Biodivers Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s10531-016-1155-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic
learning environments for successful impact
Rob Tinch1 • Estelle Balian1 • Dave Carss2 • Driss Ezzine de Blas11
Nicoleta Adriana Geamana9 • Ulrich Heink5 • Hans Keune3 •
Carsten Nesshöver5 • Jari Niemelä8 • Simo Sarkki7 •
Maxime Thibon10 • Johannes Timaeus6 • Angheluta Vadineanu9 •
Sybille van den Hove1 • Allan Watt2 • Kerry A. Waylen4 •
Heidi Wittmer5 • Juliette C. Young2
•
Received: 21 January 2016 / Revised: 16 May 2016 / Accepted: 31 May 2016
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract To address the pressing problems associated with biodiversity loss, changes in
awareness and behaviour are required from decision makers in all sectors. Science-policy
interfaces (SPIs) have the potential to play an important role, and to achieve this effectively, there is a need to understand better the ways in which existing SPIs strive for
effective communication, learning and behavioural change. Using a series of test cases
across the world, we assess a range of features influencing the effectiveness of SPIs
Communicated by Rob Bugter, Paula Harrison, John Haslett and Rob Tinch.
This is part of the special issue on ‘BESAFE’.
& Rob Tinch
[email protected]
1
Median, Carrer Vista Alegre 20, 08197 Sant Cugat del Valles, Spain
2
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, Midlothian EH26 0QB, UK
3
INBO, Rue de la Clinique 25, 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium
4
Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH,
UK
5
UFZ- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
6
Verein zur Erhaltung der Nutzpflanzenvielfalt, Mondrianplatz 11, 36041 Fulda, Germany
7
Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, PO Box 1000, 90014 Oulu,
Finland
8
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences,
University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
9
University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul
Independentei 91-95, 050095 Bucharest, Romania
10
Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel, Tunis, Tunisia
11
CIRAD - French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development, 34398 Montpellier,
France
123
Biodivers Conserv
through communication and argumentation processes, engagement of actors and other
aspects that contribute to potential success. Our results demonstrate the importance of
dynamic and iterative processes of interaction to support effective SPI work. We stress the
importance of seeing SPIs as dynamic learning environments and we provide recommendations for how they can enhance success in meeting their targeted outcomes. In
particular, we recommend building long-term trust, creating learning environments, fostering participation and ownership of the process and building capacity to combat silo
thinking. Processes to enable these changes may include, for example, inviting and integrating feedback, extended peer review and attention to contextualising knowledge for
different audiences, and time and sustained effort dedicated to trust-building and developing common languages. However there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions, and methods
must be adapted to context and participants. Creating and maintaining effective dynamic
learning environments will both require and encourage changes in institutional and individual behaviours: a challenging agenda, but one with potential for positive feedbacks to
maintain momentum.
Keywords Science policy interfaces Biodiversity Communication, argumentation,
iterativity, behavioural change, societal change
Introduction
Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) can be broadly defined as relations between scientists and
other actors in the policy process which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint
construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making and/or research (van
den Hove 2007). SPIs cover concepts such as knowledge brokering (Thompson et al. 2006;
Lomas 2007; Fazey et al. 2013), knowledge exchange (Bierly et al. 2000; Duchelle et al.
2009; Fazey et al. 2013; Michaels 2009) and argumentation (Rose 2015; Simon and
Schiemer 2015). SPIs can be considered as boundary organisations (Guston 2001) that can
encompass a range of institutional structures, including interest groups, research projects,
expert groups, and state agencies or institutes, but also informal relationships, among even
as few as two individuals. Cash et al. (2003) identified key functions for such initiatives,
arguing that ‘‘boundary management’’ required not only communication but also translation and mediation for mutual understanding and reconciliation of diverse perspectives.
Such SPIs are increasingly perceived as a key component in tackling complex environmental issues through mobilising the policy sector to address challenges relating to
effective conservation and management of natural resources and human impacts on the
environment (Young et al. 2014). These challenges are complex and widespread, and
biodiversity is still at risk and declining, despite current policies and legislation. Reasons
include multiple vested interests, socially divisive issues, contested policy options and
ethical framings, as well as pervasive uncertainty regarding ecological and human implications of biodiversity loss (Butchart et al. 2010). The European Commission’s postmortem on the failure of the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss (Fournier et al. 2010)
argued that there was: (a) incomplete implementation of existing legislation; (b) insufficient funding; (c) limited awareness about biodiversity; (d) inadequate governance and
administrative capacity; and (e) gaps in skills and knowledge. All five problems hamper
efforts to ‘mainstream’ biodiversity concerns across all policy sectors, recognised as vital
123
Biodivers Conserv
for closing the implementation gap in biodiversity policy targets (CBD 2010: Aichi
Strategic Goal A). In Europe, new biodiversity indicators, policy initiatives and sciencepolicy interface processes are being introduced, not only for biodiversity policy, but to
support the successful mainstreaming of biodiversity in EU policies (Tinch et al. 2015).
These features make the role of SPIs more complex, and also more dynamic, since
demands on SPIs are constantly changing and evolving, in terms of pressures on and the
state of biodiversity, but also knowledge, technology, policy framings, and the whole way
of conceptualising human relationships with the natural world (Mace 2014). In turn, SPIs
cannot be understood in isolation, but as embedded within and shaped by (and themselves
influencing) these wider social and political contexts (van den Hove and Chabason 2009).
To improve SPIs in complex contexts, and encourage more behavioural change leading to
successful outcomes, we need to understand the conditions under which SPIs foster
learning and behavioural change, defined as both internally (the behaviours of those
engaged in SPIs) and externally (non-participant audiences and indirect influences). This
calls for a combination of observing SPIs operating in different ways and contexts, with an
understanding of what determines change in behaviour, and of how participation in and/or
communication from SPIs can influence behaviour.
In this paper, we aim to enhance our understanding of how and when SPIs may support
the behavioural and ultimately societal change that is required to halt biodiversity loss and
achieve the Aichi and EU Biodiversity strategy targets. We start by exploring the literature
on the challenges of evaluating success and failure of SPIs contributing to biodiversity
policies. We then review the features and outcomes that are commonly considered when
assessing SPI impacts, such as learning and behavioural change, and extend the idea of
SPIs as iterative learning environments (see Sarkki et al. 2015). We then use the views of
participants involved in ten different case studies to understand perceived links between
SPI design, context, and effects on communication (including argumentation), learning and
behavioural change as elements of success or failure. We conclude by synthesising these
results to identify recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of SPIs.
Understanding success and failure of SPIs contributing to biodiversity policies
‘Success’ might be considered with respect to the ultimate outcomes expected of SPIs—the
social learning, behavioural and policy changes they foster in terms of improved environmental governance (Osmond et al. 2010). However, practical policy and biodiversity
outcomes are not fully within the control of any SPIs. Rather, they depend on complex
interplay with the context and numerous other actors, and so do not necessarily reflect any
SPI design or operational choices. This means that biodiversity SPI ‘success’ cannot be
defined simply in terms of the final biodiversity outcomes. Hence, there are no agreed,
measurable indicators of SPI success or effectiveness. However, there is a wide literature
on the conditions that help to create success: a practical approach to thinking about SPI
success is to focus on features and attributes that can enhance the likelihood that an SPI,
acting within a particular dynamic and complex context, will have effective impacts on
learning, behaviour, policy and ultimately biodiversity.
