By Paula Drummond and Érica Speglich

Although biodiversity is essential for ecological assessment and conservation, its practical measurements sometimes fail to capture the essence of how natural systems function and are inadequate for effectively guiding decision-making. It is crucial to expand the scope of data collection and analysis to meet demands, refine concepts, and, above all, bring knowledge production and demand closer together.

This assessment was made by Thomas Lewinsohn at the opening of the São Paulo School of Advanced Science on “Co-creating Biodiversity Assessments,” organized by the Postgraduate Program in Ecology at Unicamp, with support from FAPESP. The event brought together 57 participants from 22 countries across four continents, including postgraduate students, early-career researchers, managers, and environmental professionals. Participants spent 14 days in São Pedro (SP) discussing ways to integrate academic and practical knowledge on biodiversity to support decision-making. Additionally, working groups were organized to develop potential solutions for real-world challenges identified by the participants in their respective fields.

“There is a disconnect between knowledge production and its practical use. One of the School’s central goals is to promote this integration, improving the alignment between the creation and practical application of information,” said Thomas Lewinsohn, the event’s coordinator. To achieve this, the School sought to create a collaborative environment where participants could freely exchange ideas and work together, aiming to apply insights to real-world problems, share experiences, and form new partnerships. “For the final outputs produced by participants, we hope the knowledge generated will be organized in practical language and formats that facilitate its use and understanding by all stakeholders, such as Technical Notes, Guides, and articles aimed at non-academic audiences,” added Simone Vieira, the School’s vice-coordinator.

Bridging academic knowledge with practical conservation needs has inspired several research initiatives in Brazil. One example is the Biota/FAPESP Program, which has supported various public policy instruments over its 25 years of existence, and Biota Synthesis, which promotes collaboration among researchers, managers, and civil society to inform public policies for sustainability in urban and rural areas of São Paulo State. “Since 2022, Biota Synthesis has produced three Technical Notes: on carbon biomass in the state, financial arrangements for funding ecosystem restoration, and strategies for implementing the State Climate Action Plan,” said Mariana Cabral from the University of São Paulo and Manager of the Biological Sciences area at FAPESP.

Another example, from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), is the Center for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (SinBiose). Created in response to demands identified by the Long-Term Ecological Research Program (PELD), SinBiose aims to address complex and interconnected issues such as climate emergencies, biodiversity loss, food sovereignty, and neglected tropical diseases through knowledge co-production and evidence-based decision-making. “We have already produced eight policy briefs with the results of the projects,” explained Marisa Mamede from CNPq.

Co-production as a Pathway

One strategy that has garnered growing interest among those seeking to align science with user needs is the co-production of knowledge. This approach involves the joint construction of knowledge among all stakeholders, collaboratively and without hierarchies. This process requires engagement in intense discussions and, most importantly, the creation of shared outputs or actions, whether technical or scientific. “Often, the term has been used synonymously with participatory processes, but co-production implies a transformation in the knowledge of all involved,” clarified Maria Carmen Lemos from the University of Michigan (USA).

“Knowledge generated through co-production processes needs to be adapted to support decision-making,” said Lemos. “To achieve something suitable, flexibility and negotiation are necessary, in a game of interactions where respect for each other’s knowledge and decisions is fundamental. In this process, scientific knowledge also transforms. If you haven’t changed the science, there has been no co-production,” concluded the researcher.

Inspiring Experiences

The path to building science that is engaged with the demands of other stakeholders in biodiversity conservation requires dedication, time, and, above all, a willingness to listen. “We need to interact to change our perspective,” said Joice Ferreira from Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. The researcher is one of the leaders of the Sustainable Amazon Network (RAS), which has been conducting research in the Amazon for over 20 years. “Our research initially was very academic-focused; today, we do nothing without interaction with local communities,” explained Joice Ferreira, who participated in one of the five roundtables held during the School.

Camila Ritter, from the Juruá Institute and INPA, presented cases of community-based monitoring in the Volta Grande do Xingu and Médio Juruá regions, where riverside and indigenous communities lead effective methods for monitoring and conserving natural resources. “Researchers need to be on the ground, living and listening; otherwise, we are reproducing a European white science,” warned Camila Ritter.

The Local Development Plan for Araçá Bay in Ubatuba (SP) was developed in 2016 following discussions about the impacts of a potential expansion of the Port of São Sebastião. The document resulted from a collective effort by members of the Araçá Bay community, the population of São Sebastião, research institutions, private initiatives, and public agencies. This experience was shared by Alexander Turra from the Oceanographic Institute at USP and one of the lead researchers of the Biota-Araçá project, which spearheaded the initiative that led to the Plan.

Catarina Jakovac from the Federal University of Santa Catarina highlighted advances in producing indicators of natural regeneration in the Amazon as an effective strategy for decision-making in forest restoration. The project, part of SinBiose, launched a Policy Brief, technical notes, and a glossary on natural regeneration to integrate this restoration strategy into public policies for the Amazon. “So far, we have informed how and where natural regeneration can serve as a strategy for ecosystem restoration. We have yet to see the indicators widely applied, and we know they can still be improved. But a blurry lens is better than no lens,” compared Catarina Jakovac.

Guilherme Longo from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte presented a successful case of citizen science mediated by social media. #DeOlhonosCorais has been active on Instagram since 2018, inviting divers to post photos of corals and their locations using the project’s hashtag. “At first, it was a challenging experience, a different language, but we learned how the rules [of Instagram] work and played the game. We achieved impressive results.” It was through a photo from a citizen scientist that Rio Grande do Norte recorded its first sighting of the “sun coral,” a globally invasive species now threatening Brazil’s coral biodiversity. “With this information, the state environmental agency [IDEMA] initiated a program to control the invasive species along the coast,” added Guilherme Longo.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Rui Pedrosa from the University of Leiria in Portugal shared the experience of interaction between his laboratory and local industry and commerce, which inspired technological innovations based on biodiversity and the valorization of unconventional marine products. The initiative resulted in the launch of products such as bread, pasta, and olive oil with seaweed, as well as a gin with seaweed extract. “Large companies often have their own technological development, but for small and medium-sized enterprises, partnerships with universities are essential,” emphasized Rui Pedrosa. “The best way to build knowledge is with people; they are the ones who ensure that technological development remains within companies.”

