Building bridges between environmental and political agendas is essential nowadays in face of the increasing human pressure on natural environments, including wetlands. Wetlands provide critical ecosystem services for humanity and can generate a considerable direct or indirect income to the local communities. To meet many of the sustainable development goals, we need to move our trajectory from the current environmental destructive development to a wiser wetland use. The current article contain a proposed agenda for the Pantanal aiming the improvement of public policy for conservation in the Pantanal, one of the largest, most diverse, and continuous inland wetland in the world. We suggest and discuss a list of 11 essential interfaces between science, policy, and development in region linked to the proposed agenda. We believe that a functional science network can booster the collaborative capability to generate creative ideas and solutions to address the big challenges faced by the Pantanal wetland.

No abstract

Anthropogenic factors have significantly influenced the frequency, duration, and intensity of meteorological drought in many regions of the globe, and the increased frequency of wildfires is among the most visible consequences of human-induced climate change. Despite its role in determining biodiversity outcomes in different ecosystems, wildfires can cause negative impacts on wildlife. We conducted ground surveys along line transects to estimate the first-order impact of the 2020 wildfires on vertebrates in the Pantanal wetland, Brazil. We adopted the distance sampling technique to estimate the densities and the number of dead vertebrates in the 39,030 square kilometers affected by fire. Our estimates indicate that at least 16.952 million vertebrates were killed immediately by the fires in the Pantanal, demonstrating the impact of such an event in wet savanna ecosystems. The Pantanal case also reminds us that the cumulative impact of widespread burning would be catastrophic, as fire recurrence may lead to the impoverishment of ecosystems and the disruption of their functioning. To overcome this unsustainable scenario, it is necessary to establish proper biomass fuel management to avoid cumulative impacts caused by fire over biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is a promising tool underpinned by the idea that multistakeholders’ needs should be considered in any conservation action. However, there is almost no research verifying whether those proposed solutions indeed capture local people's needs. In this article, a SCP exercise was developed in the Pantanal wetland, Brazil, to propose a possible new negotiated solution for environmental protection areas and fisheries zone. To test the validity of the SCP‐delivered solutions, physical maps showing them were presented and discussed with local people. None of the proposed possible SCP scenarios was accepted locally as workable. The fixed solutions proposed by SCP do not map onto the spatial–temporal flexibility of floodplain fisheries. Current, SCP approaches seem far from being able to incorporate the livelihood uncertainties of floodplain fisheries into mathematical models in a way that encompasses people's needs and, therefore remains only a theoretical tool for sustainability.

Resumo Este artigo analisa indicadores de saúde dos municípios da região de São José do Rio Preto e a demanda da população segundo os gestores diante do processo de expansão da cana de açúcar. Dez municípios da região que possuem usinas de cana de açúcar e outros 10 municípios com o mesmo número de habitantes, mas sem usinas, foram selecionados. Os dados foram coletados por meio de entrevistas e em bancos de dados do Ministério da Saúde. Observou-se que, independentemente da presença de usinas sucroalcooleiras, houve melhora nos indicadores de saúde. Entretanto, para os gestores entrevistados, independentemente da presença ou ausência de usinas, a presença de migrantes para o corte da cana piorou os indicadores de saúde. Assim, constatou-se que a presença de usinas nos municípios não interferiu nos indicadores de saúde, mas os gestores consideram que a qualidade da saúde do município teve queda.

Conservation science practitioners seek to preempt irreversible impacts on species, ecosystems, and social–ecological systems, requiring efficient and timely action even when data and understanding are unavailable, incomplete, dated, or biased. These challenges are exacerbated by the scientific community's capacity to consistently distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, including the recognition of questionable research practices (QRPs, or “questionable practices”), which may threaten the credibility of research, including harming trust in well‐designed and reliable scientific research. In this paper, we propose a “toolkit” for open and pluralistic conservation science, highlighting common questionable practices and sources of bias and indicating where remedies for these problems may be found. The toolkit provides an accessible resource for anyone conducting, reviewing, or using conservation research, to identify sources of false claims or misleading evidence that arise unintentionally, or through misunderstandings or carelessness in the application of scientific methods and analyses. We aim to influence editorial and review practices and hopefully to remedy problems before they are published or deployed in policy or conservation practice.

Biodiversity is in precipitous decline globally across both terrestrial and marine environments. Therefore, conservation actions are needed everywhere on Earth, including in the biodiversity rich landscapes and seascapes where people live and work that cover much of the planet. Integrative landscape and seascape approaches to conservation fill this niche. Making evidence-informed conservation decisions within these populated and working landscapes and seascapes requires an in-depth and nuanced understanding of the human dimensions through application of the conservation social sciences. Yet, there has been no comprehensive exploration of potential conservation social science contributions to working landscape and seascape initiatives. We use the Smithsonian Working Land and Seascapes initiative – an established program with a network of 14 sites around the world – as a case study to examine what human dimensions topics are key to improving our understanding and how this knowledge can inform conservation in working landscapes and seascapes. This exploratory study identifies 38 topics and linked questions related to how insights from place-based and problem-focused social science might inform the planning, doing, and learning phases of conservation decision-making and adaptive management. Results also show how conservation social science might yield synthetic and theoretical insights that are more broadly applicable. We contend that incorporating insights regarding the human dimensions into integrated conservation initiatives across working landscapes and seascapes will produce more effective, equitable, appropriate and robust conservation actions. Thus, we encourage governments and organizations working on conservation initiatives in working landscapes and seascapes to increase engagement with and funding of conservation social science.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a global blueprint to end extreme poverty, reduce inequality, and protect the planet. Progress toward these goals is falling short. Achieving the SDGs requires coordination among government, private industry, and nongovernmental organizations to align the actions of multiple sectors with SDG targets. Adapting an approach used by industry sectors, we mapped the Smithsonian Institution Working Land and Seascapes network to the SDGs. The network of programs aims to foster healthy and productive ecosystems through collaborations with diverse stakeholders. Across the network, we identified clear and measurable contributions to 16 of the 17 SDGs and specifically mapped past and current activities to 76 of the 169 targets, thereby demonstrating how conservation actions can contribute to achieving the SDGs, beyond SDGs 14 and 15. We also identified the need for clear results chain and greater capacity to achieve the SDGs and then provide examples of how different sectors can increase complementarity of their actions. By mapping activities to the SDGs, different sectors can increase alignment and strengthen collective contributions towards common global goals.