Candidate conditions for successful SPIs have been identified by various authors
(Lentsch and Weingart 2011; Young et al. 2014; Sarkki et al.2015), for example having
clear lines of responsibility and accountability on both sides of the boundary (Guston
2001), and by developing a forum in which information can be co-produced by scientists
and information users (Guston 2001; Lövbrand 2011). The success of SPIs has also been
linked to important features of knowledge generation, argumentation and communication
123
Biodivers Conserv
processes in relation to decision-making contexts, and in particular to credibility, relevance
and legitimacy (Cash et al. 2003; Farrell and Jäger 2006). Sarkki et al. (2014) explore the
ways in which the features of credibility, relevance and legitimacy, and the components of
SPIs that contribute to them, can exhibit dynamic synergies and trade-offs, and how they
can be balanced in context-specific ways to enhance SPI success.
Across these assessments, the notion of learning emerges as central to the success of
SPIs. In the context of policy decisions, learning can be considered in terms of how
decision-makers address choices about whether, how, and how much to alter existing
policy, practices, or tools (Bomberg 2007). It is possible to distinguish among social
learning that involves large-scale paradigmatic changes, reflexive learning about governance, instrumental learning of ‘what seems to work’, political learning that is about
‘playing the game’, and finally cross-national emulation in which models and solutions are
imported (Radaelli 2009). Social learning occurs from peer-to-peer via social networks
(Reed et al. 2010) and can be viewed as ‘‘developing new relational capacities’’ between
social agents, learning how to collaborate and understand others’ roles and capacities
differently (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008), though in practice a clear distinction between individual and social learning is seldom made (Reed et al. 2010). Clark (2001) stresses the
importance of social groups within which learning occurs and institutional forms that
transmit lessons learned: SPIs can serve both as social forums and as sources of institutional practices to promote learning and diffusion of change of behaviour.
The pathways from communication forums and capacity building to learning and
behavioural change are often lengthy and indirect, especially in the context of transversal
and complex issues such as biodiversity. In the context of learning, we need to recognise
the shortcomings of the dominant ‘linear’ model of SPIs, with neutral scientists speaking
‘truth’ to receptive, powerful actors (Haas 2004; van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). The focus
on one-way transfer of knowledge from science to policy puts emphasis on involving
scientists with great communication skills and translating the scientific knowledge into
more digested messages for policy makers. However, the processes by which individuals
learn, form opinions and make decisions rarely follows this simple linear model (O’Brien
2013; Young et al. 2014). For example, decision-makers use more than solely information
and technical knowledge when deciding on a course of action (Gauchat 2011). Groffman
et al. (2010) describe the linear model as one of SPIs seeking to fill a ‘‘knowledge deficit’’,
contrasting this with a ‘‘public engagement’’ model that recognises the complex and
dynamic aspects of communication and argumentation and their relationship to decision
processes. While methods premised on the linear deficit model can help effective science
communication on some straightforward and uncontroversial issues (Pielke 2007), these
methods reach their limits for more complex contexts, such as biodiversity loss, where
knowledge is communicated, negotiated, interpreted and used in a variety of ways (Waylen
and Young 2014). Focusing on the linear model hinders the development of more effective,
dynamic SPIs in these contexts (Young et al. 2014).
A natural extension of this shift in perspective is to consider SPIs as dynamic learning
environments. Rather than linear processes with isolated events, SPIs are viewed here as
dynamic processes that coevolve with their broader context (Reed et al. 2010) and the
individuals participating in them (Engels 2005; Petersen et al. 2011). This approach leads
Sarkki et al. (2015) to argue for the extension of the credibility, relevance and legitimacy
framework to include a fourth attribute, iterativity, that brings to the fore the essential
dynamic elements of SPI processes, contextual relationships and trade-offs that are not
clearly emphasised in existing frameworks. Building on the above, we hypothesise that
defining SPIs as dynamic learning environments can produce novel insights on how SPIs
123
Biodivers Conserv
can be made more effective in terms of fostering behavioural and societal changes leading
to positive outcomes for biodiversity.
Methods
Ten test cases were selected to cover a wide range of contexts and SPI types at national,
European, and international scales. Eight cases were strongly focused on biodiversity
issues, while two covered more general areas with strong biodiversity components. Brief
details of each case are presented in Table 1.
The research team members were either involved directly in these SPIs themselves, or
had strong connections to them: we aimed to understand SPIs from an insider perspective.
The objective was to establish a dialogue with the SPIs and contribute to the development
and improvement of the SPIs, based on their needs and willingness to interact with us,
while at the same time carrying out research into the evolving processes, helping us to
reach a deeper understanding of how SPIs operate in different contexts while testing
supposed good practice.
The test case approaches were diverse, being explorative and sensitive to the needs and
wishes of other participants in the SPIs. The approaches are described in Table 1, and
follow a continuum of involvement, from financial and time input, to input of time from
researchers, to observation and interviews. Strict comparability across the test cases was
not sought, nor did we attempt formal hypothesis testing as in a scientific experimental
setting. Instead, our aim was ‘learning by doing’ and observing others’ actions, expressed
motivations and opinions in functioning SPIs.
The analysis of the ten cases was carried out in three steps using a mixed methodological approach consisting of interviews, online questionnaires, workshops and focus
groups.
Step 1: A contextualisation phase based on identification and description of key characteristics of SPIs (structures, objectives, processes, outputs: see Sarkki et al. 2014 for
details of this framework). This was compiled from a desk study exploring available
communication material produced on and by the test case, questionnaires addressed to
leaders or participants in the test case and face to face interviews. The collected results
were compiled and each SPI component (structures, processes, etc.) was documented.
Step 2: An assessment of the actual functioning of the SPI, compared to its initial plans
and history, was carried out making use of questionnaires and face to face interviews
involving internal SPI participants and external stakeholders. The results were compiled
and analysed to identify whether and how the original SPI objectives had evolved, what
processes and outputs were planned and whether they had been modified, and the reasons
for these changes.
Step 3: A dialogue and collaboration strategy with the institutions and persons engaged
in the SPI and with external audiences/stakeholders was conducted to assess jointly the
factors and conditions that were contributing or hampering the success or failure of the SPI
as perceived by these different audiences.
Data were collected in a ‘‘story telling’’ format for step 1, while step 2 and 3 resulted in
short descriptions and a list of criteria entered in a common template to allow for comparison. Data were analysed to identify facilitating or hindering factors contributing to or
constraining the success of each SPI in meeting its objectives.
123
Overview
The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES) was established in 2012. The overarching
objective is ‘‘to strengthen the science-policy interface for
biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and
sustainable development’’. The structure of IPBES includes: a
Secretariat; a decision-making Plenary composed of members
(governments) and observers, a Bureau and a Multidisciplinary
Expert Panel (MEP)
The AfriBES network is a social network of scientific and technical
information on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa. It
emerged from the consultative process towards an International
Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) and
particularly from the regional consultations. The main goal of
AfriBES is to foster better sharing of and access to the relevant
information on biodiversity, as well as a better access to African
expertise and experts as the (2007) African consultation highlighted
that information transfer and ownership and the capacity to find the
‘‘right information at the right place’’ are amongst the major needs
of African biodiversity stakeholders in terms of SPI
SEPI (Science for EU Environment Policy Interface) was a process
launched in 2010 under the impetus of the Environment
Commissioner. Currently, DG ENV acquires scientific evidence to
support policy from a variety of sources. However, there is no
systematic approach towards gathering evidence for cross-cutting
and emerging issues. Under the SEPI process, DG ENV explored
options for a stronger framework at the intersection between science
and EU environment policy. The process focused on environmental
policy generally, including biodiversity and nature. The challenges
are particularly relevant to biodiversity policy since the need for
mainstreaming, and the problems of ‘silo mentalities’ in other DGs,
are strongest in this policy area
Test case
IPBES
AfriBES
network
SEPI
Table 1 Overview of the SPI test cases analysed in this study
Approach and methods
Time input: participation and debriefing in preparatory/consultation
process: from the Science and Governance conference in Paris in 2005
to the IPBES consultations and the multi-stakeholder meetings since
2008 (held in Putrajaya (UNEP 2008), Nairobi (UNEP 2009), and
Busan (UNEP 2010)). SPIRAL members also attended the two
sessions of the plenary meeting of IPBES (3–7 Oct 2011, 16–21 Apr
2012) as well as workshops and meetings organised in Europe during
intersessions. Contribution to the organisation of a workshop in Bonn,
Dec 2011; contribution to the development of the IPBES Stakeholder
Engagement Strategy. Two in-depth expert interviews (2011)
Financial and time input: Organisation of two workshops to promote
the co-design of the network (Tunis, Apr 2012 (27 participants),
Dakar, Apr 2013 (26 participants)), debriefing and follow-up.
Organisations of on-line consultations on ICT tools and their design
to foster dialogue and exchanges between communities (scientists,
decisions makers, regional organisations and CSOs
representatives…)
Time input: participation in and debriefing of two workshops
(Brussels, Dec 2010, and Brussels, Sept 2011), and two sessions at
the Green week in 2012
Scale
International
African
European
Biodivers Conserv
123
Overview
INBO (Het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek) is the Flemish
research and knowledge centre for nature and its sustainable
management and use. INBO conducts research and supplies
knowledge to all those who prepare or implement policies or are
interested in them. As a leading scientific institute, INBO works for
the Flemish government primarily, but also supplies information for
international reporting and deals with questions from local
authorities. In addition, INBO supports organisations for nature
management, forestry, agriculture, hunting and fisheries. INBO is
currently ‘on the move’, and is deeply involved in changing its
science-policy interface culture towards more (or strengthening)
policy relevance
During the preparatory phase for EU accession (2000/2006), the
Romanian authorities transposed the Water Framework Directive
(WFD) and other related directives into national legislation. In the
first phase the mandate to implement WFD measures was allocated
to the former Water department/Ministry of Environment, Water
and Forests and National Water Authority (NWA) in charge of
water policy implementation on one hand, and two research
institutes: the National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) and the
National Institute for Environment (NIE), in charge of scientific and
technical support on the other hand. By the end of 2009, the need for
institutional consolidation and integration and for operational
improvement of the existing SPI components was perceived by most
of those involved in WFD implementation as a major priority, due
to weak connectivity and coordination among former and newly
established SPI components. The need for multi-level architecture
and involvement of various scientific disciplines as well as non
scientific expertise was identified, leading to improved vision which
framed the structural and functional integration and consolidation of
the water and biodiversity SPI components, enhancing synergies
and resolving conflicts between these policy areas
Test case
INBO
WFD
(Romania)
Table 1 continued
Approach and methods
Observation: Discussions with INBO director, screening of
background material (including confidential material), two in-depth
interviews, discussions with INBO staff responsible for specific
activities
Time input: Interactions with over 250 policy- and decision-makers at
the central, regional and local levels, as well as academics, and
stakeholder groups; three workshops with over 20 representatives
from science and policy; active participation in over 15 workshops,
meetings and deliberative events
Scale
National
National
Biodivers Conserv
123
Approach and methods
Time input: screening of documents, two semi-structured interviews,
discussions with members of SCB-Europe, participation in the
revision of the policy and communication committee’s strategic
plans
Time input: taking part in bi-weekly coordination group calls,
bilateral interactions and ad-hoc conference calls
Scale
European
International
Overview
The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) was founded almost
30 years ago in the US. Although the organisation is becoming
global, its headquarters and most of its members are in the US. The
Society for Conservation Biology is a formal, science-driven
international, professional organisation that aims at advancing the
science and practice of conserving the Earth’s biological diversity.
Efforts have been made to internationalise the SCB by establishing
regional sections in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Austral and
Neotropical America and Europe. SCB now lists ‘‘increasing the
application of science to management and policy’’ as one of its goals
and is more active at the science-policy interface by engaging in
policy issues at multiple levels of decision making
In 2007 the G8 ? 5 Environment Ministers called for a study on the
economic significance of biodiversity loss. In the first phase of The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) at the 9th
conference of the parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) an interim report was presented, subsequently a
number of governments funded TEEB’s main phase and a series of
five reports were completed for different target audiences. They
compiled the state of the art and a collection of examples from all
over the globe on how to better take nature’s economic significance
into account in decision making. These overarching issues focus on
(i) the role that individuals play in making SPIs work and (ii) the
recognition that many actors or institutions tend to operate within a
sector-based silo mentality. Since 2010 (COP 10) there has been
intense outreach including a series of workshops across the globe,
and TEEB entered its current Phase 3 of facilitation and supporting
country level implementation
Test case
SCB
(European
chapter)
TEEB
Table 1 continued
Biodivers Conserv
123
Overview
Our study focused on five EU research projects (ALARM, EuMon,
AQUAMONEY, HERMES and ALTER-Net)
Science-policy interaction was analyzed in six EU member states’
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans development
(Germany, Switzerland, Romania, Belgium, Finland and Scotland).
The NBS countries were selected according to countries with
SPIRAL partners plus a country where good connections already
existed (Switzerland). Only individuals that participated directly in
the science-policy exchange processes were interviewed. Since the
number of people involved was sometimes large, especially in NBS
development, only a small fraction could be interviewed. However,
we aimed to represent the breadth of perspectives by including
individuals from different institutional backgrounds (science,
NGOs, agencies and ministries)
Test case
FP7
NBSAP
Table 1 continued
Time input: We carried out 25 semi-structured interviews, which were
transcribed verbatim and coded in MAXQDA. Additional empirical
material was included to account for the broader discourse and
social context in which EU research projects were embedded such
as EU policy documents, research articles and other material
published by the investigated EU projects as well as newspaper
articles referring to the studied projects. In addition, to get a better
insight of science-society interfacing at the EU level, we organized
a workshop identifying together with practitioners from policymaking and science to improve the SPIs of EU research projects
(Neßhöver et al. 2013)
Time input: 33 in-depth interviews with key actors from six European
countries, with a focus on Finland and Switzerland. To implement
the general approach of drawing on the experience and perspective
of study participants, qualitative semi-structured interviews were
combined with a grounded theory approach using MAXQDA. We
started with open coding, developing categories with a low level of
abstraction and then successively conducted selective and axial
coding to increase the level of abstraction of the categories and to
develop relationships between them. Complemented with analysis
of key documents
National
Approach and methods
European
Scale
Biodivers Conserv
123
Biodivers Conserv
In addition, two workshops were organised to allow researchers, test case leaders and
stakeholders to discuss, extend and validate the key factors impairing or contributing to the
success of SPIs.
Results
Our results focus on the factors contributing to delivering or hindering the learning and
behavioural changes that could lead to policy changes and positive results for biodiversity.
This leads on to a discussion of SPIs as dynamic learning environments. The results are
summarised in Table 2 (general overview) and Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (detailed
according to theme), and are discussed below under a series of common themes.
The roles that individuals play in a SPI
Most of the test cases demonstrate that an SPI’s effectiveness can be strongly dependent on
the involvement of individuals committing their time and energy (Table 3), though barriers
at other levels may mean that commitment alone is not sufficient for success. In the SEPI
process, for example, the energy of a few individuals to move things forward was critical
and fostered substantial progress in planning, but institutional rigidity and lack of support
at senior/political levels meant the next steps to implement SEPI results were never taken.
The development of Afribes was also tightly linked to the motivation and efforts of a small
group of individuals who supported the co-design of the Afribes platform with African
scientists to develop trust and ownership.
