Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 1269–1284 | Cite as

Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps

  • Barbara Livoreil
  • Ilse Geijzendorffer
  • Andrew S. Pullin
  • Stefan Schindler
  • Marie Vandewalle
  • Carsten Nesshöver
Original Paper


To respond to the need for a strengthened biodiversity science-policy-society interface at the European level, this paper presents the relevant actors and steps of a knowledge synthesis process relying on a Network of Knowledge. This process aims to maximize active involvement and contribution (including holders of traditional and local knowledge), transparency, credibility, relevance and legitimacy (among other values defined during several workshops held). The presented process allows for the implementation of several synthesis methodologies, depending on the availability of resources, quantity and quality of knowledge and decided according to the expectations of the requesters and users. We put this approach in parallel with other knowledge-based recommendations and negotiation processes such as CBD and IPBES and highlight the need to encompass the diversity of approaches, values, and challenges at the European scale, while the process simultaneously has to be highly flexible, yet simple and robust. Although the presented process still holds several challenges, it offers a step forward in the development and reflections on science-policy–society interfaces, based on consultations with a significant number of the actors from the European policy–science community.


Science policy interface Knowledge synthesis Decision making Evidence Stakeholder involvement 



We are grateful for the contributions of our colleagues from the KNEU-consortium as well as to all policy-makers, practitioners and scientists who participated in the consultations. The work presented in this paper has been partly financed by the European Commission via its 7th framework programme. The main development of the BiodiversityKnowledge mechanism was conducted in the KNEU project (Grant No. 265299). I.R.G. was financed by the EU BON project (Grant No. 308454) and contributes to the Labex OT-Med (No. ANR-11-LABX-0061) funded by the French Government through the A*MIDEX project (No. ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Amano T, Sutherland WJ (2013) Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proc R Soc B 280:20122649CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck S, Borie M, Chilvers J et al (2014) Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA 23(2):80–87Google Scholar
  3. Bednarek AT, Shouse B, Hudson CG, Goldburg R (2015) Science—policy intermediaries from a practitioner’s perspective: the Lenfest Ocean program experience. Sci Public Policy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv008 Google Scholar
  4. BiodiversityKnowledge (2014) A recommended design for “Biodiversity Knowledge”, a network of knowledge to support decision making on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe.” White paper. UFZ, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  5. Carmen E, Neßhöver C, Saarikoski H, Vandewalle M, Watt A, Görg H, Young J (2015) Creating a biodiversity science community: experiences from a European network of knowledge. Environ Sci Policy 54:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmen E, Watt A, Saarikoski H, Young J (2016) Participation and scale: focusing on learning as an outcome to improve participation at larger scales. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
  7. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornell S et al (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diaz S et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dicks L, Walsh JC, Sutherland WJ (2014) Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy. Trends Ecol Evol 29:607–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairbrass J, Jordan A (2004) Multi-level governance and environmental policy. In: Bache I, Flinders MV (eds) Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Görg C et al (2016) The Governance of Science-Policy Interfaces – Network vs. Platform approach. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
  13. Hernández-Morcillo M, Hoberg J, Oteros-Rozas E et al (2013) Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: status quo and insights for the environmental policy agenda. Environ: Sci Policy Sustain Dev 56:3–17. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2014.861673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmann A, Penner J, Vohland K et al (2014) Improved access to integrated biodiversity data for science, practice, and policy—the European biodiversity observation network (EU BON). Nat Conserv 6:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes J, Clark R (2008) Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environ Sci Policy 11:702–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hulme M (2010) Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob Environ Change 20:558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kay J, Regier H (2000) Uncertainty, complexity, and ecological integrity: insights from an ecosystem approach. In:Crabbe P, Holland A. et al (eds) Implementing ecological integrity: restoring regional and global environmental and human health, Kluwer, NATO Science Series, Environmental Security pp 121–156Google Scholar
  18. Lynch AJJ, Thackway R, Specht A et al (2015) Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: the Australian experience. Sci Total Environ 534:173–184. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Neßhöver C, Ten Brink P, Balian E et al. (2014) Summary report and recommendations on improving the Science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe (contract: Ref No 07-0307/2013/661961/SER/B2).
  20. Nesshöver C et al (2016) The network of knowledge approach – improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
  21. Opgenoorth L, Faith DP (2014) The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), up and walking. Front Biogeogr 5:207–211Google Scholar
  22. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker—making sense of science in policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, UK, p 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pielke RA Jr (2014) The rightful place of science: disasters and climate change. Arizona State University, Tempe, p 124Google Scholar
  24. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Watkinson AR (2009) Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence-based framework. J Appl Ecol 46:970–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pullin AS et al (2016) Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A, Young J (2013) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Sci Public Policy 41:194–206. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schindler S, Curado N, Nikolov S, Kret E, Cárcamo B, Poirazidis K, Catsadorakis G, Wrbka T, Kati V (2011) From research to implementation: nature conservation in the Eastern Rhodopes mountains (Greece and Bulgaria), European Green Belt. J Nat Conserv 19:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schindler S et al (2016) The network biodiversity knowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
  29. Schuck A et al (2007) Towards a European forest information system. European Forest. Institute Research Reports 20, BrillGoogle Scholar
  30. Specht A, Gordon IJ, Groves RH, Lambers HG, Phinn SR (2015) Catalysing transdisciplinary synthesis in ecosystem science and management. Sci Total Environ 534:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sutherland WJ, Burgman MA (2015) Use experts wisely. Nature 526:317–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sutherland WJ, Gardner TA, Haider L, Dicks L (2013) How can local and traditional knowledge be effectively incorporated into international assessments? Oryx 48:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SLL et al (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress towards international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tremblay M, Vandewalle M, Wittmer H (2016) Ethical challenges in an open system: the network of knowledge's ethical risks assessment and its ethical infrastructure. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
  36. UNEP (2013a) Decision IPBES-2/3—procedures for the preparation of the platform’s deliverables. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, BonnGoogle Scholar
  37. UNEP (2013b) Decision IPBES-2/5—work programme for the period 2014–2018. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, BonnGoogle Scholar
  38. Van der Sluijs JP, Van Est R, Riphagen M (2010) Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(5):409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson DC (2009) The paradoxes of transparency: science and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Europe. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, p 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young JC, Watt AD, van den Hove S et al. (2013). Effective interfaces between science, policy and society: the SPIRAL project handbook.
  41. Young JC, Waylen K, Sarkki S et al (2014) Improving science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23:387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Livoreil
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ilse Geijzendorffer
    • 3
  • Andrew S. Pullin
    • 2
  • Stefan Schindler
    • 4
    • 5
  • Marie Vandewalle
    • 6
  • Carsten Nesshöver
    • 6
  1. 1.Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation (CEBC)Bangor UniversityBangorUK
  3. 3.Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d’Ecologie marine et continentale (IMBE)Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, Avignon Université, Technopôle Arbois-MéditerranéeAix-en-Provence cedex 04France
  4. 4.Department of Biodiversity and Nature ConservationEnvironment Agency AustriaViennaAustria
  5. 5.Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape EcologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  6. 6.Department of Conservation BiologyUFZ –Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations