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

Applying participatory processes to address conflicts over the conservation of large carnivores: understanding conditions for successful management

Social conflicts over large carnivores are becoming more frequent following the general recovery of large carnivores in human shaped landscapes in Europe. To manage conflicts over large carnivores a detailed knowledge is necessary on the social, economic, cultural but also interpersonal dimensions of the conflicts. This can be achieved through a participatory engagement of all stakeholders within a procedure tailored to local contexts. We looked at conditions necessary for implementing the above approach in areas of intense large carnivores-human conflict across Europe (bear and wolves), and where traditional management conflict policies do not appear to be successful, as often based on urgent responses to emergency situations. We focussed on four areas in Europe where we interviewed stakeholders to characterize the conflicts and assess the potential for mitigation interventions through participatory processes. We focused on four key aspects related to social conflicts: (a) perception of the current situation and relationship with other stakeholders; (b) availability and accessibility of information and communication; (c) economic, ecological and social impacts; and (d) promotion of coexistence and participatory processes. We show that (lack of) trust between stakeholders and the relevant authorities as well as the lack of genuine communication among stakeholders were the key features that characterized social conflicts related to large carnivores. With specific reference to large carnivores, the lack or inaccessibility of reliable information was reported in all cases by all stakeholders, as well as the need for proactive and inclusive policies developed and implemented by the relevant authorities. A consistent message was that support and engagement from relevant management institutions was pivotal for effective management of conflicts over large carnivores. Our findings highlight the importance for conflict mitigation of a deeper and mutual understanding of issues prior to the implementation of participatory processes

Managing science-policy interfaces for impact : Interactions within the environmental governance meshwork

Science-policy interface organizations and initiatives (SPIORG) are a key component of environmental governance designed to make links between science and society. However, the science­policy interface literature lacks a structured approach to explaining the impacts of context on and by these initiatives. To better understand these impacts on and interactions with governance, this paper uses the concept of the governance ‘meshwork’ to explore how dynamic processes – encompassing prior, current and anticipated interactions – co­produce knowledge and impact via processes, negotiation and networking activities at multiple governance levels. To illustrate the interactions between SPIORGs and governance meshwork we use five cases representing archetypal SPIORGs. These cases demonstrate how all initiatives and organizations link to their contexts in complex and unique ways, yet also identifies ten important aspects that connect the governance meshwork to SPIORGs. These aspects of the meshwork, together with the typology of organizations, provide a comprehensive framework that can help make sense how the SPIORGs are embedded in the surrounding governance contexts. We highlight that SPIORGs must purposively consider and engage with their contexts to increase their potential impact on knowledge co-­production and policy making.Peer reviewe

Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a ‘linear’ or technocratic model of communication in which scientific “facts” are transmitted directly to policy advisers to “solve problems”. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to present practical recommendations aimed at individuals, teams, organisations and funders. Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter- and trans-disciplinary research and “multi-domain” working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature

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

EKLIPSE : engaging knowledge holders and networks for evidence-informed European policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services

The aim of EKLIPSE is to develop a mechanism to inform European-scale policy on biodiversity and related environmental challenges. This paper considers two fundamental aspects of the decision-support mechanism being developed by EKLIPSE: 1) the engagement of relevant actors from science, policy and society to jointly identify evidence for decision making; and 2) the networking of scientists and other holders of knowledge on biodiversity and other relevant evidence. The mechanism being developed has the potential not only to build communities of knowledge holders but to build informal networks among those with similar interests in evidence, be they those that seek to use evidence or those who are building evidence, or both. EKLIPSE has been successful in linking these people and in contributing to building informal networks of requesters of evidence, and experts of evidence and its synthesis. We have yet to see, however, significant engagement of formal networks of knowledge holders. Future success, however, relies on the continued involvement with and engagement of networks, a high degree of transparency within the processes and a high flexibility of structures to adapt to different requirements that arise with the broad range of requests to and activities of EKLIPSE

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