Often, particular individuals were found to play a disproportionate role. The use of
‘champions’ or charismatic ‘ambassadors’ was a common feature, with such individuals
playing a key role in most cases. The test cases also highlighted the potential trade-offs: in
most of the SPIs where champions were important, they also exerted strong influence on
the course taken by the SPI—playing both champion and leadership roles. In TEEB, for
example, well-respected and highly-placed figures contributed to improving the visibility
and credibility of the SPI, and facilitated access to other resources, as well as exerting
influence on the process. Less positively, some cases also demonstrated dominance of a
small group or clique. The perceptions and priorities of these individuals and groups may
not necessarily be in tune with the original objectives of the SPI negotiated in a broader
group. For example, in IPBES, a few institutions, and individuals from them, strongly
shaped the first work programme, rules and procedures based on their experiences in other
intergovernmental processes such as IPCC and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Thus the work of IPBES was initially focused primarily on assessments rather than the
broader set of agreed objectives (Granjou et al. 2013; Brooks et al. 2014), and the active
involvement of other stakeholders may have been constrained by this procedural
dominance.
The risks associated with strong leadership can be reduced by an efficient coordination
and a reliable knowledge base, ensured through for example appropriate quality assessment
processes. In TEEB balance was achieved by very regular (usually weekly) discussions of
all major decisions in a co-ordination group. This involved funders and several institutions
involved in the management, generally operated by consensus, and continued to function
effectively on occasions when the ‘champion’ was not present.
123
IPBES
High
Some
Some
Some
Low
No
evidence
Balance of evidence of the following
features:
Imbalance of power between different actors
influences activity of the SPI
Problems of ‘silo thinking’ (narrow focus on
individual domain of interest/competence)
Effective widespread engagement of all
interests in the work and outputs of the SPI
Trust playing an important role in
communication within the SPI
Effective use of iterative procedures to
improve activities and outputs
Effective use of feedback from SPI
participants and audiences
Table 2 Overview of the evidence for each test case
High
Some
Strong
Low
High
No
AfriBES
No
evidence
Low
Some
Low
High
Low
SEPI
Some
Some
Some
Some
Some
Low
INBO
High
High
Strong
Strong
Low (internal),
High
(external)
No
WFD (Ro)
Some
Very low
Low
Some
Some
Strong
Strong
High
High
Strong
Some
High
Some
High
(science
focus)
Low
Some
FP7
Low
TEEB
Low
SCB
High
High
Strong
Strong
Low (internal),
High
(external)
Low
NBSAP (Fi)
High
High
Strong
Strong
Some
Some
NBSAP
(CH)
Biodivers Conserv
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 3 Evidence from the case studies on the roles played by individuals in SPIs
IPBES
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
SCB
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP (Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
Champion
played key
role
None
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Champion
shifted
course of
SPI
None
Strong
conflict
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
None
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Leadership
balanced
by
legitimising
processes
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
Individual
energy
central
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Small
group /
clique
dominates
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Mixed
evidence
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
Similarly, there were some concerns in the test cases that many important stakeholders
were not effectively engaged or were ignored, often associated with tension between actors
(see Table 4). Much of this was related to power and legitimacy, with power relations often
considered to be dominated by economic sectors and/or by powerful government departments such as finance, resulting in conflicting needs and demands. In IPBES, several
member states opposed wide stakeholder engagement and some pushed to keep a tight
control on what stakeholders could contribute to the process (Opgenoorth and Faith 2013).
Such problems led to what one interviewee described as a need ‘‘to orchestrate the chaos’’:
a desire for more integration and institutional support for improving SPIs (Table 3), fostering deliberative decision-making by acknowledging legitimately diverse views,
‘‘opening up’’ the process and avoiding over-simplification or domination by particular
perspectives (Stirling 2008, 2010).
Positioning and role of SPI
SPIs and their participants were found to engage more in an advocacy role (e.g. SCB) or
seek to remain in a more neutral ‘honest brokering’ role (e.g. IPBES) (see Table 5). This is
not always a choice–the SCB represents a ‘mission-driven’ discipline (Meine et al. 2006)
and conservation scientists are often activists (as demonstrated in interviews), so it would
be difficult for the SCB to be (or to be perceived as) a strict honest broker due to the
normative framing of the science it represents (Pe’er et al. 2013).
The role of honest broker may enhance the perception of scientific credibility, but may
limit impact and motivations for participation (Pielke 2007). Scientific credibility was
found not only to be linked to scientific quality, but also to transparency and perceptions of
motivations (see also Koetz et al. 2012). In INBO, for example, the strategic evaluation
highlighted that INBO scientists were judged by external participants to be too pro-conservation, and should change to being more scientifically ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’. Intense
discussions within INBO led to agreement on the notion of scientific objectivity as an issue
not only of scientific quality, but also of transparency about assumptions underpinning
research methods and results. In most test cases there were concerns that SPI development
could conflict with neutrality, and broad support for the principle that objectivity requires
transparency in processes and communication.
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 4 Evidence from case studies on building trust and comprehension in SPIs
Interdisciplinarity/
transdisciplinarity
enhances common
understanding/trust
Genuine
communication
builds trust
Understanding
participant
motivations key to
success
Conscious time,
effort, resources to
develop
interpersonal
relationships key to
success
Lack of
understanding of
others' views,
knowledge,
objectives hinders
trust
Long-term
interactions build
trust
Loss of trust hard to
reverse
IPBES
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
SCB
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP
(Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
None
Strong
conflict
None
Strong
support
None
Weak
conflict
None
None
Table 5 Evidence from case studies on the ‘stance’ adopted by SPIs regarding its role in the science policy
landscape
IPBES
Advocacy
role
dominant
Strong
conflict
Honest
brokerage
dominant
Weak
support
SPI
development
conflicts with
neutrality
Weak
conflict
Objectivity
requires
transparency
Strong
support
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
SCB
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP (Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
Weak
support
None
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
None
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Mixed
evidence
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Incentives, ownership and engagement
Complex environmental issues require interdisciplinary SPIs, where a broad diversity of
relevant experts are engaged, and transdisciplinary approaches integrating various scientific disciplines and other types of knowledge, building common understanding and trust
(Farrell et al. 2013). A key challenge in a number of test cases was to encourage potential
actors to engage time and efforts in these approaches. Where this could be done, both interand trans-disciplinarity were considered to increase the likelihood of behavioural changes
(e.g. the Water Framework Directive implementation in Romania, where broad engagement and consultation with local stakeholders built trust with the institutions).
A recurring theme in test cases was the need to foster ownership of the process by
policy sectors as well as science, to ensure continued engagement and real added-value for
stakeholders (Table 6). There was also strong support for the idea that clear objectives
could enhance participation and increase success. It was felt that an explicit mandate from
policy could help demonstrate and reinforce ownership from policy: a clear statement of
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 6 Evidence from case studies on factors influencing engagement and participation in SPIs
IPBES
Clear
objectives
enhance
participation
Clear
objectives
increase
success
Fostering
ownership
encourages
engagement
Weak
connectivity
and
coordination
Lack of
institutional
support for
improving
SPI
Structural
operational
gaps /
mismatches
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
SCB
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP (Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Mixed
evidence
Mixed
evidence
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
conflict
Strong
conflict
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Table 7 Evidence from case studies on power and exclusion of different groups in SPIs
IPBES
Policy dominated
by politics - no
room for science
Uni-directional
attempts for
science to 'speak
truth to power'
Important
stakeholders
disengaged/ignored
Tension between
power and
legitimacy
Mandate enhances
impact
Mandate/control
damages objectivity
SPIs used to
rubber stamp
decisions
Weak
support
AfriBES
None
SEPI
None
INBO
None
WFD (Ro)
Weak
support
SCB
TEEB
None
Weak
conflict
None
None
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
None
None
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Mixed
evidence
None
None
None
Strong
conflict
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
None
None
None
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
None
Weak
support
None
Strong
conflict
None
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
None
Strong
support
None
Weak
conflict
FP7
NBSAP
(Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
None
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
conflict
None
None
None
None
None
needs, a targeted project, and funding to achieve it. Several of the test cases provided
strong support for the impact-enhancing properties of responding to a mandate (Table 7),
with IPBES being the most prominent example.
However in extreme cases, where the final output is strictly controlled by a client, there
is a risk of unidirectional communication in which the SPI becomes a rubber stamp for predetermined priorities. This is not necessarily ‘bad’—for example, one interviewee noted
that the advantage of a consultancy contract (in contrast to a research project) would be
that ‘‘I get exactly what I want’’. While this ‘strategic use’ of the SPI and its knowledge
may be useful for strengthening policies for biodiversity conservation, if this is the only
function of an SPI there may be missed opportunities to influence other forms of communication, argumentation and knowledge use, especially with audiences other than the
original ‘client’. Furthermore, strategic use risks weakening the credibility of the SPI and
any of its outputs that depend on the appearance of scientific objectivity. However the
WFD (Romania) case showed that this was by no means an inevitable result of a clear
mandate, with strong rejection of the idea that the mandate damaged objectivity or tied the
process to politically-motivated conclusions, as regular consultations with local actors
opened up discussions and allowed for a transparent process.
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 8 Evidence from case studies on the effectiveness of communication in SPIs
IPBES
Conflicting needs not
resolved
Flexibility helps
resolve tensions
Seeking inputs on
needs/desires/
capabilities helps
effective progress
Expectations
managed in line with
capabilities
Messages seek to
appeal to broad
range of audiences
(not too
blunt/directive)
Dislike of messenger
leads to information
being rejected
Knowledge users
become active
participants
Lack of
understanding of
others' views,
knowledge,
objectives hinders
communication
Creating learning
environments
combats above
Weak
support
None
Strong
conflict
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
None
Weak
support
NBSAP
(CH)
Strong
support
NBSAP
(Fi)
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Mixed
evidence
None
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
None
None
None
Weak
conflict
Weak
conflict
None
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
None
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
None
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
SCB
T E EB
FP7
None
None
None
None /
N.A.
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
conflict
None
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
None
None
Strong
support
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Table 9 Evidence from the case studies on ‘silo thinking’ (narrow focus on individual domains of interest
or competence) in SPIs
IPBES
Silo thinking weakens
communication WITHIN
SPI
Silo thinking a problem
with the target audiences
Some groups unwilling to
share information
Narrow interpretations
result in missed
information, connections
Closed club of scientists
No effective link from
'environment' policy to
other sectors
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
Mixed
evidence
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
None
None
None
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Strong
support
None
None
Strong
support
None
None
None
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP
(Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
None
None
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
None
None
Weak
support
None
None
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
None
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
None
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
SCB
None
None
Table 10 Evidence from case studies relating to use and effectiveness of feedback in SPIs
Feedback
processes
improve trust
Feedback
processes
enhance impact
Feedback
processes
improve future
attempts at
communication
IPBES
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
SCB
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP (Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
None
Strong
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
None
Strong
conflict
None
None
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
None
Strong
support
None
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Another challenge with strong mandates is maintaining flexibility and adaptability,
especially for bottom-up initiatives. Many SPIs concern large groups of people, sometimes
entire institutions, and strong top-down mandates can limit scope for individual innovation.
For example, INBO had established a strong system negotiating policy mandate questions
at the highest level, passing these down to individual researchers and teams. While this
123
Biodivers Conserv
Table 11 Evidence from case studies on the use and effectiveness of iterative processes of communication
in SPIs
AfriBES
SEPI
INBO
WFD (Ro)
SCB
TEEB
FP7
NBSAP
(Fi)
NBSAP
(CH)
Weak
support
None
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
None
None
None
None
Strong
support
None
None
Weak
support
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
None
Strong
support
None
None
Strong
conflict
None
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
conflict
None
None
None
None
Weak
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
support
None
Weak
conflict
None
None
None
None
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Weak
conflict
None
Strong
conflict
Weak
support
Strong
support
Weak
support
None
Strong
support
Weak
support
Weak
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
Strong
support
IPBES
Iterative process of
dialogue resulting in
coproduction of
knowledge
Mere exposure' leads to
information/views being
accepted through
repetition
Replication/iteration are
effective tools
Replication/iteration
resisted by
scientists/funders (not
enough novelty)
Selective exposure with
audiences avoiding
exposure to messages
they don't like
Selective exposure
resulting in preaching to
converted (self-selected
audiences)
Continuity enhances
impact
Strong
conflict
Mixed
evidence
Weak
support
None
approach has obvious potential to increase buy-in from policy and make research more
policy relevant, it leaves less room for informal science-policy relations to influence
research from bottom-up and reduces flexibility and adaptability. Another example at a
larger scale was IPBES, which has a broad set of clients, including over 120 governments
and a number of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. To address all the needs raised
by the clients, the first work plan had to be very ambitious, including a number of different
assessments. This might hinder addressing wider functions beyond assessments (e.g.,
Hulme et al. 2011; Brooks et al. 2014), and make it difficult to meet expectations related to
quality and credibility of the platform’s work (Vohland et al. 2011).
Building trust
In communication on controversial issues, trust in the person communicating may be as
important as the process behind the evidence. The crucial importance of trust-building and
mutual understanding was universally supported by the test cases (Table 4). Key aspects
included how actors understand themselves and one another (so-called disciplinary perspectives), how they communicate, argue, collaborate, and work together through finding
common ground (Marzano et al. 2006). This is also supported by recent technological and
cultural developments in science, sometimes grouped under the banner ‘‘Science 2.0’’ (see
e.g. Assante et al. 2015), including greater focus on open access to research results (Nosek
et al. 2012), the emergence of data journals and journals of research ideas to safeguard
knowledge and extend analytical opportunities (Candela et al. 2015), and new and
extended models of peer review (Fresco-Santalla and Hernández-Pérez 2014).
Depending on prior beliefs and attitudes, trust within and of SPIs may take more or less
time to build. Generally, long-term interactions and continuity between SPI actors and its
target audience will be needed to build up trust and stable relationships between science
and policy (Table 4). But this process can display hysteresis effects: loss of trust can be
rapid and very hard to reverse. Trust is also a position of vulnerability, and people can be
wary of being exploited, especially where stakes are high. Thus the more trust a SPI
receives, the greater the communication potential, but also the greater the risks.
The evidence from the test cases on this point was mixed: in many cases there was no
evidence of lost trust, and in part this is because active steps are taken to avoid it. TEEB,
123
Biodivers Conserv
for example, operated under the premise that losing trust would be irreversible, providing a
strong motivation for careful discussions, revisions and other proactive steps to avoid such
risks. There were also examples of trust being rebuilt successfully, for example in WFD
(Romania) where the initial top-down approach reduced trust but was successfully replaced
with a consultative process that rebuilt trust.
Silo thinking in policy and science
Lack of understanding of others’ views, knowledge and objectives can lead to inappropriate framings, misinterpretations and mistrust. This is a common challenge in interdisciplinary work, where the assumptions, concepts, meanings, intentions and concerns of
different groups are often poorly understood. This was identified as a barrier to effective
communication and learning in seven test cases (Table 8).
