Suchergebnisse

This book discusses risk and the food supply. It details all aspects of risk and how it applies to food, from risk classification to risk management, and examines such issues as the political context of risk discussion and moral dimensions of decision making.

In February 2016, the EKLIPSE project started. This project, funded by the European Union, aims to develop an innovative, light, ethical and self-sustainable EU support mechanism for evidence-based and evidence-informed policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to hand over this mechanism to the wider community once established. The mechanism will provide trustworthy evidence for policy and society upon request and will make the knowledge community more responsive by providing a platform for mutual learning and engagement with policy and society. This presentation will cover the challenges at the science-policy-society interface and ways of addressing them. In particular, we will share and discuss how different approaches are currently being developed at the EU level to support better policy decisions on our environment based on the best available knowledge. ; peerReviewed

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy will soon come to an end and may not have been as successful as envisioned. In the current context of the global biodiversity crisis, the European Commission, the research community, and broader society cannot risk another, likely ineffective, attempt by the EU to halt biodiversity loss after 2020. Through the development of the EU post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the scientific community of the ALTER-Net and EKLIPSE networks saw a unique opportunity to make a difference for biodiversity in Europe by better involving scientists, policy makers, and society. We developed an innovative, transparent, and collaborative process—called the multiphased, iterative, and consultative elicitation of scientific expertise (MICESE) method. This process allowed us to produce a set of 12 key messages developed by scientists for the EU to prioritize in the development of the new post 2020 biodiversity strategy. These key messages were structured according to their systemic value, scale, and nature. We provide insights and analyses of the new MICESE method before reflecting on how to improve the future involvement of scientists in science–policy interfaces.

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy will soon come to an end and may not have been as successful as envisioned. In the current context of the global biodiversity crisis, the European Commission, the research community, and broader society cannot risk another, likely ineffective, attempt by the EU to halt biodiversity loss after 2020. Through the development of the EU post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the scientific community of the ALTER-Net and EKLIPSE networks saw a unique opportunity to make a di erence for biodiversity in Europe by better involving scientists, policy makers, and society. We developed an innovative, transparent, and collaborative process—called the multiphased, iterative, and consultative elicitation of scientific expertise (MICESE) method. This process allowed us to produce a set of 12 key messages developed by scientists for the EU to prioritize in the development of the new post 2020 biodiversity strategy. These key Messages were structured according to their systemic value, scale, and nature. We provide insights and analyses of the new MICESE method before reflecting on how to improve the future involvement of scientists in science–policy interfaces. ; publishedVersion

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.