Interactions with the private sector were presented by Roberto Klabin from the Caiman Ecological Refuge, a mixed-use property in Miranda (MS) that combines extensive cattle ranching, ecotourism, research, and environmental preservation areas. Recently, the property underwent a certification process to offer Biodiversity Credits. “The certifier evaluated all the negative and positive impacts on biodiversity generated by the different uses on the property, and this analysis confirmed that we have more positive than negative effects, resulting in Biodiversity Credits,” explained Roberto Klabin, who participated in the recent COP Biodiversity meeting in Cali, Colombia. “Discussions about Biodiversity Credits are still in their early stages and need further development,” reflected Roberto Klabin. “There are many ideas on how to measure them, but there is still much confusion, and there is basically no pricing. Despite this, I believe in this idea and think it is an excellent financial instrument to restore and protect nature.”

The School also featured the participation of globally recognized researchers such as Robin Chazdon (University of Connecticut, USA), Matías Enrique Mastrangelo (University of Mar del Plata, Argentina), George Brown (Embrapa), and Rodolfo Dirzo (Stanford University, USA).

by Érica Speglich

For 14 days, 57 postgraduate students, early-career researchers, managers, and environmental professionals from 22 countries gathered at the São Paulo School of Advanced Science on “Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments” to discuss and propose the integration of academic and practical knowledge on biodiversity to support decision-making.

“One of the greatest challenges today is the disconnect between knowledge production and its practical application. The central goal of the School was precisely to promote this integration, creating a collaborative and interdisciplinary environment,” emphasized the event coordinator, Thomas Lewinsohn, an emeritus professor at the Institute of Biology.

During the first week of the event, participants attended lectures, roundtable discussions, and presented their work. In the second week, they organized into groups to develop solutions for real-world challenges based on their own experiences and interests. For example, they worked on creating conservation strategies for pollinators, identifying simple and accessible techniques for monitoring ecosystem restoration, and discussing guidelines for establishing biodiversity credits that integrate sustainable financial instruments and contributions to biodiversity conservation.

Among the expected outcomes are Technical Notes, Guides, and materials aimed at non-academic audiences, such as managers and communities. For Simone Vieira, a researcher at NEPAM and the School’s vice-coordinator, this practical approach is essential: “We want the knowledge generated during this period to be accessible and applicable to all stakeholders, not just academia,” she stated.

Impacts on Postgraduate Studies

Simone Vieira also emphasized the event’s impact on the Postgraduate Program in Ecology at Unicamp. According to her, “the School brought together faculty members aligned with the event’s theme who, otherwise, would not be working together. This collaborative effort brought people closer and has a significant impact on a Postgraduate Program.” Additionally, the researcher highlighted the unique opportunity for students in the Program not only to participate but also to support the event’s organization. “Interacting with people from different parts of the world and cultures fosters significant personal growth,” she commented.

For Aline Vieira Silva, a PhD student in Ecology at Unicamp and a tutor at the event, the experience was a comprehensive learning opportunity. “It was the first time I participated in organizing an event of this scale, and it was valuable to experience not only the intellectual aspects but also the entire process required to execute an event of this magnitude,” she shared. The exchange of ideas among participants with diverse professional backgrounds was also a highlight: “I have experience in classical ecology research, and we rarely see this interaction between academic research and other areas like the private sector and government. It has been interesting to engage in discussions and produce materials that can be useful beyond academia,” Aline Vieira remarked.

A Global and Interdisciplinary Gathering

Half of the School’s participants were Brazilian, and the other half came from countries around the world. “We aimed to select participants with a focus on gender equality, minorities, and ethnic diversity, as well as forming a group with a rich variety of backgrounds, experiences, and nationalities,” noted Thomas Lewinsohn.

For Ezequiel Chimbioputo Fabiano from the University of Namibia, the School provided insights directly applicable to his work on biodiversity monitoring within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity: “The concepts covered, both theoretical and practical, will be incorporated into my project and my teaching, enriching my students’ education,” said the young researcher.

The event not only aimed to strengthen international collaboration networks but also encouraged a more inclusive and practical approach to biodiversity science, as commented by Lucas Ferreira Lima, a collaborating researcher at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp, who intends to advance methods for assessing people’s contributions to nature. This is a complementary proposal to the concept of ecosystem services, which evaluates the opposite: the benefits of nature to people. The proposal considers both people’s emotional connection to nature (referred to as Biophilia) and its importance to the economy and sustainability (Ecological Economics). “As a result of this School, along with six other researchers from Sri Lanka, India, and Brazil, we are proposing a method to assess People’s Contributions to Nature, aligning the perspectives of Biophilia and Ecological Economics under the guidance of researcher and speaker Robin Chazdon from the University of Connecticut (USA).” By recognizing and promoting the connection between humans and nature, the group proposes that people can become key actors in the preservation, restoration, and co-management of natural systems.

Throughout the second week of the SPSAS Biodiversity, participants and instructors worked in groups on projects focused on real-world demands and challenges discussed during the first week of the School.

Below, learn about the themes chosen by the 11 Working Groups of the School.

Group 1 – Valuing people’s contributions to nature within socio-bioeconomic initiatives in Brazil

The first group will work on valuing people’s contributions to nature within the Brazilian bioeconomy strategy. According to the group’s studies, only 16 countries have published bioeconomy strategies that are explicitly dedicated to promoting the bioeconomy in this entirety.

The group aims to produce an evidence-based policy brief to suggest recommendations for inclusive policies that value Brazilian Indigenous Peoples’, local communities’, and smallholder farmers’ contributions to nature while promoting just development.

In particular, the group will work on the non-monetary values that exist in the relationship between two giants of the Amazon: the Pirarucu and the river communities.

Group 2 – People’s contribution to nature: a biophilic framework to rethink conservation and management

The second group will also develop a project about People’s Contribution to Nature, this time, to explore the potential of a Biophilic Framework to reshape nature conservation, ecosystem restoration, and management.

By recognizing and fostering the human-nature connection, the group proposes that people can become active representatives in the preservation, restoration, and co-management of natural systems. The aim is to build a framework to be incorporated into IPBES Conceptual Framework that includes a perspective leaning on People’s Contribution to Nature rather than Nature’s Contribution to People.

