99
Improving the Science-Policy Interface o f
Biodiversity Research Projects
A gainst th e background o f a c ontinuing biodiversity loss there is a strong need to im prove th e interfaces
betw een science a n d policy. M a n y approaches f o r such interfaces exist, th e m o s t recent being th e Intergovernm ental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (I PBES).
A less p ro m in e n t approach to interface science w ith policy
consists o f research projects directly linking w ith decision m akers.
Here we present insights a n d re co m m en d a tio n s on ho w to do this
successfully, highlighting a m o n g others th e role o f fa cilita tin g
Carsten Neßhöver, Johannes Timaeus, Heidi Wittmer,
Annam aria Krieg, Nicoleta Geamana, Sybille van den Hove,
Juliette Young, M ian Watt
m u tu a l learning a n d enhancing interface expertise in institutions.
Improving the Science-Policy Interface o f Biodiversity Research Projects
| C A IA 2 2 /2 (2013): 9 9 - 1 0 3
| Keywords: E u ro p e a n b io d iv ersity
re s e a rc h , H o rizo n 2020, IPBES, S cie n ce-P o licy In te rfa c e s fo r B iodiversity: R esea rc h , A ctio n , a n d L e arn in g (SPIRAL), tra n s d ¡sei pi ¡nary a p p r o a c h e s
A Focus on Science-Policy Interfaces o f
Research Projects
The loss o f biodiversity continues unabated due to anthropogen­
ic pressures linked notably to economic and population growth,
land- and sea-use changes, invasive species, climate change and
the lack o f adequate policies addressing th em (GB03 2010). In ­
deed, som e authors have attributed the continued loss o f biodi­
versity to “a collective failure o f the science-policy process” (Larigauderie and Mooney 2010b, p. 1), or the “knowing-doing gap”,
or the divide between science and policy in the context o f conser­
vation biology (Knight et al. 2008). The shortcom ings o f sciencepolicy interactions were further em phasised in a United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) gap analysis. It identified a need
to strengthen the biodiversity science-policy interface (SPI) to ad­
dress environm ental problem s at the global scale (UNEP 2009)
and supported the decision o f m any UN m em ber countries to
set up the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversi­
C o ntact: Dr. Carsten N eß h ö v er | Tel.: + 49 341 2 3 5 1 6 4 9 |
E-Mail: c a rs te n .n e s s h o e v e r @ u f z .d e
Jo h a n n e s T im aeus, M . Sc. | E-Mail: jo h a n n e s .tim a e u s @ u f z .d e
both: H e lm h o ltz -C e n tre fo r E n v iro n m e n ta l R esea rc h - UFZ | D e p a r tm e n t o f
C o n s e rv a tio n Biology | P e rm o s e rs tr. 15 | 04318 Leipzig | G e rm a n y
Dr. H eidi W ittm e r | H e lm h o ltz -C e n tre fo r E n v iro n m e n ta l R esearch - U FZ |
D e p a r tm e n t o f E n v iro n m e n ta l P olitics | Leipzig | G e rm a n y |
ty and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to fill this gap (Van den Hove and
Chabason 2009, Görg et al. 2010, Larigauderie and Mooney 2010 a).
Although the weakness o f the SPI on biodiversity is surely not
the only reason for the persistence o f biodiversity loss, it has be­
come one key concern over recent years.
Efforts to improve the SPI often focus on large-scale, top-down
approaches such as scientific assessm ents like the M illennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA ) (2005) and The Economics o f Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2009). They may also concentrate on set­
ting up perm ant institutions such as IPBES to provide further as­
sessm ents and other policy support activities, to establish contin­
uous exchange platforms. Similar approaches exist at the regional
and national scale, for example, in the work o f national advisory
bodies. Yet an im portant level at w hich science and policy in ter­
act is in small- to large-scale research projects. These projects can
help align research processes and outcomes to the needs o f poli­
cy m akers, other stakeholders and society in general, enabling a
direct exchange o f knowledge and perspectives.
A n n a m a ria Krieg, M. Sc. I Royal N e th e rla n d s In s titu te fo r S ea R esearch
(N IO Z ) I ‘t H o rn tje | T h e N e th e rla n d s | E-Mail: a n n a m a rie k rie g @ g m a il.c o m
Dr. N icoleta G ea m a n a | U n iv ersity o f B u c h a re st | R esea rc h C e n te r o f
S y ste m s Ecology, Eco-diversity a n d S u sta in a b ility | B u c h a re st | R o m a n ia |
E-Mail: n ic o le ta _ g e a m a n a @ y a h o o .c o m
Dr. Sybille van d en H ove I M ed ian S .C . P. I B arc elo n a I S p ain |
E-Mail: s y b ille @ m e d ia n -w e b .e u
E-Mail: h e id i.w ittm e r@ u fz .d e
Dr. J u lie tte Young | E-Mail: jy o @ c e h .a c .u k
© 2013 C. Neßhöver et al.; licensee oekom verlag.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms o f the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http:ffcreativecommons.Org/licensesfbyf3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
G AIA 2 2 /2 (2013): 9 9 -1 0 3 | w w w .oekom .de/gaia
Dr. A lla n W a tt I E-Mail: a d w @ c e h .a c .u k
both: N ERC C en tre fo r Ecology a n d H y d ro lo g y | E d in b u rg h | U n ite d K ingdom
>
100
FORUM
Carsten Neßhöver, Johannes Timaeus, Heidi W ittm er et al.
Biodiversity loss is a “wicked problem”. As with many environ­
m ental challenges, it cannot be solved merely by established ap­
proaches to policy, science and linking science and policy m ak­
ing (Sharm an and M lambo 2012), but calls for transdisciplinary
approaches (Hirsch Hadom et al. 2008, Jahn et al. 2012) to research.
By transdisciplinary approaches we understand work that “moves
beyond the dom ain o f disciplinarity, generating new approaches
to scientific knowledge production that either transcend the for­
m alism o f a discipline altogether and/or operationalize integra­
tive collaborations between academics and non-academics, such
as local com m unities and/or policy-makers, as a core part o f the
scientific w ork’ (Farrell et al. 2013, p. 36).
In other words, the biodiversity issue calls for direct sciencesociety interaction betw een researchers and stakeholders such
as policy makers as well as those using the benefits of, caring for
or being constrained in their activities by biodiversity. Such direct
interactions are a key aspect o f the overall SPI landscape, includ­
ing SPI activities o f research projects. Even if m ost projects will
not follow a complete transdiciplinary approach and only take up
elem ents from it, they, nonetheless, contribute to m ainstream ­
ing the idea o f transdisciplinarity.
In this paper, we report and reflect on insights gained from 34
in-depth interviews on five European U nion (EU) research proj­
ects 1 to capture all experiences gained in designing and conduct­
ing SPI activities at project level and to better understand their
challenges and potentials. These insights were com plem ented by
a workshop discussion on lessons learned from the interviews on
SPI activities in EU projects. The workshop brought together sci­
entists w ith experience from over 50 EU-funded research proj­
ects, experts from the European Environm ental Agency and its
topic centre on biodiversity, and policy m akers from the Europe­
an Com mission.
The detailed results can be found in a report (SPIRAL 2012)
and policy briefs specifically addressing the needs and opportu­
nities o f research funders, environm ental policy m akers and re­
searchers2. From these results we identify overarching challeng­
es and how they could be tackled. We conclude with suggestions
for im proving SPI activities at project level aim ed at researchers
and at policy m akers operating at national, European and in ter­
national levels.
1 ■ EU -wide M onitoring M eth o d s a n d S y ste m s o f Surveillance f o r Species a n d
H a b ita ts o f C o m m u n ity interest (EuM on):
h ttp ://e u m o n .c k ff.s i
■ A ssessing Large-scale E nvironm ental Risks w ith Tested M eth o d s (ALARM):
w w w .a la rm p rq je a .n e t/a la rm
■ H o tsp o t Ecosystem Research on th e M argins o f European Seas (HERM ES):
w w w .eu -h erm es.n et
■ A ssessm en t o f E nvironm ental a n d Resource Costs a n d Benefits in th e
E uropean W ater Fram ew ork D ireaive (AQ U AM O NEY):
w w w .iv m .v u .n l/e n /pro je a s /P ro je cts/e co n o m ics/a q u a m o n ey
■ A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem a n d A w areness Research N etw o rk
(ALTER-Net):
h ttp ://a lter-n et.in fo
2 For re p o rt an d policy briefs se e also th e Science-Policy interfaces fo r Biodiversity:
Research, A a io n , a n d Learning (SPIRAL) w e b s ite w w w .spiral-projea .eu .
Main Challenges and Lessons Learned for
Biodiversity Research Projects at th e EU Level
Considerable efforts have been m ade to strengthen SPIs at proj­
ect level. Research projects are increasingly required to include
SPI activities as m andatory elem ents in their work plan and to
outline the expected im pact that the research project may yield
with respect to relevant policies. In m any projects this has led to
the development o f a n um ber o f approaches to improve their sci­
ence-policy interfaces, such as creating policy advisory boards or
similar bodies where scientists and potential users from policy sec­
tors and the wider society may interact regularly. In addition to ad­
visory bodies, projects are increasingly designing specific prod­
ucts targeted towards policy, such as policy briefs, databases or
science-policy workshops. These approaches allow projects to in ­
teract directly and informally with selected policy actors and can
thus play a role in the overall SPI landscape.
However, although efforts have been m ade to improve the SPI
at the project level, frustrations rem ain for both science and pol­
icy actors. Policy m akers interviewed highlighted difficulties in
S n a k e ’s h ea d frit 11la ry (Fritillaria m eleagris) Is ju s t o n e o f m a n y e n d a n g e r e d
s p e c ie s In E u ro p e . To a d d r e s s th e lo ss o f biodiversity, re s e a r c h e r s an d
d e c is io n m a k e rs n ee d to s tr e n g th e n th e ir In te ra c tio n , esp ecially In scie n cepolicy In te rfa c e s on re s e a rc h p ro je c t level o r In E u ro p e -w id e n e tw o rk s like
ALTER-N et, w h ich p r o m o te b io d iv ersity r e s e a rc h fo r policy.
101
FORUM
obtaining inform ation from past and ongoing research projects.
Indeed, they often found it hard to quickly identify relevant proj­
ects, knowledge is often not available in policy-relevant formats,
and after a projecf s end it can be complicated to identify relevant
contact persons. The researchers interviewed m entioned the chal­
lenges in getting policy actors to take part in their science-policy
activities due to tim e constraints and in getting them interested
in their specific topics and findings. Thus, research projects are
still facing basic challenges in planning and im plem enting the
interface work, especially in:
■ fram ing and addressing the broader policy context o f a
project,
■ ensuring continuity o f interactions between science and
policy m aking to facilitate m utual understanding,
■ enhancing and m aintaining expertise and quality o f SPI
practice and products,
■ integrating SPI activities betw een different projects as well
as with external partners.
In the following, we describe the m ain challenges w ithin these
four areas in m ore detail and how they can be addressed. While
the focus o f our work has been on EU-funded biodiversity proj­
ects, m ost o f these findings will also apply to larger national as
well as other international projects, and to environmental research
beyond biodiversity.
Framing and Addressing the Broader Policy Context
Research projects in the recent EU Framework Programmes are
required to outline their expected im pact on policies. Many proj­
ects, however, still struggle to take into account the needs, con­
straints and perspectives o f practitioners and policy makers when
designing and im plem enting their work plan. In m any respects,
the continued institutional separation o f research planning, re­
search processes and policy processes m akes the identification
o f appropriate stakeholders and the relevance o f their projects
challenging. A com m on example highlighted by interviewees and
workshop participants was the incompatibility of often specialised
research projects and the broad answers or knowledge overviews
or specifically tailored input into policy discussions needed by pol­
icy makers. Websites o f relevant institutions suchas the Director­
ates G eneral o f the European C om m ission are not designed to
help identify the relevance or use o f projects. As a result, projects
have to rely on the existing expertise o f project partners or to start
from scratch in identifying policy needs and relevant stakehold­
ers. This leads to situations - described by m any project coordi­
nators - where it is only in later stages o f a project that the m ost
prom ising stakeholders, policy opportunities and policy needs
are identified - by w hich tim e it can be too late.
