Suchergebnisse

IPBES - the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is an independent body, established in 2012 to provide policymakers and society with objective assessments regarding biodiversity, ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people, as well as the methods to protect and sustainably use these natural assets. IPBES aims to support the development of efficient policy by making available state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed, relevant scientific knowledge at an international level. Assessments performed by IPBES are a result of requests from governments and society, a scoping exercise and the work from relevant experts from all fields of science, as well as indigenous and local knowledge. Analysing this process will not only improve the work done by IPBES, but also inform the efforts that are taking place at EU and national level, aiming at similar results from different perspectives. The key aspect of IPBES functioning is the (inter)governmental commitment of its member states. This structure provides high legitimacy and a semi-direct link of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel to IPBES Plenary, thus the governmental representatives, which can influence policies in international, regional and local level. At the same time it is also responsible for the lack of flexibility of the process, result of necessary diplomatic and political considerations, which although necessary, can lead to delays or communication dead-ends regarding the need for political action. Another aspect of discussion should be the assessment level contacted through IPBES. Knowledge regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services globally is vast, even if incomplete, and often fragmented, so the assessment of this information in an integrated manner is crucial to extract conclusions at a regional and global levels (e.g. the European and Central Asia region), thus identifying global trends and pursuing international agreements in support of conservation. When developing an assessment of that scale, it is inevitable that the information will vary in quality and quantity. In the present ECA Assessment several challenges were identified in the connection between existing assessments at national, EU level, at pan European level and at ECA scale, from uneven data and knowledge existent across the region, to accessibility of existing data, to existence of previous assessments. These challenges point to the need of a gap analysis of existing knowledge but also monitoring, assessments and mechanisms/policies to share and access data. Finally, aspects of the IPBES approach related to transdisciplinarity, nomination of experts, the engagement between scientists in intergovernmental panels, as well as the strategy and methodology through which knowledge is assessed and transformed to better be used to support policy, are crucial to inform similar approaches at EU and local level. ; peerReviewed

An approach that has been suggested as potentially addressing the challenges of science-policy-interfaces (SPIs) is the mobilization of existing networks through a 'network-of-networks' (NoN) approach. This paper shares empirical findings from a mixed-method study, combining qualitative and quantitative data, that critically evaluates the 'network-of-networks' approach for SPIs. To establish whether and how a NoN can help existing networks act more effectively at the boundary of science and policy, we use the Eklipse Mechanism as a key example. We analyse the major characteristics of networks active in biodiversity-focused science-policy interactions, the potential roles and types of engagement of participants, and the major challenges faced by networks and individuals when acting at the boundaries of science and policy. Results suggest that the more diverse the actors involved, the more effective the SPI. While a formalized EU-level SPI for biodiversity is welcomed by most respondents, willingness and actual potential to contribute to such an entity differed amongst networks, highlighting that contributions to SPIs are highly dependent on individual and organizational capacities. The challenges faced by individuals and networks range from limited resources to effective communication and achieving meaningful impact even if the institutional context is unrewarding. To make a 'network-of-networks' model fully operational requires meeting the capacity building needs of networks, providing institutional support, and creating room for wider engagement.

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.