Arlettaz et al., 2010).

Collaborations between decisionmakers and scientists may benefit both parties. Academic scientists could understand how to make their research more relevant to conservation practice. Conservation decisionmakers could gain different perspectives (Stinchcombe et al., 2002), besides backing-up their decisions with scientific evidence. The key point in this context is the degree to which scientists are able to communicate results to decisionmakers in a clear, useful and timely fashion (Sutherland and Freckleton, 2012; Rose, 2015).

Several barriers seem to contribute to such communication gaps between science and the decision making. Scientific writing is usually hard to understand for many professional policymakers, although it is vital for scientists as it allows them to recognize more credible results from less credible ones (Chytry et al., 2014). Also, primary literature is considered too time consuming to locate, access and read, being also difficult to interpret in the context of local decision making (Pullin and Knight, 2005). In addition, the major part of credible information in conservation science is published in English (Chytry et al., 2014) and restricted to subscribers of that given journal (Matzek et al., 2013), playing as barriers to the public as to accessing scientific knowledge (for non-English native speakers). In fact, conservation decisionmakers frequently rely on their own personal experience rather than on scientific evidence (Sutherland et al., 2004). For example, common sense and speaking to other managers were pointed to as the main sources of information used by professional policymakers in the United Kingdom, while primary scientific literature accounted for only 2% of answers (Sutherland et al., 2004).

In Brazil, the gap between science and policy making is also a challenge for biodiversity conservation outcomes. For example, in 2012 the reformulation of the Brazilian Forest Act was approved, which heavily undermined our main environmental legislation on private lands (Brancalion et al., 2016), despite a strong academic and social mobilization to warn policymakers about the threats arising from the reformulation. Alternatively, the development of Brazilian Red Lists of Threatened Species (e.g. Martinelli and Moraes, 2013) and the establishment of priority areas for biodiversity conservation in Brazil illustrate a positive effort from the Ministry of the Environment to gather information to support the development of conservation policies. In the late 90s, several workshops were held with representatives from the government, NGOs, private sector and scientific community to discuss the establishment and the design of protected areas (PAs). Since then, both methods and outcomes have been updated with the support of scientific evidences to select PAs in Brazil (MMA, 2007; Loyola et al., 2014), although the actual establishment of protected areas is still driven by opportunities that sometimes are not related to scientific advice.

Here we assess if scientists’ priorities for biodiversity conservation are in alignment with the priorities on top of the desk of Brazilian decision and policymakers, and if scientific knowledge supports the development and the implementation of conservation policies in Brazil. To achieve these objectives, we evaluated (i) to which extent scientists and decision and policymakers agree about conservation priorities, (ii) the sources of information used by decision and policymakers and (iii) the barriers to access scientific knowledge.

We distributed data collection into three steps. First, based on broad conservation issues, we generated a list of topics in conservation biology that deserve the attention of both scientists and decisionmakers. Secondly, we conducted online surveys and asked scientists and decision/policymakers to rank by priority the topics generated in the previous step. The comparison between scientists’ and decision/policymakers’ rankings of topics allowed us to test to which extent both groups agree about conservation priorities. We also consulted decision and policymakers about their sources of information on conservation topics, in order to evaluate if scientists’ opinions reach decision/policymakers through scientific literature, and the barriers to access scientific knowledge. Finally, we made a systematic review of scientific publications related to each one of the topics categorized in the list generated previously in order to evaluate if scientific production reflects what scientists and decisionmakers consider to be priority topics for conservation. Below, we provide more details on each of these steps.

The number of respondents varied among groups. Twenty-eight legislators (17% – 19 congressmen and nine senators) and 37 managers (32% – 21 PAs directors from ICMBIO and 16 coordinators from IBAMA) completed the survey. The experience of legislators working with conservation (in years) ranged between 1 and 48 years (average of 15.6 years). Among managers, experience ranged from 4 to 36 years (average of 11.6 years). Representatives from all five Brazilian regions were part of the decisionmakers’ sample. Among scientists, 24 completed the survey, representing a response rate of 30%. Researchers from South Africa, Australia, Brazil, USA, France, England, Italy, and Mexico completed the survey.

