Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

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 reviewed

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 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.

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.