Progress and Gaps in Biodiversity Data Mainstreaming and Knowledge Transfer for Conservation in South America

Tailoring evidence into action: Using a co‐design approach for biodiversity information in the Tropical Andes

“…Another group, which we refer to as “secondary stakeholders,” such as businesses, civil society groups, local communities, indigenous groups, and the general public (Figure 1), also benefit from and attributes values to biodiversity, but are not typically involved in the mainstreaming process due to limited resources, are often mistakenly perceived as having a lack of knowledge or interest due to limited direct involvement, priority toward primary stakeholders, and limited recognition of their perspectives and contributions (Jolibert & Wesselink, 2012; Neßhöver et al, 2013; Smith et al, 2020). However, since secondary stakeholders have the potential to significantly influence policies and funding decisions that affect biodiversity, involving them in the mainstreaming process can also help raise awareness of the value and importance of biodiversity (Alvarado et al, 2022; Josse & Fernandez, 2021). Until now, barriers such as communication gaps, a narrow focus on environmental benefits, and a government and academic‐driven approach often leave these secondary stakeholders feeling ignored and contribute to power imbalances, further hindering mainstreaming efforts (Alvarado et al, 2022; Chandra & Idrisova, 2011; Cvitanovic et al, 2016; Josse & Fernandez, 2021; Muhl et al, 2022; Vogel et al, 2007).…”

“…However, since secondary stakeholders have the potential to significantly influence policies and funding decisions that affect biodiversity, involving them in the mainstreaming process can also help raise awareness of the value and importance of biodiversity (Alvarado et al, 2022; Josse & Fernandez, 2021). Until now, barriers such as communication gaps, a narrow focus on environmental benefits, and a government and academic‐driven approach often leave these secondary stakeholders feeling ignored and contribute to power imbalances, further hindering mainstreaming efforts (Alvarado et al, 2022; Chandra & Idrisova, 2011; Cvitanovic et al, 2016; Josse & Fernandez, 2021; Muhl et al, 2022; Vogel et al, 2007).…”

“…The Tropical Andes is a biodiversity hotspot where conservation efforts collide with socioeconomic issues and public policies prioritizing economic development (Fernández et al, 2015; Josse & Fernandez, 2021; Rodríguez‐Echeverry & Leiton, 2021). Despite covering less than half a percent of the Earth's surface, this region contains over 10% of globally described species across 100 distinct ecosystems that provide vital provisioning, cultural, and regulating services to several South American countries (Anderson et al, 2011; Josse et al, 2011; Myers et al, 2000; Rodríguez‐Mahecha et al, 2004).…”

“…One promising approach is “biodiversity mainstreaming” whereby biodiversity and conservation considerations are integrated and embedded into the strategies and policies of key economic and societal sectors that impact or rely on biodiversity (Chandra & Idrisova, 2011; Huntley, 2014; Redford et al, 2015; Whitehorn et al, 2019). Biodiversity mainstreaming has already gained significant traction and has been incorporated by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, International Union for Conservation of Nature, European Union Biodiversity Strategy, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and global efforts such as the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Huntley, 2014; Josse & Fernandez, 2021; Perino et al, 2021). Despite the widespread application of the biodiversity mainstreaming process, there is currently a lack of established guidelines, recognized best practices, and empirical evidence on its effectiveness, which limits its integration into decision‐making processes and makes its impacts unclear (Huntley, 2014).…”

“…One issue is the lack of accessible and standardized data across different institutions, sectors, and regions, which impedes informed decision‐making and assessment of the impacts of actions on biodiversity (Stephenson et al, 2017). This problem is further compounded by the lack of coordination and communication among all the stakeholders involved across the different levels of data flow, as well as the absence of clear policies and guidelines for mainstreaming biodiversity into decision‐making (Josse & Fernandez, 2021; Muhl et al, 2022; Navarro et al, 2017). This often leads to confusion, conflicting information, and the risk of duplicating efforts and investments.…”