This idea will be developed based on three case studies on India, Brazil and SriLanka.

Group 3 – Unraveling human-nature relationships through a network-based approach

The third #SPSASBiodiversity group aims to develop an interaction-based approach to enhance our understanding of human-nature relationships. The group is driven by the following question: Can integrating human perceptions with ecological interactions foster co-designed initiatives that promote the sustainability of social-ecological systems?

The core idea is that social-ecological networks, when combined with ecological interactions, can be developed through an iterative co-creation process rooted in knowledge exchange and trust-building with local communities. This approach could enable the group to visualize and analyze how human perspectives interact with—and potentially alter—species interactions over time. It may also serve as a foundational step toward co-designing solutions among researchers, local communities, and other stakeholders.

Grupo 4 – How to co-design pollinator conservation strategies along the gradient of agricultural intensity?

The group is interested in strategies to co-design pollinator conservation initiatives along the gradient of land-use intensity. 35% of global food production relies upon insect pollination but they are threatened by anthropogenic disturbances, like agricultural intensification. Across the gradient of agriculture intensification, different threats occur and different stakeholders arenas also occur. People involved possess different motivation/willingness/knowledge that is why different conservation strategies need to be developed. 

The group idea is to create a roadmap for these different strategies aimed for scientists, practitioners, farmers and policy makers.

Group 5 – Biodiversity monitoring techniques for non-specialists: enhancing engagement and adaptive management in restoration

The discussion presented by the participants focused on indicators for monitoring ecosystem restoration. The group is particularly interested in biodiversity monitoring techniques that are accessible to non-specialists, encourage their participation, and enhance engagement in restoration efforts.

The group aims to develop a practical guide for restoration practitioners. This guide will include criteria for selecting monitoring indicators that facilitate non-expert involvement, as well as example indicators for forest and dryland ecosystems. Each indicator will be described in terms of its definition, relevance to biodiversity, straightforward application methods, and potential limitations.

Group 6 – Identifying the challenges in sourcing plant biodiversity for non-forested ecosystems in South America and Africa

What are the challenges of sourcing plant biodiversity to restore native non-forested ecosystems in South America and Africa? This was the question posed by the last group of the morning’s presentations.

Ecological restoration is an important solution for restoring biodiversity around the world, and certain situations require moderately to intensively assisted restoration, which in turn requires the addition of plant species through seeding or planting. However, the species added often represent only a subset of the desired biodiversity for a restored ecosystem.

The goal of the group is to identify the challenges of plant species sourcing and to develop a framework that synthesizes and organizes existing knowledge and key challenges that need to be addressed in order to provide diverse plant material for restoration in South America and Africa. The idea is to present this framework in a brief for a target audience of policy makers, government and managers of restoration programs.

Group 7 – How to encourage the private sector to finance conservation in Brazil? A Study Case for National Action Plans

The group poses a difficult question: how to encourage the private sector to fund conservation?

As an answer, the group suggests the creation of the Green Hub: a platform that connects funders, conservation stakeholders and strategic partners to implement conservation projects in Brazil. These projects must be aligned with the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity and existing government strategic plans, such as the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans and the National Plan for the Conservation of Threatened Species.

The idea is that the Green Hub can provide a database of environmental and policy information that helps guide businesses and investors to existing conservation projects. It will also monitor the implementation of projects and the results achieved, and produce a report for both the company and the government.

Group 8 – Opportunities and Challenges of Implementing Biodiversity Credits in the Coffee Supply Chain in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil using a Roadmap

The eighth group of the SPSAS Biodiversity is interested in biodiversity credits. A biodiversity credit is a certificate that represents a measured and evidence-based unit of positive biodiversity outcome that is permanent and additional to what would otherwise have occurred.

The group is proposing a guideline to ensure that biodiversity is integrated into sustainable financial instruments and aligned with the “30×30” goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

The idea is to develop this guideline by aligning global and local biodiversity goals, prioritizing potential sites for implementing activities that can generate positive biodiversity outcomes and ultimately translate into biodiversity credits at the local level, and issuing biodiversity credits with metrics that can be reported in a global marketplace for multiple stakeholders.

Group 9 – Reframing the landscape in metrics for biodiversity credits

And the discussions on Biodiversity Credits continue in the ninth group, which aims to change the perspective of Biodiversity Credit projects by proposing the inclusion of landscape context in credit monitoring systems. To this end, the group proposes to assess beta-diversity in landscapes, i.e. the variation in species composition between sites in a geographic area of interest. 

The evaluation of changes in beta-diversity across time has been recently adopted by ecologists looking into biotic homogenization and differentiation and has the potential to control for the effect of the landscape context (e.g. the displacement or rising of threats) on the restoration and conservation project site. 

The group also proposes to write a policy brief aimed at practitioners and stakeholders.

Group 10 – How to improve Biodiversity Assessments of Carbon Credit Projects?

And the tenth group continues to think about Credits and biodiversity, this time, on how to improve biodiversity assessments on Carbon Credit projects.

The group proposes a structured framework for improving the process, including reviewing monitoring reports and incorporating attributes at the landscape, community, ecosystem, and species levels. 

With this, the group aims to ensure that these initiatives genuinely contribute to biodiversity conservation alongside climate goals. Also, by offering a standardized approach to support these assessments, it may improve transparency and credibility across diverse projects and regions. Additionally, it can help project developers to improve the quality of project activities, promote CCB Gold certification, and increase the value of carbon credits.

Group 11 – Advancing the use of eDNA for biodiversity monitoring in tropical regions

The last working group poses the question: How deep is the void? Promoting the use of eDNA for biodiversity monitoring in the tropics.

The goal of the group is to promote the use of eDNA to generate knowledge to guide biodiversity action in the neo- and afrotropical regions. The project aims to help reduce taxonomic bias, strengthen capacity building, and build South-South and North-South relationships.

To this end, the group proposes to produce a policy brief to provide information and recommendations to policy makers in governments in the Neo- and Afrotropical regions on the potential of environmental DNA as a complementary approach to biodiversity monitoring and to support transformative conservation.