Interviews with scientists, legislators and managers resulted in the ranking of priority topics for each group (Table 1). Priorities for scientists and decisionmakers were not correlated (ρ¯=−0.013, CImin=−0.037, CImax=0.011). For academics and managers, ‘habitat loss and fragmentation’ made up the most urgent item on conservation agenda nowadays. On the other hand, this topic appeared only as the eighth most important in Brazilian legislators’ opinion. Topics related to ‘human population growth’ were the second most important issue for scientists, but were listed only among the last priority positions for both legislators and environmental managers. Managers were in a little more agreement with scientists than decisionmakers were, although this correlation was also weak (ρ¯=0.091, CImin=0.071, CImax=0.1) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Index of agreement between (A) scientists, legislators and environmental managers. Spearman coefficients means (+ CI) between scientists ranking and: (i) legislators (ρ¯=−0.013, CImin=−0.037, CImax=0.011) and (ii) environmental managers (ρ¯=0.091, CImin=0.071, CImax=0.1) rankings; (B) literature and scientists, legislators and environmental managers. Spearman coefficients means (+CI) between hot topics in the world scientific production and: (i) scientists (ρ¯=0.217, CImin=0.107, CImax=0.326), (ii) legislators (ρ¯=0.079, CImin=−0.015, CImax=0.173), and (iii) managers (ρ¯=0.175, CImin=0.081, CImax=0.269) rankings.

(0.09MB).

Scientific production of Brazilian scientists matched largely with scientific community efforts worldwide (ρ¯=0.947, n=14, p<0.005). Even though showing a low average correlation, managers and scientists tended to prioritize hot topics appearing in scientific publications (scientists: ρ¯=0.217, CImin=0.107, CImax=0.326; managers: ρ¯=0.175, CImin=0.081, CImax=0.269). In contrast, legislators’ ranking was not correlated to hot topics in scientific literature (ρ¯=0.079, CImin=−0.015, CImax=0.173; Fig. 1).

Scientific production census of each topic revealed that conservation of ‘endangered species’ has been the main focus for conservation science (Table 2). On the other hand, and as expected, ‘science communication’ appears in the last position, as this subject is not considered a research topic for conservation biologists.

Sources of information and barriers to access scientific knowledge

Scientific publications were a source of information on conservation for 54% of the legislators and 70% of the managers interviewed. However, when asked about the frequency of access, only 35% of legislators claimed seeking scientific studies always or often (Fig. 2). Among managers, 54% said they do consult the academic literature always or often. When asked directly about the level of information they have on biodiversity conservation in Brazil, 46% of legislators defined themselves as well or very well informed, against 81% of managers.

Fig. 2.

Sources of information used by decisionmakers. Percentage of use frequency of different sources of information on biodiversity conservation categorized as always/often, sometimes and rarely/never by (a) legislators and (b) managers.

(0.27MB).

Interviews confirmed that technical language, difficulty of access and reading in English are the main obstacles for decisionmakers who do not read scientific publications. Available time for searching, reading and understanding scientific literature was the main difficulty faced by both legislators and managers (Fig. 3). Also, 89% of legislators and 70% of managers agreed that an increase in the availability of academic literature in Portuguese would widen access to scientific knowledge.

Fig. 3.

Access to available scientific literature. Obstacles raised by legislators and managers to read scientific publications on biodiversity conservation.

(0.07MB).

Scientific knowledge produced in Brazil is in accordance with international standards, that is, science has been providing evidences to support Brazilian environmental policies. However, it seems these evidences do not reach most policymakers through academic literature (or evidences are being ignored by them). Poor alignment between priorities for biodiversity conservation between scientists and Brazilian policymakers indicates that hot topics for researchers do not reflect legislators needs in their daily practice, and vice versa. Such a mismatch of priorities could have serious consequences for Brazilian biodiversity.

The reformulation of the Brazilian Forest Act in 2012 is already a tangible consequence, as it reduced the total area that should not be deforested by 87% (Soares-Filho et al., 2014; Brancalion et al., 2016; Vieira et al., 2018). Similarly, other legislations have been proposed and await approval by the National Congress, despite going against evidences already provided by science for conservation (Loyola, 2014; Azevedo-Santos et al., 2017). An example is the constitutional amendment (PEC-65) proposed in the Brazilian congress, which will virtually put an end to environmental licensing system, despite increasing understanding by scientists about services provided by the Amazonian ecosystems to Brazil and to the world and how these services are lost when biodiversity is destroyed (Fearnside, 2016). Another proposal also awaiting approval would open indigenous lands to mining (Loyola, 2014; Barros and Barcelos, 2016) and allow “self-licensing” at state level (Guetta, 2016).

Besides the distance between researchers’ opinions and the focus of studies within academy there is also an issue related to the lack of dialogue between scientists and legislators. The results of the rankings and the census of scientific publications, in which science communication has not featured at all, confirm the lack of investments in actions to bridge the gap between science and society in Brazil. In fact, it was not expected that scientific communication would be a priority, since it is not a specific research topic in conservation biology, but the number of articles published on the subject in the 3-year period is notoriously low. Evidence-based management requires that researchers provide answers to ecological issues of interest for decisionmakers (Sutherland et al., 2006).

