Emerging ecosystem services governance issues in the Belgium ecosystem services community of practice

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIn this paper we will focus on how governance issues are being dealt with in the BElgium Ecosystem Services (BEES) Community of Practice and on some Belgian Ecosystem Services (ES) research projects aimed at policy or practice support. As ES governance is still mainly an aspect of policy or practice oriented research, we will specifically focus on method and methodological decision making. The system or systems we aim to govern are complex. But also the governance processes are inherently complex. How do we take this complexity into account in decision support? Do we acknowledge complexity in our approach or do we drastically simplify and reduce it to relatively simple proportions? The methodological approach of decision support methods is open for debate as neither crystal clear nor undisputed yardsticks for best practices exist. On an ambition level, BEES members generally seem to prefer transdisciplinary as well as inclusive valuation approaches, though not exclusively in all circumstances. In Belgium research projects, similar to the developments within BEES, from a research practice dominated by scientists, gradually research processes are opening up to transdisciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously these processes gradually shift from mainly top down approaches to bottom up approaches or hybrid combinations of both entry points. A closer and more nuanced view shows that real transdisciplinary collaboration in Belgian ES research still is only at the beginning. Partly this can be explained by the fact that inter-and transdisciplinary approaches are perhaps more realistic, but also have to deal with more social complexity. New balances have to be found between sophistication and pragmatics. Also the role of science can become more ambiguous: the closer to stakeholders, the more an independent role can be questioned. Regarding ES valuation methods, in general a trend towards more inclusive valuation is clearly noticeable in Belgian ES research, inclusive in the sense of a diversity of ES valuation aspects to be taken into account, diverse types of expression of value(s), a combination of quantifiable and qualitative information, and a diversity of valuators by way of more bottom-up approaches. Still, there are quite some differences between projects and challenges for integration.

Mapping Ecosystem Service: Challenges and Solutions

“…The assessment of uncertainty, the integration of information about evolutionary aspects and human influences into the development of process-based models and their coupling with socioeconomic models are significant fields of future study to which environmentalists need to participate). (Keune et al 2015).…”

Integrative policy development for healthier people and ecosystems: A European case analysis

“…Belgium: The Flemish Centre of Expertise for Environment and Health CEH is funded and steered by three ministries (Science, Health and Environment) in the Flemish government and contributes evidence to policymakers (Keune et al, 2015)…”

“…Research organisations can be important in overcoming this evidence barrier and contributing to policy integration. In France, the Aviesan and AllEnvi research alliances support cross‐ministry cooperation, while in Belgium the Centre of Expertise for Environment and Health (CEH) is funded and steered by the Flemish government (by three ministries: Science, Health, and Environment), so that the outcomes of its work can inform environment and health policy‐making (Keune et al, 2015). Examples of this research include the linkages between green space in cities and citizens’ health (Van Herzele & De Vries, 2012), and the impact of citizen behaviour in Belgium on global sustainability (Keune et al, 2013).…”

Co-creating Agroecological Symbioses (AES) for Sustainable Food System Networks

“…Involving persons living and working within the agricultural system carry knowledge about the system that cannot always be gleaned from top-down science and policy (Schillo and Robinson, 2017). Yet, the introduction of new actors and modes of collaboration has potential for creating tension and must be administered thoughtfully and in a way which respects the context of the transformation (Keune et al, 2015). Even with the introduction of co-creative processes and engagement of transdisciplinary actors and citizen scientists there are no simple solutions when it comes to food system redesign.…”