Governance options for science–policy interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: comparing a network versus a platform approach

Abstract

Science-policy-interfaces (SPIs) are expected to go beyond the linear model of scientific policy advice through creating spaces for exchange and dialogue between 'policy' and 'knowledge'. Given that most environmental issues require inter-and transdisciplinary approaches, SPIs must take into account a variety of knowledge types, views and interests of scientists, policymakers and other decision makers. Moreover, acceptance and durability of SPIs depend largely on their perceived legitimacy and the credibility of their knowledge-gathering processes, providing additional challenges for their internal organisation. As the interplay between different knowledge types and decision making is far from neutral, a reflexive approach is required in the design of an SPI so that it is capable of learning from past experiences. The aim of this article is to discuss which governance arrangements could best support the development of an effective and legitimate SPI for European biodiversity politics. We analyse different options for facilitating the implementation of a 'Network of Knowledge' approach. This approach has been developed to improve the interface between diverse knowledge-holder communities and decision making processes for biodiversity and ecosystem services-a field where multi-scalar and multi-dimensional problems arise. In this article, we develop and discuss two stylized extreme governance models as our starting point: an 'informal network model´, which almost entirely depends on the dedication of individuals, versus a more formalized 'platform model´, predominantly based on the needs and interests of the organisations involved. We discuss the pros and cons of each of these models in reaching their objectives and in developing sound governing processes for a 'Network of Knowledge'. From this discussion, we derive a recommended design for the reflexive governance of such a network in the context of the European Union and finish by discussing some more general lessons learnt.

The European Native Seed Industry: Characterization and Perspectives in Grassland Restoration

“…National seed zones currently available in Europe. Sources: Austria [24]; Czech Republic [25]; France [26]; Germany [27]; Great Britain [28]; Norway [8]; Switzerland [29].…”

“…In response to the knowledge gaps, several initiatives at national and international levels have initiated the process of connecting native seed stakeholders, facilitating interaction and exchange in the knowledge-production-use continuum, which is the key for improving the success of broad scale seed-based ecological restoration but frequently remains difficult [24]. Among them, the Kew UK Native Seed Hub; the Native Seed Network (www.nativeseednetwork.org) in USA; the Native Seed Science, Technology and Conservation Initial Training Network (NASSTEC; www.nasstec.eu) in Europe; and the ISTA/AOSA/SCST/Kew Wild Seed Working Group and the International Network for Seed-based Restoration (INSR; www.ser-insr.org) globally.…”

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

“…Görg et al (2016) discuss the governance perspective by comparing a networking approach based on the expertise and interests of individuals and a platform approach where institutional actors play a leading role. Their paper is complemented by Tremblay et al (2016) who address the ethical challenges of open networks by assessing the Network of Knowledge's ethical risks, which helped to develop ideas for an ethical infrastructure for such SPI.…”

Looking for consensual protection categories to reduce conservation conflicts in protected áreas

“…In protected areas, there are usually strong conflicts and complex relationships among multiple and diverse stakeholders with contrasting interests, making the incorporation of participation processes into decision-making processes an urgent necessity (VUCETICH et al, 2018). The development of these processes in conservation faces serious problems such as communication difficulties among stakeholders that prevent them from defending properly their interests and from sharing their different points of view (GÖRG et al, 2016). Multicriteria analysis is a useful approach to incorporate preferences in decision-making processes regarding natural resources management (ARSIĆ et al, 2017;DE CASTRO & URIOS, 2017;DIAZ-BALTEIRO et al, 2017;MARTTUNEN et al, 2017).…”