Conference Agenda

It is clear from multiple lines of evidence that are potential substantial gains in the effectiveness of practitioners, policy makers and funders from learning from the experience of researchers and others. It should be unthinkable for practitioners to make serious decisions without reflecting on the evidence or for funders to support such proposals. However, despite the likely substantial gains in effectiveness many practitioners, policy maker and funders do not routinely reflect on the evidence (‘The Inefficiency Paradox’). I will outline the magnitude of the problem, describe the types of evidence available, including scientific evidence (in all languages not just English), practitioner experience and local and indigenous knowledge, then consider how evidence can be assessed and embedded into decision making process. I will describe how the quality of decisions can then be described to distinguish those that are rigorous from those that are weak, incompetent or corrupt.

Scientific and practical knowledge are equally important for advancing conservation but are not equally accessible. While scientific articles can be systematically searched for and cited at a global scale, the knowledge and experience of conservation practitioners is less easy to access and share.

Practitioners’ experience of practical management is highly valuable to others doing conservation, both locally and globally. In particular, they hold knowledge of practical implementation of conservation actions that is often not recorded in the scientific literature. Furthermore, conservation actions are not necessarily ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions because their success can be dependent on site-level conditions and how they are implemented. Knowing what works in conservation is one thing; knowing how to implement what works is another. Having multiple experiences aids the assessment of what works where and when.

We have created a prototype platform for collecting and sharing such information. The prototype database – which we are actively developing in the Fens National Character Area, UK – comprises discrete, citable pieces of practitioner knowledge in the form of ‘insights’, each one being linked to its source and details of what was observed. The insights include novel solutions, modifications of existing solutions and practical means of delivering solutions.

Drawing on insights from the BirdLife Partnership and experiences in the Global South, this presentation delves into the complexities associated with integrating indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and voices into conservation and restoration efforts. Grounded in a recent study, it examines findings from semi-structured interviews (n=20) with 11 BirdLife partners, highlighting the enablers and barriers to incorporating local perspectives in conservation practices. Additionally, the speaker shares lessons learned from active involvement in the Asia Pacific Forest Governance project, emphasising the significance of integrating community-based forest monitoring in conservation initiatives. The presentation also integrates insights from the speaker's diverse research collaborations, spanning case studies from community forestry in Nepal, restoration efforts in Europe, pastoralist communities in East Africa, and Uganda’s Batwa group. This compilation serves as a showcase of BirdLife Partnership's institutional experience and the presenter's extensive research and advocacy endeavours, all dedicated to decolonising conservation. By exploring both successful strategies and challenges encountered in embedding ILK and voices, the session provides valuable takeaways for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers involved in conservation planning and implementation. The narrative underscores the critical imperative of fostering inclusive and culturally sensitive approaches, advocating for a paradigm shift towards a more equitable and collaborative conservation framework.

To succeed in protecting and restoring the natural world, conservationists must do more of the things that work and less of the things that don’t. But determining which conservation actions are right for a particular context is challenging. In many cases there is a lack of evidence, and the evidence that does exist comes in many different forms, was gathered in very different contexts, and via a variety of methods. As such, approaches that can accommodate this complexity are vital. We have developed an approach to weighing and assessing the full variety of evidence that might underpin core assumptions of conservation projects, strategies, and actions: the Balance Evidence Assessment Method (BEAM). By considering the relevance and reliability of evidence, and the support it provides for a particular assumption, diverse types of evidence can be brought together to reveal the overall strength of support. We have applied this approach to assess a wide diversity of evidence gathered in the Conservation Learning Initiative, including evidence from the published literature, responses to questionnaires, and discussions with expert groups. This approach will facilitate the use of a broader selection of evidence in a transparent and flexible way to help improve conservation practice.

The Conservation Learning Initiative is a collaboration between Foundations of Success and Conservation Evidence. Our shared goal is to bring together practitioners and researchers in learning networks to improve the implementation of conservation strategies by filling knowledge gaps. To achieve this goal, we use an innovative five-step approach to evidence-based conservation decision-making and learning.

Our approach involves identifying a well-defined learning topic that relates to a specific conservation action, asking relevant learning questions, and testing explicit assumptions with evidence. Our method features five steps:

- Define the overall learning topic

- Develop learning questions and formulate assumptions

- Collect evidence related to the assumptions

- Assess the evidence to determine its weight and whether it supports the assumptions

- Compile and conclude learning

In this presentation, we present how we have applied this method using evidence from 30 years of conservation funding by the MAVA Foundation, complemented by published evidence. We will share key findings from five topics: capacity-building, partnerships and alliances, flexible funding, research and monitoring, and policy impact.

The Conservation Coaches Network (CCNet) is a global network of coaches trained to support conservation teams and projects to apply the principles of adaptive management. CCNet’s key activities are training conservation practitioners as coaches and providing peer support to existing coaches. CCNet is both a capacity-building organisation and a community of practice facilitating the exchange of experiences between its members.

The Conservation Learning Initiative has collected, assessed and compiled evidence for capacity-building efforts in conservation. CCNet has used the findings to improve its practice. This talk will share CCNet’s experience of translating evidence into practice using the steps: (1) Compare Theories of Change, (2) Compare Learning Questions, (3) Review results for Learning Questions, and (4) Draw practical conclusions building on learning results.

The evidence confirmed that CCNet’s trainings include elements that support the application of acquired skills, like using a mix of learning methods or relevant case studies. Practical conclusions to improve CCNet’s activities are better understanding the trainees’ context, establishing post-training measures and facilitating opportunities to apply acquired skills. CCNet recognises that combining data from more capacity-building organisations could help to answer some learning questions. Cross-organisational learning communities could facilitate such collaboration and help to overcome learning in isolation.