Maria Carmen Lemos, a “mineira” from Juiz de Fora, Brazil, is a prominent voice in the field of co-production of knowledge, a topic gaining increasing attention among those committed to bridging science and decision-making. “My interest is to understand what drives the use of scientific knowledge by decision makers, from the farmer, the household, the city, the state, the globe,” explains the researcher.

An economist trained at the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, with a brief stint at the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Lemos built her academic career in the United States. After earning a master’s and PhD in Political Science from MIT, she joined the University of Michigan in 2002, where she continues to teach and is now approaching retirement.

Throughout her career, Lemos has made significant contributions as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR5) and the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA4). She has served on numerous committees of the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, further cementing her influence in the field. In 2023, Lemos was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, a recognition of her impactful contributions to science and society.

In Brazil, her research has focused on the complex interactions between institutions, communities, and researchers, particularly in addressing climate change challenges in the Northeast and investigating the environmental impacts of the mid 1980’s Cubatão (SP) industrial disaster. Her work has helped illuminate the socio-environmental dynamics at the intersection of science and decision-making.

Maria Carmen was interviewed on October 30th, by SPSAS Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments in São Pedro (SP).

SPSAS Biodiversity – How would you define the concept of co-production of knowledge, and what distinguishes it from traditional approaches to the relationship between science and decision-making?

Maria Carmen Lemos – Co-production, in its broadest definition, is the meaningful relationship between scientists and non-scientists to collaboratively produce both knowledge and action. In its traditional form, scientists are seen as the producers of knowledge, while decision-makers are responsible for taking action based on that knowledge.

In the co-production model, however, these roles are not separate. Instead, knowledge and action are created simultaneously through an iterative process of interaction between the two. This relationship fosters several important outcomes: it increases the ownership of the knowledge, improves how well the data fits the decision-making context, and builds trust between the actors. This trust, in turn, strengthens their commitment to advancing action together.

In traditional models, science produces knowledge, and decision-makers use that knowledge to take action. This model assumes a clear separation: scientists conduct their research, publish it, and decision-makers read it to inform their actions, with no direct interaction between the two.

The co-production model, however, intertwines these processes. Scientists adjust their knowledge based on the ongoing interaction, and decision-makers may also adjust their decisions. The process aims to produce both new knowledge and new action as a result of this collaborative effort.

SPSAS Biodiversity – When did coproduction start to gain the attention of scientists and decision-makers?  

Maria Carmen Lemos – Let me start with coproduction in climate science because it gained traction there earlier than in other fields when I started. Now it has spread across sustainability, including ecology and engineering. It began in the late 1980s with efforts like the IPCC, but by the early 2000s, there was more focus on how usable this science was. For example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program used the term “usable science” in its mandate, but nobody really knew what that meant at the time.  

This sparked both research and practice on making knowledge usable, opening up a new area of understanding. There was already literature on how science is produced and its connections with participatory and action research, but these ideas hadn’t yet come together. The focus shifted to understanding why people weren’t using science and what could be done to change that.  

Over the last 20 to 30 years, this research has expanded significantly. For me, it started with a NOAA grant to study climate forecasting, which has parallels with broader climate information. My goal has always been to understand what drives or limits the use of scientific knowledge. A major finding was that interaction between scientists and users increases the likelihood that knowledge will be applied, compared to traditional models of science.  

SPSAS Biodiversity – How can interactions between scientists and decision-makers improve the use of scientific knowledge?

Maria Carmen Lemos – I think there is compelling evidence that meaningful interactions between users and producers of science make a difference. These relationships increase the chances of two key outcomes: the scientist gains a better understanding of the decision-making context, and the decision-maker better grasps both the opportunities and the limits of science.

For this to be truly effective, though, both sides must be willing to change. It can’t be a situation where one says, ‘I want this,’ and the other responds, ‘Well, this is all I have for you.’ In these conversations, you may not always get exactly what you want, but you often get what you need. Because through dialogue, both sides can figure out how science fits the context and what can be done to make it fit better.

So, how do we make science fit better? Better communication is one way—it improves alignment. Customization is another. Improved comprehension also plays a role. And sometimes, it’s not even about better comprehension but simply providing more relevant information to bridge the gap.

SPSAS Biodiversity – Can you share an example of how scientists and decision-makers navigate through this process?

Maria Carmen Lemos – Sure. Climate models are notorious for being very uncertain. Often, users want to know exactly how uncertain they are, but it’s very difficult to quantify that precisely. Scientists are increasingly working on ways to better communicate uncertainty so that decision-makers can still make informed choices even with incomplete information. By understanding the risks involved, people will still make decisions with uncertain information. That’s exactly the kind of work I focus on.

SPSAS Biodiversity – How do participation, engagement, and co-production differ in research?

Maria Carmen Lemos – Co-production, as we know it today, emerged after the U.S. government emphasized the need for usable science. Before that, there were earlier forms, like community involvement in public services, such as Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs), where parents help teachers with tasks, effectively co-producing a service. Similarly, communities monitoring ecological data is another example, where collaboration occurs without necessarily producing immediate action.

Participatory research, in contrast, is more interactive, where the subjects of research are involved in the process, like through focus groups or workshops. The goal, however, is still to gather data, not co-produce knowledge or action.

Engagement is a broader concept and can overlap with co-production and participatory research. In practice, these approaches often intertwine, and that’s perfectly fine. When these terms become too rigid, they can limit the potential of what can be achieved. Co-production ideally starts at the proposal stage, with stakeholders helping to shape research questions and gather data, but it can also evolve after the research, such as when policymakers contribute to creating a policy brief. It’s about the process, not just the definition.

SPSAS Biodiversity – How do you assess the effectiveness of co-production in research and decision-making?

Maria Carmen Lemos – You have to evaluate it. I often say that if I had a dollar for every time I mention evaluation, I’d be rich! It’s essential to evaluate because without it, you can’t guide others or avoid repeating mistakes. Having relationships with stakeholders, farmers, or communities is never a waste of time; it’s valuable, but there’s an opportunity cost in terms of time and resources.

For any change you want to implement, you need to critically assess what you’re doing and be strategic in your design. If you love working with communities, that’s important, but you also need to recognize the challenges of scaling up. You can’t expect to work with a few communities and then apply that model worldwide. To scale, you must co-produce with decision-makers at higher levels.

