Awareness-raising can be seen as the fact of educating, teaching and transmitting knowledge to the public on a given topic. In the field of biodiversity conservation, as in several other sectors of activity, awareness raising and environmental education are perceived as a means of raising collective awareness. This approach has spread to the design and management of conservation projects insofar as it is considered to be the best means of transmitting knowledge and communicating between professionals in the field and the public in order to encourage the greatest number of people to support the cause of conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity. Several decades later, it is interesting to take stock of this approach, which is why we asked ourselves: does this approach work? should it be replaced or improved?

In the sense of the online dictionary "le dictionnaire", to raise awareness is to make someone or a group sensitive to something in which they had no interest. This translates into the fact that awareness-raising consists of awakening collective consciousness about an existing problem that the public used to attach little importance to. Today, this method is strongly chosen to get the message across, to communicate. But its effectiveness is increasingly being questioned. It is generally agreed that awareness-raising is a communication action that is limited to informing without really impacting on the issue raised.

To illustrate this point sufficiently, a personal experience seems more appropriate. In 2022, me and my friends participated in a call for applications to design a biodiversity conservation project. In designing this project, we were asked to choose a species, a habitat and to propose a project that would contribute to improving the conservation status of this species. But our project was eliminated at the second level out of three because our approach was to use awareness raising as our main focus. We thought that by raising awareness and raising the consciousness of as many people as possible, we would be able to stop or even reverse the intensity of poaching of the giant pangolin. For the selection committee, awareness raising is not a means that can bring tangible results in terms of conservation efforts. On the contrary, and still according to their point of view, awareness-raising had the effect of informing poachers about the potential of a site for a given species and would (this remains to be verified) have increased the pressure. They therefore urged us to rethink our conservation strategy by making it more proactive for tangible and concrete conservation actions. My friends and I certainly learned from this mistake, but we remained perplexed by the consideration given to awareness-raising as a means of mobilising the public on an issue. We thought of biodiversity conservation, but this applies everywhere and even more so in the field of climate change. Is it necessary to continue raising awareness if this approach does not work? Can awareness-raising be improved so that it moves from the simple transmission of information to a concrete commitment and a change in the public's paradigm?

For the first question the answer is simple, we cannot do without awareness raising because it informs, instructs and educates the public. So it must always be taken into account so that the least informed people are now informed and the cause we are fighting for is known to the greatest number. Secondly, awareness can be improved. For this, we think of a philosophy subject that was very popular when we were in high school: "What is the use of philosophy in a hungry country? In our opinion, this topic sums up the whole problem of the mixed results of awareness-raising. Indeed, awareness-raising opens people's eyes, informs public opinion of the critical situation in which our planet, its resources and its inhabitants find themselves. But for people who are dependent on certain activities for their survival, there will never be any change. If we were to take an example that concerns everyone, it would probably be the problem of the use of coal as an energy source. Everyone is aware of the climate damage caused by coal, but none of the major powers seem to be in a hurry to abandon these fossil fuels. The population that uses this energy could be addressed directly, but they will not have any alternatives to turn their backs on this mode of production. Everyone is aware of the dangers and threats associated with coal use, but some are bound hand and foot. This is even more true for the conservation of biodiversity for people in rural areas who have no food and financial sources that are not linked to natural resources. It is therefore no longer enough to call for change, it is necessary to move from words to deeds, to accompany awareness-raising initiatives with concrete actions that allow communities to choose between several options.

We are currently rewriting a new project that still includes the awareness aspect, but a 2.0 version, so your opinion would really help us to optimize this project. And for the record, we are going to raise awareness in Ngoyla on May 17, 2023 to strengthen the conservation of elephants in TRIDOM Cameroon.