The alignm ent o f projects and policy relevance requires a
broader understanding o f the policy context. Interviewees and
w orkshop participants did suggest options to overcome these
challenges. Besides applying more thorough transdisciplinary ap­
proaches in research funding and design (ESF 2012, Jahn et al.
2012), w hich would go well beyond the science-policy interfaces
C A IA 2 2 /2 (2013): 9 9 -1 0 3 | w w w .oekom .de/gaia
applied today, better entry points have to be developed for research
projects and policy actors to get an overview o f the strategic poli­
cy contexts o f projects, and identify w hat projects are the m ost
relevant, and for whom. Interviewees and workshop participants
identified a n u m b er o f concrete m easures to facilitate these en ­
try points, including better w ebsites (both project websites and
research funders’ websites), more explicit formulation o f research
tenders, events for groups o f research projects to inform them
about relevant policy contexts, and targeted exchange between
researchers and policy m akers taking place upstream o f the proj­
ect design process. All the m easures proposed were inform ed by
practical experience, w hich illustrates that som e o f the lessons
from transdisciplinary approaches can be applied even in the
more traditional research context and help them address the chal­
lenges identified.
Ensuring Continuity o f Interactions and Mutual
Understanding
One o f the m ost im portant lessons learned m entioned by the m a­
jority o f interviewees and workshop participants was to ensure
continuous interaction thro u g h o u t the lifetime o f the project.
Once contacts are established and interactions via advisory board
m eetings and sim ilar processes take place, the challenge is to
achieve a m utual understanding o f science and policy actors.
Often, the expectations o f scientists and stakeholders in advi­
sory bodies diverge significantly at the start due to the different
needs and perceptions described - an issue of supply and dem and
that is a com m on at the SPI (Sarewitz and Pielke 2007). Such di­
verging expectations incur the risk o f causing m isunderstandings
between the participants of an SPI. These m isunderstandings may
then persist throughout the duration o f a project. In m any cases
this can result in project outputs that may have high scientific val­
ue b u t are poorly adapted to policy needs. Accordingly, frustra­
tion grows for policy makers, who are n ot getting the expected
outputs, and for scientists whose research is n o t used.
In order to develop successful SPIs for a project, it is therefore
im portant to rem em ber that a strategic m o m en t lies in the proj­
ect design and starting phase. At this point, SPI objectives and
activities should be discussed openly and clearly and should re ­
flect the needs and expectations of science and policy participants,
explicitly trying to develop a com m on language from the start.
These objectives and activities should then be continuously m o n ­
itored during the research project to ensure that expectations are
still aligned. This is an im portant precondition for the develop­
m en t o f a m utual understanding between scientists and policy
participants.
W hile m any issues can be avoided through careful planning
and explicit exchange o f expectations, “wicked problems” such as
the loss o f biodiversity can trigger conflicts due to different inter­
ests or epistem ic perspectives, on different sides - researchers,
policy m akers an d /o r other stakeholders. The m ost salient ap ­
proach is to reflexively handle such problems and avoid strategies
that try to “solve” wicked and therefore irresolvable problem s by
scientific or technical m eans (Rittel and W ebber 1973).
>
102
FORUM
Carsten Neßhöver, Johannes Timaeus, Heidi W ittm er et al.
Enhancing and Maintaining Interfacing Expertise
P lanning SPI processes, contacting and staying in touch with
stakeholders, organising the exchange and feeding results back
to SPI partners are resource intensive activities. There needs to
be an acknow ledgem ent that SPIs cannot be successful if this
w ork is considered as a m inor add-on to the projecf s w ork and
is delegated to participants inexperienced in such work. Indeed,
the lack o f institutional “m em ory” in research organisations on
how to establish and m aintain science-policy interactions is one
m ajor obstacle in the SPI activities at project level. In order to
make stakeholder interactions an effective and targeted com po­
n en t o f a project, such activities m u st be led or at least support­
ed by partners experienced in science-policy interactions. These
can be scientists interested in SPI work, specialised interface and
com m unication experts, or a combination o f both. Many research
institutions and organisations are gaining experience in interface
activities, ensuring that experiences are passed on from one proj­
ect to the next. However, m ore needs to be done.
Internal or external SPI experts may help to identify w hat type
o f stakeholder interaction or dialogue is a good fit for both proj­
ect interests and policy needs. This should include dialogue with
stakeholders prior to the projects to identify the right level o f in ­
teractions. In addition, a science-policy interaction strategy should
be developed during the early stages o f a project as part o f the wid­
er com m unication strategy, which every larger research project is
expected to develop.
Although science-policy activities are still undervalued in m ost
research and policy contexts, m any involved in projects are inter­
ested and willing to participate in science-policy activities. Accord­
ingly, the science-policy strategy especially o f larger projects could
include science-policy training activities.
Integrating SPI Activities between Different Projects as well as
with External Partners
A nother challenge, yet a possible solution to m any o f the above
challenges, is to use cooperative approaches to support the suc­
cess and endurance o f SPI activities across projects and partners.
Interviewees highlighted encouraging experiences o f partner­
ships between projects that helped increase their interaction with
policy, especially at the EU level. Projects w orking in the same
them atic area can significantly increase their im pact and visibil­
ity by joining forces. Such SPI integration am ong projects also
helps policy makers engage, for example, by having to attend few­
er m eetings. These collaborative efforts can also depict a broad­
er picture and a m ore refined input to policy than single projects.
Such partnerships can be initiated top-down, if supported by fund­
ing agencies, or m ore inform ally and bottom -up w hen initiated
by projects themselves.
A nother option o f external cooperation is to link SPI activities
to existing institutions (such as environm ent agencies) and initia­
tives such as the Biodiversity Information System Europe (BISE)3.
BISE is an online platform collecting policy-relevant inform ation
on biodiversity developed by the European Environm ent Agency
in partnership w ith other European institutions. A future com ­
pon en t o f BISE could be a database storing project sum m aries,
results and experts for certain topics in a policy relevant manner,
for example, by linking them to thematic policy sectors or parts of
significant legislation (SPIRAL 2012). Such a platform can serve
as a m ajor entry point for projects to promote their work in a pol­
icy relevant m anner.
D iscussion
Many studies have em phasised the challenges in designing sound
and successful science-policy interfaces, especially on complex
and value laden issues with high levels o f uncertainty and am bi­
guity (e. g., Cash et al. 2003, Van den Hove 2007, Koetz et al. 2011,
Spierenburg 2012). While the focus o f science-policy interfaces is
often on larger an d /o r official processes such as policy-led advi­
sory com m ittees or assessm ents, science-policy activities o f re­
search projects are not to be underestim ated. They have led to an
increased m utual understanding o f policy m akers and scientists
in the field o f biodiversity in Europe. They have also facilitated the
direct flow from emerging knowledge into policy and practice, and
direct inclusion o f policy perspectives into research processes.
Contacts established through project SPIs often lead to further
interaction beyond the project duration. While m ajor challenges
in such interactions rem ain, certain practical approaches can be
developed to improve the effectiveness o f research projects’ sci­
ence-policy interfaces. For research projects, such approaches in ­
clude the need to regard SPI activities as a m ajor part o f any re ­
search plan, including in particular in the com m unication strate­
gy. SPI activities can be successful tools in achieving recognition
for projects beyond their scientific outputs. In order to be success­
ful, they need to be understood as an integral part o f the project
and should be addressed and developed carefully throughout the
lifetime o f the project. It is also essential to be clear about SPI ob­
jectives by developing them jointly with scientists, policy partners
and other stakeholders early in the project. Involving partners
experienced in such interactions can improve the effectiveness.
Despite their advantages and im portance, project SPIs have
limitations in term s o f w hat they can and cannot do. For example,
if policy requires a broad foundation and exhaustive interdisci­
plinary synthesis, this may be beyond the capabilities o f a single
project or even a group o f projects. In such cases other types o f
interfaces, for example, broad assessm ents like the MA or TEEB
are needed to com plem ent the work o f projects. Science-policy
interactions should, indeed, be approached in different, com ple­
m entary ways, through a variety o f interfaces.