Part of the problem was ‘silo thinking’ where people were highly focused on particular
aspects of their roles and expertise and struggled to embrace a ‘big picture’ view. A major
challenge for biodiversity SPIs is to contribute to addressing the need for integration or
mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns across all policy areas, both inside environment
departments and across other departments. In the Finnish NBSAP process the need for
mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors was acknowledged and even mandated,
but remains relatively uninfluential due to competing mandates that direct the other policy
sectors (Sarkki et al. 2015).
Silo thinking was a common problem regarding communication with target audiences,
but were even more widespread within SPIs (Table 9). Test case explorations produced
remarks that policy sectors were based upon mono-disciplinary science, that there were
closed clubs of scientists, that issues (including ‘the environment’ and in particular biodiversity) were too closely linked to one particular policy sector, and that there were no
obvious ways to reach policy-makers in other sectors, nor capacity to link across sectors.
We heard of significant structural and operational gaps and mismatches, and weak connectivity and coordination. The mainstreaming challenge was not helped by silo thinking
in individual specialist fields within biodiversity science—for example, the anecdote from
a Scottish participant regarding ongoing dispute between woodland and moorland ecologists over whether the black grouse was a woodland or moorland bird, seen to hinder a
holistic approach to its conservation across habitats. Many SPIs were compromised by low
willingness or ability to share information or knowledge freely with other individuals in the
same organisation or field. This was also associated with failures to address issues in a
holistic fashion, resulting in missing key information, feedbacks and/or connections.
There is a clear overlap between the problems of silo thinking and the issues associated
with power and engagement discussed above. In many ways these concerns are similar to
those that have been voiced elsewhere (e.g. Mickwitz et al. 2009) and question our ability
to manage complexity and multiple perspectives: any foray outside our specialist areas
obliges us to muddle through, learn by doing, and adaptively manage. Indeed, this is at the
very heart of what SPIs seek to do: they are forums in which experts are obliged to leave
their comfort zones, and call for behaviours, arguments and communication techniques that
are different from those adapted to the boardroom, policy committee or science lab.
Making such issues explicit for discussion and reflection in SPI-processes is already an
important step and a worthwhile challenge.
123
Biodivers Conserv
Discussion: SPIs as dynamic learning environments
This unique synthesis of 10 cases highlights that effective environmental SPIs—those that
are likely to produce learning and behavioural change to support conservation goals—are
those that foster a dynamic and iterative approach to communication and argumentation.
This general finding echoes studies of initiatives to improve communication for other
sectors (Nutley et al. 2010) and thus reflects the established long-standing understandings
and recommendations made by scholars of knowledge use (e.g. Nutley et al. 2007) and
science and technology studies (e.g. Whatmore 2009). The argument that SPIs should build
on an iterative and interactive model of communication and learning is thus unremarkable.
It has already been observed that science-policy interactions based on the ‘linear knowledge transfer model often fail to influence policy makers’ or public behaviour (Watson
2005; Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). When uncertainty is high and values are contested,
as is often the case for biodiversity and conservation issues, SPIs will be more influential
when they facilitate multi-way interaction processes (see Pielke 2007; van den Hove 2007).
Despite this, our results show that the design of many SPIs, or the expectations of some
of those participating in them, still conform with the linear framework of ‘knowledge’
speaking ‘truth’ to ‘power’ (Wynne et al. 2007). This model oversimplifies the blurred and
complex relationships that determine SPIs’ influence on their target audiences (van Eeten
1999; Weingart 1999; Engels 2005; Owens et al. 2006; Lövbrand 2011). Whilst it may be
of value for future work to explore why the expectations of the linear model still persist, we
focus below on some of the practical requirements to inform the future design and
improvement of SPIs for biodiversity conservation.
Using feedback and audience input to build trust and enhance communication
The test cases provided strong support for the roles of feedback in improving trust, future
communication efforts, learning and impact (Table 10). Feedback or input from intended
audiences is worth a great deal to SPIs. This is partly in terms of improving future work: in
the Finnish NBSAPs, for example, external evaluation of the first round of work led to
initiation of work on biodiversity indicators and subsequently ecosystem service indicators.
In addition, anyone taking the time to contribute has clearly ‘bought in’ to the communication process. An additional example from SPIRAL research focused on the use of
mapping software for integrating local and scientific knowledge in the context of ‘Deer
Management Groups’, which helped to promote open discussions and built trust and
engagement. More recently, the unprecedented response to the public consultation on the
fitness check of the Nature Directives—over 500,000 responses—has had an important
impact on the policy revision process.
More effective still is seeking input on needs, desires and capabilities at the start of a
process. As evidenced in seven test cases (Table 10), this can help to match outputs to
needs, identify capacity constraints and areas of tension, and ensure expectations are
managed in line with abilities. Full multi-directional communication is an ongoing and
iterative process that results in co-production of outputs. In this model the knowledge
‘users’ become active participants at all stages of the SPI process.
Engdahl and Lidskog (2014) note that current discussions on public trust, as well as on
risk communication, have a restricted rationalistic bias in which the cognitive-reflexive
aspect of trust is emphasized at the expense of its emotional aspect. They argue that rather,
‘‘trust is a modality of action that is relational, emotional, asymmetrical, and
123
Biodivers Conserv
anticipatory.’’ This means that it grows not through information and knowledge uptake, but
through emotional involvement and sense-making. Trust is built by clarity on objectives
and positions, and the emotional satisfaction of genuine communication (both listening and
being listened to). It is important therefore to adopt a genuine listening attitude early in any
process, and to nurture participation by responding to and acting on information
communicated.
Contextualising knowledge to encourage learning
To understand the full complexity of how knowledge is produced and used requires an
understanding of how contextual and group interactions influence knowledge, capabilities,
and/or world-views, subsequently influencing the decisions and behaviour of individuals
and institutions, over time. Motivated reasoning suggests that individuals seek to avoid
cognitive dissonance and are less likely to assimilate information if it is inconsistent with
their existing knowledge and values, and they may choose to interpret arguments in a way
that strengthens rather than dispels misconceptions (O’Brien 2013; Miller et al. 2006;
Storksdieck et al. 2006; NRC 2009). People will also seek selective exposure to information that is consistent with or reinforcing their beliefs and values (Kastenmüller et al.
2010). Similarly, if a source is untrusted or seen as lacking credibility, people may choose
to misinterpret information that does concur with their views, because they do not like the
messenger.
Such considerations underline the importance for SPIs to contextualise knowledge in
ways that enable audiences to understand the relevance in the context of their problems,
decisions and values (Maibach et al. 2008; Nisbet 2009, 2010). Different framings can help
to combat cognitive and behavioural biases. Confirmation bias, for example, is lower
among ‘collectivists’ than ‘individualists’ (with collectivists more likely to seek compromise and to engage in self-criticism) but for both groups, emphasising collective
attributes (family, society) over individual ones can reduce confirmation bias (Kastenmüller et al. 2010). Rejection of science is especially associated with conservative
political views and media use (Gauchat 2012; Hmielowski et al. 2013), but Lewandowsky
et al. (2013) provide further nuance, reporting that free-market worldviews are strongly
associated with rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications,
but not necessarily of other scientific issues. This suggests that success of SPI communication of science may be partly dependent on associated proposed policy solutions and
framings (see also Carmen et al., this issue). In the case studies, for example, the SCB is
focused in a conservation biology paradigm that is widely shared with many actors in
environmental science and conservation management communities. IPBES, on the other
hand, is more focused on an ecosystem services paradigm, that is more controversial in
conservation settings, but can be argued to enhance policy relevance at national/international scales.
