Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1207-1214

  Nesshöver, Carsten ^a   Livoreil, Barbara ^b,c   Schindler, Stefan ^d,e   Vandewalle, Marie ^a  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c Domain du Petit Arbois   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^e ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AUSTRIA   (Austria)

Author keywords

European policy; Participatory methods; Research networking; Science policy interface

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973161617     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-016-1124-8     Document Type: Editorial

References (44)

1. Araújo RM et al (2016) Status, trends and drivers of kelp forests in Europe: an expert assessment. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1141-7
2. Balvanera P et al (2014) Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. Bioscience 64:49–57. doi:10.1093/biosci/bit003
3. Beck S et al (2014) Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA 23:80–87
4. Carmen E, Nesshöver C, Saarikoski H, Vandewalle M, Watt A, Wittmer H, Young J (2015) Creating a biodiversity science community: experiences from a European Network of Knowledge. Environ Sci Policy 54:497–504
5. Díaz S et al (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. COSUST 14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
6. Dicks LV et al (2014) A transparent process for “Evidence-Informed” policy making. Conserv Lett 7:119–125. doi:10.1111/conl.12046
7. Dicks LV et al (2016) What works in conservation? using expert assessment of summarised evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1133-7
8. EPBRS (2009) Concept note: Network of Knowledge for biodiversity governance. European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy, Brussels
9. European Commission (2006) Communication from the Commission—halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010—and beyond, sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being (COM (2006) 216 final). European Commission, Brussels
10. European Union (2013) The 7th Environment Action Programme to 2020—living well, within the limits of the planet. European Union, Brussels
11. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1881–1885
12. Geijzendorffer IR et al (2015) Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: an Essential Biodiversity Variables perspective. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12417
13. Görg C et al (2016) Governance options for Science-Policy Interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: comparing a Network vs. a Platform approach. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1132-8
14. Görg C, Nesshöver C, Paulsch A (2010) A new link between biodiversity science and policy. GAIA 19:183–186
15. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
16. KNEU Team (2014) A recommended design for “BiodiversityKnowledge”, a Network of Knowledge to support decision making on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Leipzig
17. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA (2010) The Intergovernmental science–policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. COSUST 2:9–14
18. Livoreil B, Geijzendorffer IR, Pullin AS, Schindler S, Vandewalle M, Nesshöver C (2016) Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1143-5
19. Matei S, Henckel L, Gaulthier CA, Le Roux X (2011) Biodiversity within the “Environment” theme of the 7th Framework Programme (2007–2010): funding amounts, success rates, temporal trends & comparisons between countries. FRB, Paris
20. Nesshöver C et al (2013) Improving the science–policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA 22:99–103
21. Nesshöver C 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). European Commission, Brussels
22. Nesshöver C et al (2016) The Network of Knowledge approach—improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1127-5
23. Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20:1647–1656. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x
25. 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 46:970–975
26. Pullin AS et al (2016) Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1131-9
27. 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
28. Schindler S et al (2014) Multifunctionality of floodplain landscapes: relating management options to ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 29:229–244. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-9989-y
29. Schindler S et al (2016a) The network Biodiversity Knowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1128-4
30. Schindler S et al (2016b) Multifunctional floodplain management and biodiversity effects: lessons from six European countries. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1129-3
31. Science and Technology Advisory Council to President Barroso (2013) Science for an informed, sustainable and inclusive society. European Commission, Brüssel
32. Spierenburg M (2012) Getting the message across biodiversity science and policy interfaces—a review. GAIA 21:125–134
33. Sucha V, Wilkinson D, Mair D, Ahbe M, Davies S (2015) The in-house science-service in the European Commission: the evoloving role of the Joint Research Centre. In: Wilsdon J, Doubleday R (eds) Future directions for scientific advice in Europe. Centre for Science and Policy, Cambridge, pp 40–49
34. Sutherland WJ et al (2014) Solution scanning as a key policy tool: identifying management interventions to help maintain and enhance regulating ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. doi:10.5751/ES-06082-190203
35. 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
36. Tinch R, Schoumacher C, van den Hove S (2015) Exploring barriers to the integration of biodiversity concerns across EU policy. In: Gasparatos A, Willis KJ (eds) Biodiversity in the green economy. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 309–340
37. Tittensor DP et al (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244
38. 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 Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1123-9
39. UNEP (2010) Report of the third ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science–policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (“Busan Outcome”)—UNEP/IPBES/3/3. UNEP, Nairobi
40. van Lexmond MB, Bonmatin J-M, Goulson D, Noome DA (2015) Worldwide integrated assessment on systemic pesticides. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:1–4. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3220-1
41. Walters K (2013) Data, data everywhere but we don’t know what to think? Neonicotinoid insecticides and pollinators. Outlooks Pest Manag 24:151–155. doi:10.1564/v24_aug_02
42. Wetzel FT et al (2015) The roles and contributions of Biodiversity Observation Networks (BONs) in better tracking progress to 2020 biodiversity targets: a European case study. Biodiversity. doi:10.1080/14888386.2015.1075902
43. Wyborn C, Van Kerkhoff L, Dunlop M, Guevara O (2016) Reframing adaptation for biodiversity conservation: knowledge governance and learning at the interface between science, policy and practice. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1130-x
44. Young JC et al (2014) Improving the science–policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23:387–404