Researchers tackling global challenges like biodiversity loss, climate change, poverty, or food security need to collaborate more and understand that each scale—community or government—plays a crucial role. Loving one doesn’t mean abandoning the other. We should learn from each other, not criticize or judge.

SPSAS Biodiversity – What advice would you offer to scientists considering the use of co-production processes in their research?

Maria Carmen Lemos – There are many reasons to do research, but it starts with identifying the change you want to make and the system or actors you want to influence. Understand what you want to achieve, then look at the literature for guidance—there’s a wealth of experience to learn from. Be brutally honest about what’s realistic and where to start. You have to think of co-production not just as a method, but as an integral part of your research and the discovery process. It’s not an appendix to your work—it’s central to it. Because just as important as identifying the causes of beach pollution or environmental degradation, is figuring out the best ways to address them. And co-production is a key part of that solution.

So, always think about evaluation from the beginning—data collection is essential for later assessment. Passion is key, but so is rationality. If you’re not passionate about engaging with others, co-production might not be for you. It’s about finding a balance between your passion and the practicalities of making a real impact.

By Paula Drummond  

The integration of science, public policies, and the private sector emerges as an essential pathway to drive biodiversity conservation. Experts emphasize the need to address knowledge gaps, invest in scientific communication, and create innovative financial tools to ensure the protection of species and ecosystems. During the São Paulo School of Advanced Science, held in São Pedro (SP), researchers and managers from 22 countries discussed strategies to align science and decision-making, focusing on vulnerable populations and the role of the private sector in environmental preservation.  

Conservation on the fringes of policy

Cristina Leite-Banks, a researcher at Imperial College London (UK), highlighted the importance of populations of species living close to the range edges of their geographic distribution, known as peripheral species. These populations, although potentially crucial for the long-term persistence of a species, are particularly sensitive to threats such as deforestation and climate change.  

According to the researcher, range-edge populations face more extreme environmental conditions and exhibit lower genetic diversity, making them more vulnerable. Using data on birds in the Americas, Cristina demonstrated that biotic factors, such as competition and predation, have a greater influence on the sensitivity of these populations than abiotic factors, such as temperature. Despite their ecological relevance, these populations are often overlooked in research and public policies. Cristina emphasized the need for further studies to guide conservation strategies that address the unique challenges faced by these species.  

Science and policy: an essential partnership 

Carlos Scaramuzza, from the International Institute for Sustainability (IIS), highlighted the crucial role of science in shaping public conservation policies. He criticized the reactive nature of science, which is often consulted only during crises, resulting in missed opportunities for implementing more effective policies.  

To change this scenario, Scaramuzza advocated for the proactive engagement of scientists in political debates from the outset, as well as the creation of spaces for dialogue and collaboration between researchers and decision-makers. He stressed the importance of scientific communication as a bridge between these two worlds, translating complex knowledge into clear and accessible information. Another recommendation was the strengthening of technical teams within government agencies, ensuring a solid foundation for sustainable and well-informed decisions.  

The Role of the Private Sector

In the private sector, innovative financial instruments are seen as essential tools to stimulate environmental protection. One example is Biodiversity Credits, a mechanism that assesses the positive and negative impacts on biodiversity generated by different land uses. To obtain this certification, specific criteria must be met to ensure environmental benefits.  

“Although discussions are still in their early stages, I believe in the potential of Biodiversity Credits as a powerful tool to restore and protect nature,” said Roberto Klabin, founder of the Caiman Ecological Refuge, located in the Pantanal. The property combines activities such as extensive cattle ranching, ecotourism, research, and environmental preservation. Klabin, however, highlighted the need for greater clarity on metrics and pricing to enable the large-scale adoption of this mechanism.  

About the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments”

Organized by Unicamp’s Graduate Program in Ecology, with support from Fapesp, the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-creating Biodiversity Assessments” brought together 57 participants from 22 countries on four continents, including graduate students, early career researchers, environmental managers and technicians. The participants spent 14 days in São Pedro (SP) discussing ways to integrate academic and practical knowledge on biodiversity to support decision-making.

By Paula Drummond

Ecosystem restoration is essential for restoring ecosystem services and biodiversity in terrestrial and marine environments. In tropical forests, natural regeneration is an effective and economical solution for restoring large degraded areas, helping to sequester carbon and support wildlife. In marine environments, however, the restoration of coral reefs remains a challenge, particularly due to ocean warming.  Corals play a role in protecting coastlines, supporting fisheries and providing shelter for many species. Restoring coral reefs requires multiple actions, including coastal and marine zone management, including pollution control and exotic species control. 

Whether at sea or on land, ecological restoration is most effective when science, policy and community engagement are combined to ensure long-term resilience and sustainability.

The potential of global forest regeneration

Natural regeneration of tropical forests offers a unique opportunity to restore native biodiversity, forest functions and ecosystem services, says Robin Chazdon of the University of Connecticut. Long-term studies show that forests have their own recovery mechanisms that have accumulated over millions of years. However, the trajectory of forest succession can vary widely depending on factors such as previous land use, landscape conditions, and the characteristics of the species involved.

Forecast models based on 2020 data suggest that 215 million hectares of forest could regenerate globally by 2030. Brazil and Indonesia account for a third of this potential. In addition to being cost-effective, natural regeneration can provide significant economic benefits, such as storing 23.4 Gt of CO₂ over 30 years. In Brazil, where the potential for natural regeneration is the greatest in the world, this approach can be expanded using assisted regeneration methods, which would allow an additional 18.8 million hectares to be restored by 2035. This strategy reduces implementation costs by up to 77% compared to direct tree planting. To unlock this potential, however, it is essential to understand how different taxa and species, especially native and endangered ones, recover over time, and to map areas with greater viability for regeneration.

Coral reefs under threat

Coral reefs function as “underwater forests,” harboring rich biodiversity and playing a critical role in marine ecosystems. “Corals are threatened by overfishing, pollution and climate change, especially ocean warming and heat waves, which cause corals to bleach and die,” explains Guilherme Longo of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte. In Brazil, the composition of coral reefs along the coast varies greatly from north to south, with corals in the northeast being the most vulnerable to climate change. 

Most of the global efforts are concentrated in the Pacific and Caribbean, focusing mainly on branching corals, which do not occur off the Brazilian coast. In addition, the growth of these organisms is slow, and experiments tend to involve only a few species. Cost is also an obstacle: restoring just 10,000 square meters can cost up to US$4 million.