Dealing with m ost o f the above issues falls within the respon­
sibility o f the scientists leading research projects. They have to
ensure that the am bition o f the SPI activities are properly aligned
with the projecf s needs and opportunities and m u st be aware of
the lim itations th at they face. However, responsibility also lies
3 http ://b io d iversity.eu ro p a .eu
w w w .oekom .de/gaia | C A IA 2 2 /2 (2013): 9 9 -1 0 3
FORUM
w ith policy m akers and research funders, as they create the en ­
abling environm ent for researchers to act at the science-policy
intersection (SPIRAL 2012). As such, EU research program m es
could help improve the way in w hich projects address SPI activi­
ties. Research funders could support new projects, for example,
by encouraging projects to collaborate at the science-policy inter­
section, by establishing links to policy m akers, by providing in ­
form ation platforms, or through dedicated processes and struc­
tures ensuring a m em ory on SPI expertise.
In Europe, the new framework program m e Horizon 2020 and
its im plem entation may constitute valuable opportunities in this
respect. One m ajor cornerstone, not discussed in detail here, is
to ensure that SPI activities are properly acknowledged in scien­
tific careers and project evaluations (see, e. g., ESF 2012).
Science-policy interfaces o f research projects are a m ajor and
often undervalued building block o f the SPI landscape. Further
developing their approaches and tools, in parallel with SPI activi­
ties via boundary organisations and the forthcoming IPBES (Görg
et al. 2010, Spierenburg 2012), will be crucial in the future.
L a rig au d erie, A., H .A . M ooney. 2 0 1 0 b . T h e In tern a tio n a l Year o f Biodiversity: A n
o p p o rtu n ity to s tre n g th e n th e scien ce-p o licy in terface fo r b io diversity an d eco ­
sy ste m s e rv ic e s. C urrent O p in io n in E n viro n m en ta l S u sta in a b ility 2/1 - 2 : 1 - 2 .
M A (M lllen n iu m E co sy stem A s s e s s m e n t). 2005. Ecosystems a n d h u m a n well-being:
O ur h u m a n p la n e t - S u m m a r y f o r decision m akers. W a sh in g to n , D .C .: Islan d .
Rlttel, H .W .J., M. M. W e b b er. 1973. D ile m m a s in a g e n e ra l th e o ry o f p la n n in g .
Policy Sciences 4 /2 : 1 5 5 - 1 6 9 .
S arew itz, D., R.A. Pielke. 2007. T h e n eg lecte d h e a rt o f s c ie n c e policy: R econciling
su p p ly o f a n d d e m a n d fo r scien ce. Environm ental Science a n d Policy 1 0 /1 :5 - 1 6 .
S h a rm a n , M., M. C. M la m b o . 2 012. W ick ed : T h e p ro b le m o f b io d iv ersity lo ss.
G A IA 2 1 /4 : 2 7 4 - 2 7 7 .
S p ie re n b u rg , M . 2012. G e ttin g th e m e s s a g e a c ro s s : B io d iv ersity s c ie n c e a n d
policy i n t e r f a c e s - A review . G A IA 2 1 /2 : 1 2 5 - 1 3 4 .
SPI RAL (S cien ce-P o licy In te rfa c e s: R esea rc h , A ctio n , L e arn in g ). 2 012. Im p ro vin g
interfaces b etw een EU research projects a n d policy m a kin g : From th e recognition
o f a need, to re c o m m e n d a tio n s f o r concrete actions. SPIRAL p ro je c t re p o rt.
w w w .s p ira l-p ro je c t.e u /s ite s /d e f a u lt/f ile s /R e c o m m e n d a tio n s _ S p ir a l% 2 0
w o rk s h o p _ Q c t2 0 1 2 _ fin a l.p d f (a c c e s s e d A pril 22, 201 3 ).
TEE B (T he E c o n o m ic s o f E c o sy s te m s a n d B io d iv ersity ). 2 0 0 9 . T h e eco n o m ics
o f ec o system s a n d biodiversity f o r n a tio n a l a n d in tern a tio n a l po licy m akers.
G e n e v a : U n ite d N a tio n s E n v iro n m e n t P ro g ra m m e (U N E P ).
