Co‐developing guidance for conservation: An example for seabirds in the North‐East Atlantic in the face of climate change impacts

Conservation guidance—an authoritative source of information and recommendations explicitly supporting decision‐making and action regarding nature conservation—represents an important tool to communicate evidence‐based advice to conservation actors. Given the rapidly increasing pressure that climate change poses to biodiversity, producing accessible, well‐informed guidance on how to best manage the impacts and risks of changing climatic conditions is particularly urgent. Guidance documents should ideally be produced with multistage input from stakeholders who are likely to use and implement such advice; however, this step can be complicated and costly, and remains largely unformalized. Moreover, there is currently little direct evidence synthesized for actions that specifically target climate change and guidance remains largely absent. Here, we introduce a process for co‐developing guidance for species conservation in the face of climate change, using seabirds in the North‐East Atlantic as a case study. Specifically, we collated evidence on climate change vulnerability and possible conservation actions using literature synthesis, stakeholder surveys, and ecological modeling. This evidence base was then discussed, refined, and expanded using structured stakeholder workshops. We summarize the knowledge gained through stakeholder engagement and provide recommendations for future international efforts to co‐produce conservation guidance for managing wildlife, in the context of a rapidly changing climate.

[1]  N. G. Taylor,et al.  Seabirds in the North-East Atlantic , 2023 .

[2]  Dr. Kirstin K. Holsman Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability , 2023 .

[3]  V. Tseng,et al.  How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research , 2022, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.

[4]  Denis B. Karcher,et al.  More than money - The costs of knowledge exchange at the interface of science and policy , 2022, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[5]  S. Cooke,et al.  Principles for the production of evidence‐based guidance for conservation actions , 2022, Conservation Science and Practice.

[6]  Anna Steynor,et al.  Defining metrics for monitoring and evaluating the impact of co-production in climate services , 2022, Climate Services.

[7]  N. G. Taylor,et al.  Linking climate change vulnerability research and evidence on conservation action effectiveness to safeguard European seabird populations , 2022, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[8]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Terrestrial or marine species distribution model: Why not both? A case study with seabirds , 2021, Ecology and evolution.

[9]  Alec P. Christie,et al.  Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity , 2021, bioRxiv.

[10]  N. Young,et al.  The role of western‐based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation , 2021, People and Nature.

[11]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Improving Predictions of Climate Change-Land Use Change Interactions. , 2020, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  M. Coll,et al.  A review of the combined effects of climate change and other local human stressors on the marine environment. , 2020, The Science of the total environment.

[13]  S. Turner,et al.  Translating academic research into guidance to support healthcare improvement: how should guidance development be reported? , 2019, BMC Health Services Research.

[14]  W. Sutherland,et al.  A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[15]  Peat Leith,et al.  Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice , 2019, Annual Review of Environment and Resources.

[16]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The Conservation Evidence database , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[17]  Rob W. Martin,et al.  Threats to seabirds: A global assessment , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[18]  N. W. Arnell,et al.  Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase , 2019, Climatic Change.

[19]  Matthew J. Muir,et al.  Defining and using evidence in conservation practice , 2019, Conservation Science and Practice.

[20]  J. Sluijs,et al.  Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services , 2019, Climate Services.

[21]  Katharine Vincent,et al.  What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production? , 2018, Climate Services.

[22]  C. Vadász,et al.  Bridging conservation science and traditional knowledge of wild animals: The need for expert guidance and inclusion of local knowledge holders , 2018, Ambio.

[23]  R. A. Garcia,et al.  Climate change vulnerability assessment of species , 2018, WIREs Climate Change.

[24]  Gary Hickey,et al.  Co-production from proposal to paper , 2018, Nature.

[25]  A. Meadow,et al.  The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice , 2018, Environmental Management.

[26]  R. Clarke,et al.  Systematic review of geographic biases in the collection of at-sea distribution data for seabirds , 2018 .

[27]  A. Fletcher,et al.  Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions , 2017, BMC Public Health.

[28]  P. Beier,et al.  A How‐to Guide for Coproduction of Actionable Science , 2017 .

[29]  Ana L. Porzecanski,et al.  Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation , 2017 .

[30]  T. Wall,et al.  Moving Toward the Deliberate Co-Production of Climate Science Knowledge , 2015 .

[31]  M. S. Reed,et al.  Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[32]  E. Milner‐Gulland,et al.  The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science , 2014, Oryx.

[33]  I. Nisbet Bird Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions , 2013 .

[34]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[35]  P. Simmons,et al.  Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation , 2013 .

[36]  G. Rowe,et al.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms , 2005 .

[37]  W. Sutherland,et al.  The need for evidence-based conservation. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  C. Behe,et al.  A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research , 2022, Ecology and Society.

[39]  Rebecca K. Smith,et al.  What Works in Conservation 2021 , 2021 .

[40]  F. Daunt,et al.  Impacts of climate change on seabirds, relevant to the coastal and marine environment around the UK , 2020 .

[41]  B. Stein,et al.  Scanning the conservation horizon: A guide to climate change vulnerability assessment , 2011 .

[42]  A. Chidthaisong,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[43]  J. Galloway A Review of the , 1901 .