The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building

Missing the peacock - arts, sciences, creativity, and chronic environmental conflicts

Debate on conflicts and disputes over environmental issues has intensified due to climate change and other global pressing problems becoming ever more pronounced. Simultaneously, there is little evidence of natural or social sciences helping transform even local conflicts, some of them lasting decades, gradually becoming chronic and having severe and pervasive effects on people’s lives. On the contrary, natural sciences often become part of the conflicts while social sciences remain distant observers. Conflict management requires creativity: imagining new solutions, relating to, thinking and acting in new ways. Hence, stimulation of creative thinking might offer avenues for coping with conflicting situations. We tested new forms of interaction and opportunities of creative work in managing prolonged conflicts in a series of meetings between natural scientists, social scientists, artists and conflict mediation professionals. This article discusses the experiences emerging from this experimental process. Experimenting with creative working methods provided us with new tools to facilitate interaction in the conflicts we intervene in or study. However, we don't see arts-science collaborations as a panacea to resolving conflict situations. More than interactive skills and tools that would lead to a clear-cut end of conflicts, we emphasize the ability to reflect on our own practice and role in environmental conflicts. Creative experiments can be valuable in pointing out open questions, such as what is the role that scientists, artists and mediators take and should take in controversial situations

Transdisciplinary research on biodiversity : European workshop on "steps towards integrated biodiversity research"

The workshop “Transdisciplinary Research on Biodiversity, Steps towards Integrated Biodiversity Research” was organized on 14-15 November 2011 in Brussels by the German-based Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) in cooperation with the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) and the Belgian Biodiversity Platform. The workshop was a follow up of the EPBRS summit “Positive Visions for Biodiversity” organized in November 2010, and its aim was to explore ways to further increase the capacities of transdisciplinary biodiversity research in Europe. It brought together researchers and experts, representatives and decision-makers from European institutions and research funding agencies, as well as members from civil society and the private sector. Participants discussed and identified in working groups key research topics and the added value of transdisciplinary approaches for three main themes of the “Positive Visions for Biodiversity” summit: 1/ The integration of biodiversity into every part of life 2/ Values and behaviours to a more harmonious way of life 3/ Governance that is more transparent and effective and that balances global and local responsibilities. During the final plenary panel discussion, participants highlighted recommendations for promoting transdisciplinary biodiversity research: ➢ Scientists have a role to play in raising awareness on the importance of biodiversity as a transdisciplinary issue. ➢ Environmental policy representatives at national and European level have to open up to and interact with other sectors to better advocate for global biodiversity agreements and mobilize more funding for transdisciplinary research on biodiversity. ➢ There is a need for scientists who are interested in comunicating and advocating. The biodiversity community needs people who are able to bridge between worlds, both science and advocacy, to get transdisciplinary biodiversity topics on European research agendas. ➢ Scientific academic training should provide means and opportunities to train these new professionals to become the “in-between” links. Current educational and insitutional frameworks need to be adapted to provide such training and career opportunities. ➢ Innovation should be understood in a broader sense than technology and products with market value. Research is needed on innovative ways to increase sustainable use, recycling of natural resources and learning from natural processes. ➢ The biodiversity community needs to reinforce its identity and build up larger influential groups to be able to advocate more efficiently at national and European levels. Among the main barriers to developing and implementing an efficient transdisciplinary research on biodiversity issues, the current trends in European research agendas to focus on technological and product oriented research is particularly detrimental. Improving advocacy on biodiversity and the implementation of transdisciplinary biodiversity research will be critical for the next decade to ensure the necessary knowledge for informing political decisions

Supporting evidence-based policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services: recommendations for effective policy briefs

Knowledge brokerage on biodiversity and ecosystem services can apply communication tools such as policy briefs to facilitate the dialogue between scientists and policymakers. There is currently considerable debate on how to go beyond the linear communication model, outdated in theoretical debate but still often implicitly leading interaction with policy. In this paper, we provide recommendations to scientists in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services for developing policy briefs with increased impact and that are adapted to the needs of the audience. We also highlight the challenges of addressing the key criteria of credibility, relevance, legitimacy and iterativity that often lead to trade-offs

Association between antithrombotic treatment and outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with atrial fibrillation: the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry

International audienceAims In recent years, stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has radically changed, with increasing use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Contemporary European data on AF thromboprophylaxis are needed. Methods and results We report 1-year follow-up data from the EURObservational Research Programme in Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry. Outcomes were assessed according to antithrombotic therapy. At 1-year follow-up, 9663 (88.0%) patients had available data for analysis: 586 (6.1%) were not treated with any antithrombotic; 681 (7.0%) with antiplatelets only; 4066 (42.1%) with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) only; 3167 (32.8%) with NOACs only; and 1163 (12.0%) with antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant. At 1-year follow-up, there was a low rate of stroke (0.7%) and any thromboembolic event (TE) (1.2%), while haemorrhagic events occurred in 222 patients (2.3%). Cardiovascular (CV) death and all-cause death occurred in 3.9% and 5.2% of patients, respectively. Cumulative survival for all the three main outcomes considered was highest amongst patients treated only with NOACs (P < 0.0001). Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis found that VKA or NOACs use was independently associated with a lower risk for any TE/acute coronary syndrome/CV death, while all treatments were independently associated with a lower risk for CV death and all-cause death. Conclusion The 1-year follow-up of EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry reported a low occurrence of thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events, although mortality was high. Both VKA and NOACs were associated with a lower risk of all main adverse outcomes. All treatments were associated with a lower risk for CV death and all-cause death