Even with this investment, there are uncontrollable factors, such as ocean heat waves, that can jeopardize the entire effort. 

“Coral restoration needs a solid scientific foundation. Without research, restoration efforts run the risk of being illusory, with no real long-term impact,” warns Longo. “In addition, we need to integrate science, society and public policy to protect reefs and the ecosystem services they provide,” he concludes.

Engagement as a strategy

Letícia Couto-Garcia of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS) emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement in ecological restoration efforts, with a particular focus on Brazil. She highlights the challenges to achieving restoration goals, such as conflicting interests and lack of communication between scientists, politicians, local communities and indigenous groups, and advocates a collaborative approach that integrates all these actors.

A key aspect that the researcher highlights is the appreciation of traditional knowledge, emphasizing the need for scientists to learn from indigenous communities in order to enrich restoration practices. 

A concrete example comes from indigenous fire management in regions such as the Brazilian savannas. In the Kadiwéu indigenous territory, brigades formed by indigenous people and supported by the government use controlled techniques to prevent and fight fires. A study analyzing 18 years of data shows that these practices not only reduce the frequency and intensity of fires, but also mitigate climate impacts in burned areas, demonstrating the effectiveness of this management in preserving the environment. Couto-Garcia also highlights the need to integrate this traditional knowledge into public policies in order to improve environmental management strategies. Finally, she highlights the fundamental role of women in these efforts, emphasizing the importance of gender equality in ecological restoration.

The Regenera project also reports on the experience of co-producing knowledge in immersive workshops with decision-makers as a key decision to integrate science into public policy. The results are presented in a Policy Brief, technical notes and a glossary on natural regeneration, with the aim of placing this restoration strategy within the scope of public policy for the Amazon. “So far, we have been able to provide information on how and where natural regeneration can serve as a strategy for ecosystem restoration.  We haven’t seen the indicators widely applied yet, and we know we can improve them. But it is better to have foggy glasses than no glasses at all,” says Catarina Jakovac.

Through social media, Guilherme Longo has launched a citizen science initiative. #DeOlhonosCorais has existed on Instagram since 2018, inviting divers in particular to post photos of corals and their location using the project’s hashtag. “At first it was a difficult experience, another language, but we learned how the rules [of Instagram] work and played the game. We had impressive results.” It was through a citizen scientist’s photo that the state of Rio Grande do Norte received the first notification of the sun coral, an invasive species that threatens coral biodiversity off the Brazilian coast. “With this information, the Rio Grande do Norte State Environmental Agency [IDEMA] launched a program to control the invasive species off the coast of Rio Grande do Norte,” adds Guilherme Longo.

About the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments”

Organized by Unicamp’s Graduate Program in Ecology, with support from Fapesp, the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-creating Biodiversity Assessments” brought together 57 participants from 22 countries on four continents, including graduate students, early career researchers, environmental managers and technicians. The participants spent 14 days in São Pedro (SP) discussing ways to integrate academic and practical knowledge on biodiversity to support decision-making.

By Paula Drummond

Ecosystems carry out natural processes that support life on the planet and provide direct or indirect benefits for human well-being, such as food production and climate regulation. Ecosystem functions are the natural activities and processes organisms and ecosystems perform, such as nutrient cycling, photosynthesis, soil formation, and pollination. Ecosystem services are the direct or indirect benefits derived from these functions, such as food production, climate regulation, water purification, and provision of raw materials.

To better understand the linkages between these functions and services, researchers are highlighting approaches such as using bromeliads as models in tropical ecosystems, the role of soil and its microbiome, and community participation in coastal zones. Integrating scientific and traditional knowledge is emerging as a critical tool for guiding sustainable conservation policies.

Bromeliads as ecosystem models

Monitoring environmental change in ecosystems requires strategies that integrate functional diversity and take into account local specificities, especially in tropical environments, explained Daiane Srivastava, University of British Columbia. She illustrated the problem using a model system based on bromeliads.

Bromeliads are plants whose leaves allow them to store water and form “pools” inside. This turns each plant into a mini-ecosystem that harbors animals, algae, bacteria and fungi. The organic matter that falls into the pond is recycled and can be used by the plant itself and by other organisms, making them a good model for studying how ecosystems function under different conditions.

The study presented by Srivastava examined 1,046 bromeliads at 26 sites across the Americas and found that these ecosystems respond differently depending on their location. For example, invertebrate diversity was more sensitive to changes in precipitation than total biomass. In other words, the biomass remains stable even though the species composition changes. These variations are related to the way bromeliads store water and the species composition at each site, and highlight the difficulty of establishing general limits for safe ecosystem functioning.

Although geographical contingencies influence these responses, they can be predicted by rules based on factors such as how they store water, the number of species that play similar roles in the ecosystem, and geographical features. This suggests that even in complex ecosystems, such as tropical ones, it is possible to generalize environmental response patterns if we know these rules.

However, Srivastava poses some challenges for ecosystem monitoring, such as “Which metrics of functional, taxonomic, interactional, or phylogenetic diversity are best for predicting ecosystem services?  How can we ensure that we are measuring the right traits for conservation? And is functional diversity a more effective alternative to taxonomic diversity in the tropics? These questions highlight the importance of linking spatial and functional scales to guide conservation policy and management strategies.

Invisible Ecosystem Services

Soils play an essential role in providing ecosystem services, supporting approximately 95% of global food production. Despite their importance, it is estimated that only 1% of soil microorganism species are known. Soil biodiversity is critical not only for food production, but also for processes such as nutrient cycling, biological control and bioremediation.

According to George Brown of Embrapa Florestas, the ecosystem services associated with soil are valued at more than 1 trillion euros per year, with the recycling of organic matter accounting for 50% of this value. Despite this, Brown points out that the 2019 Global Diagnosis of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) did not address this important contribution. In addition, a recent global survey by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) found that few countries have specific inventories or monitoring programs for soil biodiversity. One exception is the sOilFauna project, a global initiative that maintains a database of soil fauna.