If people tend to (mis-)interpret information in such a way that it better matches their
pre-existing views, this may provide a buffer allowing the same (objective) ‘message’ to
appeal to a broader range of audiences. Indeed, many of the test cases showed SPIs making
conscious efforts to appeal to broad audiences, through messages that were not too blunt or
directive, having ‘something for everyone’ (Table 11). But this strategy also makes it
harder to control what messages are transmitted.
123
Biodivers Conserv
Fostering dynamic learning: iteration, replication and repetition
There was support from three test cases for the ‘mere-exposure effect’ or familiarity
principle that suggests that people tend to develop a preference for certain arguments
merely because they are familiar with them (Table 11). This leads us to two specific facets
of ‘iterativity’: replication of SPI functions, and repetition of messages. These are sometimes viewed as inefficiencies to be ironed out, especially by funders and in scientific
circles where strong emphasis is placed on novelty and originality—though again, our
empirical evidence is mixed here, with only two cases reporting this view from scientists,
and two rejecting it (Table 11). But SPIs are engaged in social processes, and in particular
learning processes, and operate within and between various institutional structures with
codes, rules, histories, and traditions of thinking and acting that can result in significant
inertia regarding learning and changing. The same applies to the individuals acting within
them.
If people actively resist exposure to information that does not accord with their mental
models and world views, and seek out information that does conform, this could lead to
self-selection bias in SPI audiences, flagged as a problem in three test cases (Table 11);
repetition, replication and the use of multiple styles and forms of communication were seen
as important strategies to combat such issues in seven of the test cases (Table 11).
Hence, recognition of the necessarily dynamic nature of genuine multi-way communication institutions leads to a focus on tools for encouraging engagement and trust
building, and use of iterative methods of repetition and replication of function. These
techniques are in effect designed to create strong learning environments capable of
overcoming cognitive biases and silo mentalities. Creating dissonance as part of dialogue
in a supportive learning environment, for example, can be a valuable method of stimulating
creative thinking and problem solving, in contrast to the defensive reactions triggered by
dissonance in a non-consensual or threatening framing (Fischer et al. 2011).
Effective learning environments lead to coproduction of knowledge, diversify ownership and stake in the SPI process, and increase the chance of influencing behaviour. Seven
of the test cases stressed the importance of creating effective learning environments, and
eight noted that knowledge users became active participants in the SPI processes. Seven
reported that iteration resulted in coproduction of knowledge (Table 8). Active co-creation
of context is more challenging and takes participants outside their comfort zones, but is
ultimately more effective in fostering learning and behavioural change (Chateauraynaud
2004). A good example of iteration is provided by the long planning and implementation
process for the WFD, which highlighted important information gaps and drove research to
fill these, including a shift in emphasis from a focus on chemical standards and pollution to
a more holistic understanding of aquatic ecology and the interaction between abiotic
stressors and biotic responses (Kaika and Page 2003; Boeuf and Fritsch 2016).
Messages also become more effective when repeated through different channels. TEEB
has mainly summarized and reiterated previous research and findings, but has established
effective communication with different audiences and co-constructing the findings with
these audiences, reframing results in a series of different reports (TEEB for business, for
local and regional policy, for national and international policy). A diversity of forms of
interactions can also contribute to a more iterative approach and thus ultimately enhance
effectiveness.
123
Biodivers Conserv
Conclusions
Like interdisciplinary research itself, the development of effective interdisciplinary SPIs
requires conscious effort, time and resources for the development of interpersonal relationships and common understanding to enhance effective communication and successful
collaboration between scientists and policy-makers (Nesshöver et al. 2013).
The above results highlight key recommendations for SPIs to engender behaviour
changes beneficial to biodiversity conservation, that all call for greater attention to
dynamic and iterative aspects of communication. Building long-term credibility and trust,
and creating learning environments, are important tools for overcoming silo mentalities
and ensuring coproduction of knowledge, leading to effective science-policy communication. In order for both science and policy participants to get the most out of the process,
an SPI should involve on-going opportunities for exchange and learning, throughout the
policy and research processes. People working in SPIs need to remain conscious of these
dynamic links, learn from them, and make use of them.
At the same time, changes in institutional procedures and structures are required to
encourage and enable the changes in individual behaviours. These can include, for
example, making greater use of feedback processes and extended peer review, spending
time on developing common language, building trust, and developing capacities to
understand others’ positions, views, needs and constraints.
Whilst these over-arching issues may seem both nebulous and obvious, they are often
overlooked, and recognising them—and reflecting upon them—can be very useful, as
shown by our test cases. Of course, there is no suggestion of any ‘one size fits all’ or
‘magic bullet’ solutions to the thorny issues of effective science-policy communication,
and the specific details of which tools and processes work well and which do not will vary
depending on context, participants and other factors. But the general issues, and the need to
reflect on and resolve them in some way, will crop up time and again.
It should also be stressed that a significant part of the challenge is itself dynamic in
nature—the suggestions above are not for ‘one shot’ fixes, but rather for sustained change
in day-to-day processes, and ongoing striving for improvement. Fostering genuinely
effective environments for learning and coproduction of knowledge, and the relationships
of mutual trust and understanding that underpin them, requires continuous effort. Further
research is required to understand how these aspects interact with the contexts within
which SPIs operate to shape the long-term evolution of SPIs; elements of behavioural and
evolutionary ecology could bring interesting insights here. These are demonstrably difficult
issues to address, develop and improve, and continued work is required to further our
understanding of SPI success and ensure that science and policy work effectively together
to meet the challenges of biodiversity loss.
Acknowledgments We thank all the interviewees and participants who took part in this work. This research
was supported by SPIRAL ‘‘Science Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity Research Action and Learning’’, an
interdisciplinary research project funded under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme,
contract number: 244035.
References
Assante M, Candela L, Castelli D, Manghi P, Pagano P (2015) Science 2.0 repositories: time for a change in
scholarly communication. D-Lib Mag 21(1):4
123
Biodivers Conserv
Bierly PE, Kessler EH, Christensen EW (2000) Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J Organ
Change Manag 13(6):595–618
Boeuf B, Fritsch O (2016) Studying the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: a
meta-analysis of 89 journal articles. Ecol Soc. doi:10.5751/ES-08411-210219
Bomberg E (2007) Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: environmental NGOs and new policy
instruments. J Eur Public Policy 14(2):248–268
Brooks TM, Lamoreux JF, Soberón J (2014) IPBES = IPCC. Trends Ecol Evol 29:543–545
Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164. doi:10.
1126/science.1187512
Candela L, Castelli D, Manghi P, Tani A (2015) Data journals: a survey. J Assoc Info Sci Technol
66(9):1747–1762
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell R (2003) Knowledge
systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091
Chateauraynaud F (2004) Invention argumentative et débat public regard sociologique sur l’origine des bons
arguments. Cahiers d’économie Politique/Papers Polit Econ 2:191–213
Clark WC (2001) Social learning. In: Goudie AS, Cuff DJ (eds) Encyclopedia of global change. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp 382–384
Duchelle AE, Biedenweg K, Lucas C, Virapongse A, Radachowsky J, Wojcik DJ, Londres M, Bartels WL,
Alvira D, Kainer KA (2009) Graduate students and knowledge exchange with local stakeholders:
possibilities and preparation. Biotropica 41(5):578–585
Engels A (2005) The science-policy interface. Integr Assess. doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1119096
Engdahl E, Lidskog R (2014) Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust.
Public Underst Sci 23(6):703–717
Farrell K, van den Hove S, Luzzati T (2013) What lies beyond reductionism? Taking stock of interdisciplinary research in ecological economics. In: Farrell K, Luzzati T, van den Hove S (eds) Beyond
reductionism: a passion for interdisciplinarity. Routledge, London
Fazey I et al (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management.