UNE P (U n ite d N a tio n s E n v iro n m e n t P r o g ra m m e ). 2 0 0 9 . G a p analysis f o r th e
purpose o f fa c ilita tin g th e discussions o n h o w to im prove a n d stren g th e n th e
science-policy interface o n biodiversity a n d eco system services. S e c o n d ad h o c
in te rg o v e rn m e n ta l a n d m u lti-s ta k e h o ld e r m e e tin g o n an in te rg o v e rn m e n ta l
W e th a n k th e in terv ie w ee s a n d th e w o rk s h o p p a rtic ip a n ts . T h is re s e a rc h w as
s c ie n c e -p o lic y p la tfo rm o n b io d iv ersity a n d e c o s y s te m s e rv ic e s, N airo b i,
s u p p o rte d by Science-Policy Interfaces f o r Biodiversity: Research, A ction, a n d Learn-
5 - 9 O c to b e r 2 0 0 9 . U N E P /I P B E S /2 /I N F /l. w w w .ip b e s .n e t/m e e tin g s /
in g (S P IR A L ), an in te rd is c ip lin a ry re s e a rc h p ro je c t fu n d e d u n d e r th e E u ro p e an
C o m m u n ity ’s S e v e n th Fram ew ork P rogram m e, c o n tra c t n u m b e r 2 4 4 0 3 5 . T he
v iew s p re s e n te d in th is p a p e r d o n o t reflect th e view s o f th e E u ro p e a n C o m ­
m is s io n . Any e rro r o r in c o n s is te n c y is th e so le re s p o n s ib ility o f th e a u th o r s .
D o c u m e n ts /1 P B E S _ 2 _ l_ I N F _ l.d o c ( a c c e s s e d A pril 22, 2 013).
Van d en H ove, S. 200 7 . A ra tio n a le fo r sc ie n c e -p o lic y in te rfa c e s.
Futures 3 9 /7 : 8 0 7 - 8 2 6 .
Van d en H ove, S., L. C h a b a s o n . 2 0 0 9 . T h e d eb a te o n a n In terg o vern m en ta l
Science-P olicy P la tfo rm o n Biodiversity a n d E cosystem Services (IPBES):
References
C ash , D.W. e t al. 20 0 3 . K no w ledge s y s te m s fo r s u s ta in a b le d e v e lo p m e n t.
Proceedings o f th e N o tio n a l A c a d e m y o f Sciences o f th e U n ite d S ta te s o f
Exploring gaps a n d needs. IDDRI W o rk in g P a p e rs 1. P aris: I n s titu te fo r
S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t a n d In te rn a tio n a l R elatio n s (ID D R I).
w w w .id d ri.o rg / P u b lic a tio n s /C o lle c tio n s /ld e e s - p o u r - le - d e b a t/
ld _ 0 9 0 1 0 4 _ g a p _ a n a ly s is -4 F e b .p d f (a c c e s s e d A pril 22, 2 013).
A m erica P N A S 1 0 0 /1 4 : 8 0 86.
E S F (E u ro p e a n S cie n c e F o u n d a tio n ). 2012. Responses to en v iro n m en ta l a n d socie­
ta l challenges f o r o u r unstable ea rth (RE SCU E ). ESF Forward Look - E SF -C O ST
“Frontier o f Science’’jo in t initiative. S tra s b o u rg : ESF. w w w .e s f.o rg /file a d m in /
S u b m itte d February 11, 2013; revised version
a cc ep ted April 8 ,2 0 1 3 .
Pu b lic _ d o c u m e n ts /P u b l¡ c a tio n s /r e s c u e .p d f (a c c e s s e d April 22, 201 3 ).
Farrell, K., S. v an d e n H ove, T. L uzzati. 2013. W h a t lies b e y o n d re d u c tio n is m ?
T aking s to c k o f in te rd is c ip lin a ry re s e a rc h in ec o lo g ica l e c o n o m ic s . In:
C a rsten N e ß h ö v e r
B eyond reductionism : A passion f o r interdisciplinarity. E dited by K. Farrell,
S. van d e n H ove, T. L uzzati. R o u tle d g e S tu d ie s in E cological E c o n o m ic s.
L o n d o n : R o u tled g e.
G B0 3 (G lobal B iodiversity O u tlo o k 3 ). 2010. G lobal biodiversity o u tlo o k 3.
M o n treal: S e c re ta ria t o f th e C o n v en tio n on B iological D iversity, w w w .cb d .in t/
d o c /p u b lic a tio n s /g b o /g b o 3 - f in a l- e n .p d f (a c c e s s e d A pril 22, 2013).