From microscopic animals such as microfauna (nematodes, tardigrades) and mesofauna (mites, springtails) to large invertebrates of macrofauna (ants, termites, earthworms, beetles, lacewings, spiders, various larvae) and vertebrates of megafauna (armadillos, moles), soil animals comprise more than half a million species worldwide. Many of them are promising bioindicators that respond rapidly to environmental changes and can be used to assess fertility, contamination levels, the effects of management practices, and the impact of environmental disturbances. In addition to being easy to collect and identify, they have high densities and biomass, especially in tropical regions where social insects dominate. Standardized methods are already available to facilitate the use of these bioindicators in different land-use systems. Recognition of their functionality can drive global action to protect soil biodiversity and maximize its ecosystem services, which are fundamental to a sustainable future for the planet.

Soil microorganisms are already known to play a role in improving the health and nutrition of crops. The most emblematic case is that of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The microbiome is the totality of microorganisms, their genomes and functions in a given environment, including bacteria, fungi, archaea, protozoa and viruses.  The diversity of these organisms is impressive: each gram of soil can contain up to 10⁹ microbial cells. This invisible ecosystem plays a critical role in nutrient cycling, disease suppression, soil structure and water purification. “In agricultural systems, practices such as no-till farming, green manuring, crop rotation, composting and crop-livestock-forest integration can increase microbial diversity, contributing to sustainability, greenhouse gas mitigation and ecosystem resilience,” explains Lucas Medes of the Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture at the University of São Paulo (CENA/USP).

On the other hand, changes in land use have a profound effect on the microbiome, says Mendes. A study comparing forest and pasture soils showed that forest soils have higher nitrogen and methane metabolism, while pasture soils release more methane and nitrous oxide.

Microbiome-based solutions have also shown promise in ecological restoration and agriculture. In experiments, increased microbial diversity was associated with better soybean growth and reduced nematode infection, highlighting the potential of microbial management to promote more productive and sustainable systems.

Community Involvement

Alexander Turra, from the USP Oceanographic Institute, highlights the complexity of coastal ecosystems and the need for holistic approaches to their conservation. He points to the challenges of studying coastal marine biodiversity, which requires diverse research methods, including the use of traditional knowledge. According to Turra, understanding the different environments of coastal zones, as well as ecological processes and responses to human pressures, is essential for formulating effective policies and action plans. In this context, the integration of science and society through participatory processes is fundamental to improving the understanding of ecosystem services and addressing threats to these environments.

One example is the 2016 Local Development Plan for Araçá Bay, in Ubatuba (SP), based on discussions about the impacts of a possible expansion of the port of São Sebastião. The document was the result of a collective effort involving local communities, research institutions, the private sector and public institutions. This plan demonstrates how community participation can be a catalyst for sustainable solutions adapted to local realities. He also mentions the Brazilian Marine and Coastal Diagnosis of the Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which includes a chapter written by the community, demonstrating the power of collaborative approaches.

Among the challenges identified is the need to reveal, in a participatory way, the non-linear spatial patterns of marine biodiversity and ecosystem services on beaches. To this end, Turra suggests the use of scenarios and action plans that take into account multiple uses, address threats and promote sustainable development.

About the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments”

Organized by Unicamp’s Graduate Program in Ecology, with support from Fapesp, the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-creating Biodiversity Assessments” brought together 57 participants from 22 countries on four continents, including graduate students, early career researchers, environmental managers and technicians. The participants spent 14 days in São Pedro (SP) discussing ways to integrate academic and practical knowledge on biodiversity to support decision-making.

By Paula Drummond

Evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of conservation strategies is a critical step in ensuring that actions to protect biodiversity and ecosystems achieve the expected results. These evaluations measure the impact of conservation initiatives in ecological, social and economic terms, and help identify practices that can be adapted or replicated in other contexts.

Networks of ecological interactions and new technologies in the field

The topic of ecological interactions was addressed by Mathias Pires of the State University of Campinas, who emphasized the importance of understanding how species interact to mitigate the effects of functional extinction. This phenomenon, characterized by the loss of species’ ecosystem functions, is exacerbated by uneven data collection across regions.

According to the researcher, functional extinction is a growing reality on different continents, as evidenced by declining population abundance indices. “To detect and mitigate the effects of functional extinction, it is essential to understand how species interact, and the diversity of interactions is being lost faster than the disappearance of the species themselves,” explains Pires. The loss of habitats, such as forests, drastically reduces the range of ecological interactions, as has been observed on the islands of the Balbina Hydroelectric Plant, located on the Uatumã River, in the northeastern part of the state of Amazonas, in the municipality of Presidente Figueiredo. Camera trap studies have revealed a high abundance of animals, but with limited interactions. Smaller islands, for example, are unable to sustain complex networks of interactions. “The decrease in interactions can occur because some species no longer exist in that location or there are few representatives left on the islands, reducing the chance that animals that could interact will meet,” Pires reinforces, and as a result there is a reduction in ecological interaction networks, affecting both biodiversity and ecosystem services.

According to Cristina Banks-Leite of Imperial College London (UK), artificial intelligence and other computational advances are opening up new possibilities in conservation. She highlighted innovative tools that assess how much habitat is needed to conserve biodiversity, combining criteria of biological relevance, practicality and certifiability. She also pointed to the potential of acoustic monitoring to identify species, assess animal health, and even explore ways to communicate with animals.

Community monitoring
The Independent Territorial Environmental Monitoring (MATI), a community experience that monitors the impact of Belo Monte’s operations in the Volta Grande do Xingu, is a collective of local scientists and academics in which they evaluate flooded forests, fishing dynamics and the piracema. “It is important for researchers to interact with and listen to local communities to avoid reproducing Eurocentric science,” says Camila Ritter of the Juruá Institute and the National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA).

One example of co-creation is the monitoring of pirarucu, whose fish count is based on their breathing, a technique learned from the community and scientifically validated and adopted as an official methodology by Ibama.

The path to building a science that is responsive to the demands of other actors involved in biodiversity conservation, as proposed by Camila Ritter, requires dedication, time and, above all, a willingness to listen. “We need to interact to change our vision,” says Joice Ferreira of Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. The researcher is one of the leaders of the Sustainable Amazon Network (RAS), which has been conducting research in the Amazon for more than 20 years. “In the beginning, our research was very academic, but today we don’t do anything without interacting with local communities,” Ferreira explained.

