Bridging the research–implementation gap: Mainstreaming biodiversity into the South African mining sector

Stephen Holness,Wilma Lutsch,Aimee Ginsburg,Anthea Stephens,Patti Wickens,Stephinah Mudau,Jeffrey Manuel,Amanda Driver,Tsamaelo Malebu,Peter Mohasoa,Emily A Botts Botts,Kristal Maze

doi:10.4102/abc.v48i1.2265

Abstract

Background: ‘Mainstreaming biodiversity’ aims to integrate biodiversity priorities directly into the policies and practices of production sectors, including the mining sector. In South Africa, the need emerged for a biodiversity guideline specifically relevant to the mining sector that would interpret a wide range of available spatial biodiversity information and frame it in a user-friendly format.Objectives: The aim of this article was to document and review the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline. This serves as a case study of a product developed to assist in bridging the gap between available biodiversity information and use of this information by a production sector.Methods: We examined the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline with reference to three factors known to be beneficial to creating policy-relevant science: a sound scientific foundation (credibility), relevance to decision-making (salience) and involvement of stakeholders (legitimacy).Results: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline was developed through collaboration between the mining and biodiversity sectors. It provides a tool that contributes to the sustainable development of South Africa’s mineral resources in a way that enables regulators, industry and practitioners to minimise the impact of mining on biodiversity and ecosystem services. It includes a single integrated map of biodiversity priority areas summarised into four sensitivity categories relevant for the mining industry, with detailed guidance on how these should inform the application of the mitigation hierarchy.Conclusion: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline has received political endorsement from the relevant regulatory government departments. A focussed training programme has promoted awareness and understanding of the Guideline. Preliminary reports indicate that the Guideline has been effective in influencing decision-making.

Highlights

The scientific literature documents a disconnection between available scientific research and the practical use of such research, known variously as the ‘research–implementation gap’, ‘knowledge– action gap’ or ‘knowing–doing gap’ (Cook et al 2013; Cowling et al 2008; Knight et al 2007; Pierce et al 2005; Toomey, Knight & Barlow 2017; Von der Heyden et al 2016)
Land use decisions mostly fall to government departments or production sectors (Pierce et al 2005), which may be limited in their capacity to interpret the results of this research or may not consider it relevant to their objectives
The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline was developed between 2009 and 2013. We examine how it met the requirements for credibility, salience and legitimacy (Cash et al 2003) that are necessary to bridge the research–implementation gap: Credibility: A sound scientific basis

Summary

Introduction

The scientific literature documents a disconnection between available scientific research and the practical use of such research, known variously as the ‘research–implementation gap’, ‘knowledge– action gap’ or ‘knowing–doing gap’ (Cook et al 2013; Cowling et al 2008; Knight et al 2007; Pierce et al 2005; Toomey, Knight & Barlow 2017; Von der Heyden et al 2016). Much conservation research intends to provide useful information to the people who make decisions about land use that may have an impact on biodiversity (Knight et al 2007; Toomey et al 2017). Land use decisions mostly fall to government departments or production sectors (Pierce et al 2005), which may be limited in their capacity to interpret the results of this research or may not consider it relevant to their objectives. Cash et al (2003) proposed that bridging this boundary would require that information be seen as credible (having a sound scientific basis), salient (relevant to decision-making) and legitimate (considers the values of other stakeholders) (Game, Schwartz & Knight 2015).

Objectives

Results

Conclusion