No abstract

This paper discusses the evolution of scientific and social understanding that has led to the development of knowledge systems supporting the application of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasts, including the development of successful efforts to connect climate predictions with sectoral applications and actions "on the ground". The evolution of "boundary-spanning" activities to connect science and decisionmaking is then discussed, setting the stage for a report of outcomes from an international workshop comprised of producers, translators, and users of climate predictions. The workshop, which focused on identifying critical boundary-spanning features of successful boundary organizations, included participants from Australia, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands, the US Pacific Northwest, and the state of Ceará in northwestern Brazil. Workshop participants agreed that boundary organizations have multiple roles including those of information broker, convenor of forums for engagement, translator of scientific information, arbiter of access to knowledge, and exemplar of adaptive behavior. Through these roles, boundary organizations will ensure the stability of the knowledge system in a changing political, economic, and climatic context. The international examples reviewed in this workshop demonstrated an interesting case of convergent evolution, where organizations that were very different in origin evolved toward similar structures and individuals engaged in them had similar experiences to share. These examples provide evidence that boundary organizations and boundary-spanners fill some social/institutional roles that are independent of culture.boundary organization | decision support | El Niño-Southern Oscillation | knowledge

Managing water for sustainable use and economic development is both a technical and a governance challenge in which knowledge production and sharing play a central role. This article evaluates and compares the role of participatory governance and scientific information in decision-making in four basins in Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and the United States. Water management institutions in each of the basins have evolved during the last 10-20 years from a relatively centralized water-management structure at the state or national level to a decision structure that involves engaging water users within the basins and the development of participatory processes. This change is consistent with global trends in which states increasingly are expected to gain public acceptance for larger water projects and policy changes. In each case, expanded citizen engagement in identifying options and in decision-making processes has resulted in more complexity but also has expanded the culture of integrated learning. International funding for water infrastructure has been linked to requirements for participatory management processes, but, ironically, this study finds that participatory processes appear to work better in the context of decisions that are short-term and easily adjusted, such as water-allocation decisions, and do not work so well for longer-term, high-stakes decisions regarding infrastructure. A second important observation is that the costs of capacity building to allow meaningful stakeholder engagement in water-management decision processes are not widely recognized. Failure to appreciate the associated costs and complexities may contribute to the lack of successful engagement of citizens in decisions regarding infrastructure.water management | water sustainability | public participation | stakeholder engagement

No abstract

The first Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found widespread, accelerating declines in Earth's biodiversity and associated benefits to people from nature. Addressing these trends will require science-based policy responses to reduce impacts, especially at national to local scales. Effective scaling of sciencepolicy efforts, driven by global and national assessments, is a major challenge for turning assessment into action and will require unprecedented commitment by scientists to engage with communities of policy and practice. Fulfillment of science's social contract with society, and with nature, will require strong institutional support for scientists' participation in activities that transcend conventional research and publication. From Assessment to ActionThe first IPBES Global Assessment, released in 2019, reveals widespread, accelerating declines in our planet's biodiversity and life-support systems [1,2]. The assessment's unanimous approval by the 132 member countries, and the resounding calls by multiple stakeholders for action [3], underscore both urgency and hope for significant response i . The assessment concludes that nature's capacity to support humanity's wellbeing is threatened by habitat conversion, excessive resource harvesting, climate change, invasive species, and other impacts [2]. Declines in species viability, human safety, mental and physical health, and food and livelihood security will continue unless these trends are checked and reversed. The critical challenge now is to disseminate and apply the findings of the IPBES Global Assessment at national and local scales where most policy and management decisions affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services are made. This will require significant, long-term commitments by governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, civil society, and the scientific community. Commitments are required not only from individual scientists but also the institutions that host and fund them. The pathways and processes necessary for successful implementation transcend business-as-usual approaches and require a broader transformation in how scientists work with decision makers.Converting scientific knowledge to action is often complex, but the ingredients of success are clear. Effective, enduring action comes from collaborative, multidisciplinary science-policy processes that frame and cogenerate knowledge with decision makers and stakeholders from many sectors [1,[4][5][6][7]. A spectrum of approaches has been developed for such so-called 'translational science' and 'knowledge coproduction' practices (e.g., [8][9][10][11]), but all share key properties, including deep multidisciplinarity, close engagement and dialogue with partners, and incorporation of diverse