Environ Conserv 40:1
Fischer P, Kastenmüller A, Greitemeyer T, Fischer J, Frey D, Crelley D (2011) Threat and selective
exposure: the moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after
decisions. J Exp Psychol Gen 140(1):51–62
Fournier N, Gantioler S, Good S, Herkenrath P, Mees C (2010). In: European commission biodiversity
knowledge base, assessment of the EU Biodiversity action plan as a tool for implementing biodiversity
policy. Service contract no 09/543261/B2
Fresco-Santalla A, Hernández-Pérez T (2014) Current and evolving models of peer review. Ser Libr
67(4):373–398
Gauchat G (2011) The cultural authority of science: public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public
Underst Sci 20:751–770
Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187. doi:10.1177/
0003122412438225
Granjou C, Mauz I, Louvel S, Tournay V (2013) Assessing nature? The genesis of the Intergovernmental
Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Sci Technol Soc 18:9–27. doi:10.1177/
0971721813484232
Groffman et al (2010) Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society.
Front Ecol Environ 8(6):284–291. doi:10.1890/090160
Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci
Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408
Haas PM (2004) When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. J Eur
Public Policy 11(4):569–592
Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers TA, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E (2013) An attack on science? Media use,
trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/
0963662513480091
Hulme M et al (2011) Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. Science 333:697–698
Kaika M, Page B (2003) The EU Water Framework Directive: part 1. European policy-making and the
changing topography of lobbying. Eur Environ 13(6):314–327
Koetz T, Farrell K, Bridgewater P (2012) Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform For Biodiversity And
Ecosystem Services. Intern Environ Agreem 12:1–21
123
Biodivers Conserv
Lentsch J, Weingart P (2011) Quality control in the advisory process: towards an institutional design for
robust science advice. In: Lentsch J, Weingart P (eds) Institutional design for quality assurance. The
politics of scientific advice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 353–374
Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in
predicting rejection of science. PLoS One 8(10):e75637
Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. Brit Med J 334(7585):129–132
Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of
useful knowledge. Sci Pub Policy 38(3):225–236
Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558–1560
Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change–
intervention assets: a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med 35(5):488–500
Marzano M, Carss DN, Bell S (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication
and interpersonal relationships. J Agric Econ 57(2):185–197
Meine C, Soule M, Noss RF (2006) ‘‘A mission-driven discipline’’: the growth of conservation biology.
Conserv Biol 20(3):631–651
Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings.
Environ Sci Policy 12:994–1011
Mickwitz P et al. (2009) Climate policy integration, coherence and governance. Peer Report No 2 Helsinki:
partnership for European environmental research, 92 pp
Miller JD, Augenbraun E, Schulhof J, Kimmel LG (2006) Adult science learning from local television
newscasts. Sci Commun 28(2):216–242
Nesshöver C, Timaeus J, Wittmer H, Krieg A, Geamana N, van den Hove S, Young J, Watt A (2013)
Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA 22:99–103
Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci
Policy Sust Dev 51(2):12–23
Nisbet MC (2010) Knowledge into action: framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In:
D’Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds) Doing news framing analysis: empirical and theoretical perspectives.
Routledge, New York
Nosek BA, Bar-Anan Y (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychol Inq
23(3):217–243
Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy
Press, Bristol
Nutley SM, Morton S, Jung T, Boaz A (2010) Evidence and policy in six European countries: diverse
approaches and common challenges. Evid Policy 6(2):131–144
O’Brien K (2013) Global environmental change III Closing the gap between knowledge and action. Prog
Human Geogr 37(4):587–596
Opgenoorth L, Faith DP (2013) The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and
ecosystem services (IPBES), up and walking. Front Biogeogr. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Osmond D et al (2010) The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding.
Front Ecol Environ 8(6):306–313
Owens S, Petts J, Bulkeley H (2006) Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the environment. Environ Plan
C Gov Policy 24(5):633–643
Pahl-Wostl C, Mostert E, Tàbara D (2008) The growing importance of social learning in water resources
management and sustainability science. Ecol Soc 13(1):24
Pe’er G, McNeely JA, Dieterich BG, Selva N, Fitzgerald JM, Neßhöver C (2013) IPBES: opportunities and
challenges for SCB and other learned societies. Conserv Biol 27:1–3
Petersen AC, Cath A, Hage M, Kunseler E, van der Sluijs JP (2011) Postnormal science in practice at the
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Sci Technol Human Values 36:362–388
Pielke RA (2007) The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. CUP, Cambridge,
UK
Radaelli CM (2009) Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe. J Eur Public Policy
16(8):1145–1164
Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer
LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1
Rose DC (2015) The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conserv Biol 29(3):748–754
Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A, Young J (2014) Balancing credibility, relevance and
legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Sci Pub Policy
41(2):194–206. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct046
123
Biodivers Conserv
Sarkki Simo, Tinch R, Niemelä J, Heink U, Waylen K, Timaeus J, Young J, Watt A, Neßhöver C, van den
Hove S (2015a) ‘‘Adding ‘iterativity’to credibility, relevance, legitimacy: a novel scheme to highlight
dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces.’’. Environ Sci Policy. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.016
Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, Jäppinen J-P, Nummelin M, Toivonen H, Von Weissenberg M (2015b) Are
national biodiversity strategies and action plans appropriate for building responsibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors? The case of Finland. J Environ Plan Manag. doi:10.1080/
09640568.2015.1076384
Simon D, Schiemer F (2015) Crossing boundaries: complex systems, transdisciplinarity and applied impact
agendas. Curr opin Environ Sustain 12:6–11
Stirling A (2008) ‘‘Opening up’’ and ‘‘closing down’’ power, participation, and pluralism in the social
appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(2):262–294
Storksdieck M, Stein JK, Dancu T (2006) Summative evaluation of public engagement in current health
science at the Current Science & Technology Center, Museum of Science. Institute for Learning
Innovation, Boston
Thompson GN, Estabrooks CA, Degner LF (2006) Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review. J Adv Nursing 53(6):691–701
Tinch R, Schoumacher C, van den Hove S (2015) Exploring barriers to integration of biodiversity concerns
across EU policy. In: Gasparatos A, Willis KJ (eds.) Biodiversity in the Green Economy. Routledge
UNEP (2008) Report of the ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (‘‘Putrajaya meeting’’) (UNEP/
IPBES/1/6). UNEP. http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/UNEP_IPBES_1_6_EN.pdf
UNEP (2009) Report of the second ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (‘‘Nairobi meeting’’)
(UNEP/IPBES/2/4/Rev.1). UNEP, Nairobi. http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/UNEP_
IPBES_2_4_Rev.1_EN.pdf
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. http://www.ipbes.net/images/stories/documents/K1061514_
IPBES-3-3-REPORT.pdf
van Eeten MJ (1999) ‘Dialogues of the deaf’on science in policy controversies. Sci Public Policy
26(3):185–192
van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–826
van den Hove S, Chabason L (2009) The debate on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on
biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): exploring gaps and needs. Iddri—Idées pour la débat
No.01/2009
Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann Rev
Environ Resour 31:445–477
Vohland K, Mlambo MC, Horta LD, Jonsson B, Paulsch A, Martinez SI (2011) How to ensure a credible and
efficient IPBES? Environ Sci Policy 14(8):1188–1194
Watson R (2005) Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface.
Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B 360(1454):471–477
Waylen KA, Young JC (2014) Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of
the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Environ Plan C 32(2):229–246
Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Sci
public policy 26(3):151–161
Whatmore SJ (2009) Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of
expertise. Prog Hum Geogr 33(5):587–598
Wynne B, Felt U, Chair and Rapporteur (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report EUR
22700, European Commission, Science Economy and Society. Brussels: DG Research
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(2):387–404
123