The chocolate market is experiencing a wave of market differentiation thanks to the emergence of the bean‐to‐bar movement. Cacao is seeing both a rise in demand for mass markets and a process of market bifurcation into more specialized, high‐quality products for wealthy urban consumers. For the specialized market, the quality and origin of the beans are important attributes. Direct trading between chocolate makers and famers seeks to promote the conservation of rare cultivars and traditional agroforestry systems, while lifting farmers out of poverty. Here we assess whether these alternative configurations of the global value chain truly offer smallholders new opportunities, beyond the traditional intensification or marginalization pathways that are generally offered to them. We conducted detailed socio‐economic and biophysical surveys with a sample of farms in three of the largest cacao producing provinces of Ecuador. Our results show that, even though smallholders lack the assets needed to join mainstream commodity markets, they have been able to capitalize on the qualities of their traditional varieties to access niche markets. Through strong cooperatives, the knowledge held by buyers about what constitutes a high‐quality bean has been transferred to farmers. A unique natural capital may provide smallholders with rewarding pathways to develop their agriculture, exploiting new market opportunities offered by globalization. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

ABSTRACT. As large-scale environmental disasters become increasingly frequent and more severe globally, people and organizations that prepare for and respond to these crises need efficient and effective ways to integrate sound science into their decision making. Experience has shown that integrating nongovernmental scientific expertise into disaster decision making can improve the quality of the response, and is most effective if the integration occurs before, during, and after a crisis, not just during a crisis. However, collaboration between academic, government, and industry scientists, decision makers, and responders is frequently difficult because of cultural differences, misaligned incentives, time pressures, and legal constraints. Our study addressed this challenge by using the Deep Change Method, a design methodology developed by Stanford ChangeLabs, which combines human-centered design, systems analysis, and behavioral psychology. We investigated underlying needs and motivations of government agency staff and academic scientists, mapped the root causes underlying the relationship failures between these two communities based on their experiences, and identified leverage points for shifting deeply rooted perceptions that impede collaboration. We found that building trust and creating mutual value between multiple stakeholders before crises occur is likely to increase the effectiveness of problem solving. We propose a solution, the Science Action Network, which is designed to address barriers to scientific collaboration by providing new mechanisms to build and improve trust and communication between government administrators and scientists, industry representatives, and academic scientists. The Science Action Network has the potential to ensure cross-disaster preparedness and science-based decision making through novel partnerships and scientific coordination.

This article explores the “broader impacts” of research related to biodiversity conservation. We analyze a sample of abstracts of proposals funded by the United States National Science Foundation's (NSF) Biology (BIO) and Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorates. The analysis, based on the NSF conceptualization of broader impacts, identified 21 important types of broader impacts mentioned in the abstracts. Our results show that the vast majority of NSF grant recipients propose a small range of broader impacts, and that predictable differences exist in the types of broader impacts that are more and less common for conservation‐related work in the biological and social sciences. BIO abstracts contained proportionally fewer mentions of equity, case studies, international links, and workshops for conservation practitioners. SBE abstracts contained proportionally fewer mentions of dissemination to local communities, data sharing, websites, and curriculum. We discuss multiple forms of broader impact (e.g., process‐based impacts vs. sharing of results), and then, like the abstracts we analyzed, focus on communication and engagement mechanisms. In order to aid future efforts, we provide examples of unusual and particularly creative approaches that conservation scientists can use to enhance the broader impacts of their work.

When governments respond to natural disasters, experts with some of the greatest potential to help—scientists—are often missing in action. It's time to change that.