Born 1972 in C o lo g n e , G erm an y . M S c a n d PhD in g e o ­
ecology. S in c e 2003 a t H e lm h o ltz -C e n tre fo r E n v iro n m e n ta l
R esea rc h - U FZ, s in c e 2 0 0 9 d e p u ty h e a d o f th e D e p a rt­
m e n t o f C o n s e rv a tio n Biology. R esea rc h in te r e s ts : s c ie n c e policy in te rfa c e s, b io d iv ersity a n d e c o s y s te m s e rv ic e s.
G ö rg , C., C. N e ß h ö v e r, A. P a u ls c h . 2010. A n e w link b e tw e e n b io d iv ersity
s c ie n c e a n d policy. G A IA 1 9 /3 : 1 8 3 - 1 8 6 .
J o h a n n e s T im a e u s
H irsch H ad o rn , G., S. B iber-K lem m , W. G ro ss e n b a c h e r-M a n s u y . 2008. T h e e m e r­
g e n c e o ftra n s d is c ip lin a rity a s a fo rm o f re s e a rc h . In: H a n d b o o k o f transdisci­
Born 1981 in E ssen , G erm an y . M S c in Biology. S in ce 2011
plinary research. Edited b y G . H irsch H a d o rn e t a l. D o rd rech t: S pringer. 1 9 - 3 9 .
re s e a r c h e r a t th e D e p a r tm e n t o f C o n s e rv a tio n Biology,
Jah n , T., M. B e rg m a n n , F. Keil. 2012. T ra n sd isc ip lin a rity : B etw een m a in s tr e a m in g a n d m a rg in a liz a tio n . Ecological E conom ics 7 9 :1 - 1 0 .
K night, A.T., R. M . C ow ling, M. R ouget, A. B alm ford, A.T. L o m b ard , B. M. C a m p ­
H e lm h o ltz -C e n tre fo r E n v iro n m e n ta l R esea rc h - UFZ.
R esea rc h in te re s ts : s c ie n c e -p o lic y in te rfa c e s, p a rtic ip a to ry
a p p r o a c h e s in b io d iv ersity policy.
bell. 2 0 0 8 . K now ing b u t n o t d o in g : S e le c tin g prio rity c o n s e rv a tio n a re a s
a n d th e re s e a rc h -im p le m e n ta tio n g a p . C onservation Biology 2 2 /3 : 6 1 0 - 6 1 7 .
K oetz, T., K. N . Farrell, P. B ridgew ater. 2011. B uilding b e tte r sc ie n c e -p o lic y in te r­
H e id i W ittm e r
f a c e s fo r in te rn a tio n a l e n v iro n m e n ta l g o v e rn a n c e : A s s e s s in g p o te n tia l w ith ­
in th e in te rg o v e rn m e n ta l p la tfo rm fo r b io d iv ersity a n d e c o s y s te m s e rv ic e s.
Born 1964 in L aw ren ce, M a s s a c h u s e tts . M Sc in
International Environm ental Agreem ents: Politics, Law an d Economics 1 2 /1 :1 -2 1 .
a g ric u ltu ra l s c ie n c e s , PhD in s o c io -e c o n o m ic s . S in ce 2 0 1 0
L a rig au d erie, A., H .A . M ooney. 2 0 1 0 a . T h e in te rg o v e rn m e n ta l s cie n ce-p o licy
d e p u ty h e a d o f th e D e p a r tm e n t o f E n v iro n m e n ta l P olitics,
p la tfo rm on b io d iv ersity a n d e c o s y s te m se rv ic e s: M o v in g a s te p c lo s e r to
H e lm h o ltz -C e n tre fo r E n v iro n m e n ta l R esea rc h - UFZ.
an IPCC-Iike m e c h a n is m fo r bio d iv ersity . C urrent O pin io n in E nviro n m en ta l
R esea rc h in te re s ts : m u lti-level g o v e rn a n c e , in s titu tio n a l
S u sta in a b ility 2/1 - 2 : 9 - 1 4 .
G A IA 2 2 /2 (2013): 9 9 -1 0 3 | w w w .oekom .de/gaia
e c o n o m ic s , bio d iv ersity p o litics.
I
103