The researcher emphasized the importance of remote landscape assessment and historical data in understanding the impact of deforestation on biodiversity in tropical forests. RAS has experience in assessing different dimensions of biodiversity, including biotic homogenization, plant dispersal, predation rates and acoustic characteristics. “In forests subjected to anthropogenic disturbances, the loss of conservation value is evident, indicating that degradation can double the negative impact on biodiversity, causing a ‘double degradation’ and profoundly affecting the animal and plant life of these regions,” explains the researcher.

Joice Ferreira also points out that to broaden the impact of science and break social bubbles, interaction between science and society is essential, especially in contact with farmers and local communities. Examples of this are the “living laboratories”, where socio-ecological experiments are carried out in specific areas for participatory planning, the integration of local indigenous knowledge and the recognition of agroforestry as a restoration alternative that balances conservation and community interests.

About the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments”

Organized by Unicamp’s Graduate Program in Ecology, with support from Fapesp, the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-creating Biodiversity Assessments” brought together 57 participants from 22 countries on four continents, including graduate students, early career researchers, environmental managers and technicians. The participants spent 14 days in São Pedro (SP) discussing ways to integrate academic and practical knowledge on biodiversity to support decision-making.

The day began with Mariana Cabral’s (USP) presentation on the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and its importance in funding research in the State of São Paulo and Brazil. Cabral presented the funding lines for the internationalization of research and biodiversity, with special emphasis on the Biota/FAPESP program, which is 25 years old. During this period, the Biota program has covered 384 projects, involving more than 4,000 researchers and 6,000 publications (including articles and book chapters). Finally, Mariana Cabral presented the Biota Síntese project, which brings together researchers, managers and civil society to support public policies aimed at sustainability in urban and rural areas of the State of São Paulo. Since 2022, the project has produced three technical notes: on carbon biomass in the state, different financial arrangements to finance ecosystem restoration and the development of strategies to implement the state’s Climate Action Plan.

Marisa Mamede (CNPq) presented the biodiversity initiatives of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the national research funding agency, and its initiatives to fund environmental research.  The Long-Term Ecological Research Program (PELD) is 27 years old. During this period, the LTER has been improved, including aspects related to data management and direct contributions to environmental management.  In addition, over the years, the need to create an initiative to synthesize the knowledge already produced in the country was identified. Thus, the Center for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – SinBiose – was born. SinBiose was created to address complex and interrelated issues such as the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, food sovereignty and neglected tropical diseases. Finally, Marisa Mamede highlighted some of the challenges of creating a synthesis center like SinBiose that seeks to work in inter- and transdisciplinarity, in particular the role of funding agencies in promoting co-creation and evidence-based decision-making.

Rodolfo Dirzo (Stanford University, USA) spoke on “Biodiversity in the Anthropocene – Consequences for Biotic Interactions and Human Well-being”, exploring the links between biodiversity, ecological interactions and the well-being of human societies in an era marked by human impact. Dirzo examined various aspects related to deforestation and how this effect reverberates throughout the ecosystem. One striking example the researcher presented involved rats and coconut palms on Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific. The invasion of rats and coconut trees on the island has had a cascade of negative effects on the composition of native species, affecting the structure of the local forest and the roosting sites of birds that do not nest in these trees. As a result, deforestation has negatively affected coastal and marine ecosystems.

The day ended with a presentation by Thomas Lewinsohn, coordinator of the School, on the expectations for this period. For the researcher, there is a mismatch between the production of knowledge and its practical use, and one of the School’s central proposals is to promote the integration of this knowledge, improving the alignment between the creation and practical application of information. To this end, Thomas Lewinsohn emphasizes the importance of creating a collaborative environment where people can freely exchange ideas and work together, and it is essential that the insights gained are applied to real problems, experiences are shared, and new partnerships are formed. In addition, the researcher emphasized that the knowledge generated during the school should be organized in practical language and formats that make it easy to use and understand for everyone involved.

Applications are now open for the São Paulo School of Advanced Science “Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments”. The school will take place in São Pedro (SP), about 200 kilometers from São Paulo city, from October 27 to November 8, 2024.

The School will be organized by the Graduate Program in Ecology at the Institute of Biology of the University of Campinas. It aims to train young environmental scientists and technicians to obtain and critically analyze biodiversity data more effectively, thus helping them to meet real-life demands. “The school was conceived as an intensive, problem-oriented theoretical-practical course,” explains Thomas Lewinsohn of Unicamp’s Institute of Biology and the school’s general coordinator.

Organized as part of the São Paulo School of Advanced Science (ESPCA) Program, funded chiefly by FAPESP, the event will bring together leading researchers in the field of biodiversity with representatives of different user segments of this information. The School will combine the demands of society – including multilateral organizations, government agencies, NGOs and the private sector – for biodiversity information with the current capabilities to meet these demands with scientific rigor.

Topics covered will include the conservation of biodiversity, the impacts of climate change and land use, the effectiveness of biodiversity restoration and management, the maintenance of ecosystem services and functions under different use regimes, and the sociocultural uses of biodiversity.

Speakers will include Bráulio Dias of the Ministry of the Environment of Brazil and former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity; Diane Srivastava, director of the Living Data Project and professor at the University of British Columbia, Canada; Robin Chazdon, of the University of Connecticut and global co-director of the Assisted Natural Regeneration Alliance; and Joice Ferreira of Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, winner of the 2019 Ecological Engagement Award from the British Ecological Society.

All participants will have the opportunity to present their work (completed or ongoing research or technical work in environmental agencies or NGOs) in flash talks.

In the second part of the School, participants will work in groups to develop projects that focus on concrete needs and problems, such as how to compare diversity among structurally different ecosystems, how to assess the impact of different agroproduction practices on biodiversity, or how to assess the effectiveness of conservation initiatives.

“At the end of the School, we expect to have contributions to both science and decision-making”, explains Simone Vieira, of Unicamp’s Center for Environmental Studies and Research (Nepam) and the School’s vice-coordinator.

The School will fully fund the participation of 60 young environmental scientists and technicians from abroad and Brazil. Those interested must apply by March 11 at 3 p.m. (UTM-3) using the online form. Participants are expected to be able to follow presentations and communicate minimally in English. Selected candidates will be notified on April 1st.