The needs of decision and policymakers should be taken into account by scientists to identify lines of research that allow decision making with scientific evidence in a timely manner to be subsidize. It is notable that legislators have rarely been invited to suggest priority areas for the development of research (Sutherland and Freckleton, 2012). Similarly, scientists also need to be driven about decisionmakers needs for the development of legal instruments for conservation (Loyola and Bini, 2015). Alternatively, to ensure the applicability of scientific data, it is essential that the evidence generated by science may be translated into the less technical language as possible and understandable for non-scientists, a need pointed out by managers and by legislators in this study. For example, scientific publications focusing only on statistical results, despite the biological interpretation of results, prevent studies from being accessible outside the academy (Milberg, 2014) and exclude non-scientists as possible readers of publications. In practice, it is a two-way approach that involves efforts from both science and decisionmakers seeking to maximize results for biodiversity conservation in Brazil.

An important initiative in this matter was the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and its Brazilian counterpart, the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES). Both were created with the function of translating scientific orientations into policies (Goymer, 2017; Díaz et al., 2018). Assessments yet to be provided by these bodies will have profound implications in the Brazilian policy. For example, they will likely support government strategies to reduce deforestation and protect endangered species and ecosystems. Another arena where scientists can play a key role in translating science into practice and supporting policy making is at national, state, municipal environmental and protected area councils. Academy has seat in these councils, which offer a genuine relationship between science and decision making.

Despite scientists being increasingly encouraged to invest in communication of their research findings (Rose, 2015; Costa, 2012; McNutt, 2013), science outreach often requires from scientists the technical skills that were not even part of their formal education. A common strategy is the training of journalists specialized in science communication (UNESCO, 2000), withdrawing scientists communicator role. Thus, the researchers could concentrate on their core business, which involves a lot of time and public money (doing research), and the scientific journalist/communicator would be responsible for translating the data generated by science into an accessible language and delivery of this content to society. We also strongly recommend investments in science communication, in an attempt to ensure that the resources invested in conservation biology, an applied science by definition, return to society through scientific evidences useful to support public policies for conservation. Such investment, in particular in training and capacity building, would allow for the devolution for communities and public bodies of what has been studied and concluded in students’ theses and dissertations. Science communication could be improved through the development of specific departments and initiatives in universities, in mass media vehicles, and in government agencies (see Box 1).

Box 1.

Initiatives to bridge the gap between science and practice performed by universities, the media and the government (through funding agencies and science and technologies governmental institutions).

Our findings on the barriers to access scientific literature corroborate studies about the difficulty of decisionmakers related to (i) time available to consult literature (Pullin and Knight, 2005), (ii) understand the technical language of the articles (Pullin and Knight, 2005), (iii) read in English (Chytry et al., 2014) and (iv) access journals restricted to the scientific community or by purchasing content (Matzek et al., 2013). We also confirmed that reading in English is an additional difficulty for both politicians and managers. Technical language and access are more frequent barriers for legislators than they are for managers, which also can be explained by managers’ academic curriculum. These results explain why decisionmakers in Brazil do not read scientific publications on environmental conservation currently. Some authors (e.g. Walsh et al., 2015) showed that improving access of managers to scientific evidence by providing it in an easily accessible clearly summarized format changed almost half of their environmental management decisions. Therefore, developing accessible tools of evidence-based practice is highly recommended in Brazil.

Summarizing, we showed that the conservation policy in Brazil needs more support from conservation science. We consider that both scientists and decisionmakers are responsible to improve this scenario. However, it is essential to consider also the influence of strong economic groups and political interests in environmental decision making. As suggested by Loyola (2014), “in terms of national policies, Brazil is consistently making decisions that go against the global policies it ratifies”. Then, environmental decision making seems to involve much more complexity and depend largely on the political will of governors. Will it be possible to reconcile the interests of economy and politics, marked by the great country's industrial expansion after World War II and the recent return to a commodities producer condition, with biodiversity conservation? Future studies focusing on the gap between science and the development and management of public policies for conservation in Brazil must identify the main current demands of decisionmakers and evaluate funding agencies calls, in order to characterize the priority areas that have received funding for the development of research in conservation. Also, it would be interesting to analyze the devolution stage for communities and public bodies after the conclusion of post-graduation thesis and dissertations focused on biodiversity conservation agenda.

MKG research is funded by CAPES. RL research is funded by CNPq (grant 308532/2014-7), O Boticário Group Foundation for Nature Protection (grant PROG_0008_2013), and CNCFlora (grant 065/2016). This paper is a contribution of the INCT in Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation founded by MCTIC/CNPq/FAPEG (grant 465610/2014-5). The funding sources had no involvement in the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

All interviews followed standard ethical procedures. The protocol we used was approved by an internal commission within the Federal University of Mato Grosso. We also obtained a license from SISBIO, the governmental Biodiversity Authorization and Information System (available from https://www.ibama.gov.br/sisbio/sistema/, license number 48875) to interview environmental managers. All interviewees for this study were informed about the scientific purpose of the study and consented to participate.