Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps
- 408 Downloads
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.
KeywordsScience 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Görg C et al (2016) The Governance of Science-Policy Interfaces – Network vs. Platform approach. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/pdf/EU%20Mechanism%20Summary%20Report%202015.pdf
- 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
- 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
- Pielke RA Jr (2014) The rightful place of science: disasters and climate change. Arizona State University, Tempe, p 124Google Scholar
- Pullin AS et al (2016) Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
- Schindler S et al (2016) The network biodiversity knowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments. Biodivers ConservGoogle Scholar
- Schuck A et al (2007) Towards a European forest information system. European Forest. Institute Research Reports 20, BrillGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Young JC, Watt AD, van den Hove S et al. (2013). Effective interfaces between science, policy and society: the SPIRAL project handbook. http://www.spiralproject.eu/content/documents