The network BiodiversityKnowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments

Abstract

In order to develop BiodiversityKnowledge, a Network of Knowledge working at the European science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we conducted three trial assessments. Their purpose was to test structure and processes of the knowledge synthesis function and to produce knowledge syntheses. The trial assessments covered conservation and management of kelp ecosystems, biological control of agricultural pests, and conservation and multifunctional management of floodplains. Following the BiodiversityKnowledge processes, we set up expert consultations, systematic reviews, and collaborative adaptive management procedures in collaboration with requesters, policy and decision-makers, stakeholders, and knowledge holders. Outputs included expert consultations, systematic review protocols, a group model and a policy brief. Important lessons learned were firstly that the scoping process, in which requesters and experts iteratively -016-1128-4 negotiate the scope, scale and synthesis methodology, is of paramount importance to maximize the scientific credibility and policy relevance of the output. Secondly, selection of a broad array of experts with diverse and complementary skills (including multidisciplinary background and a broad geographical coverage) and participation of all relevant stakeholders is crucial to ensure an adequate breath of expertise, better methodological choices, and maximal uptake of outcomes: Thirdly, as the most important challenge was expert and stakeholder engagement, a high visibility and reputation of BiodiversityKnowledge, supported by an incentive system for participation, will be crucial to ensure such engagement. We conclude that BiodiversityKnowledge has potential for a good performance in delivering assessments, but it requires adequate funding, trust-building among knowledge holders and stakeholders, and a proactive and robust interface with the policy and decision making community.

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

“…For this first step, we built on results from three test cases (on three areas of knowledge: kelp ecosystems, agricultural pest control, and multifunctional floodplain management, see Schindler et al 2016) as well as on the internal self-evaluation concluded within KNEU at that time (see Carmen et al 2015). In a second step, we organised a one and a half day expert workshop in January 2014, with participants from KNEU and several SPI experts from different European countries who were not involved in the KNEU project and who had experience on SPIs in the environmental sector.…”

“…The knowledge synthesis function was extensively studied within the project, whereby a prototype procedure was set up (Livoreil et al 2016) and tested in three trial assessments (Schindler et al 2016). The design that was chosen envisaged a structured approach, flexible in the choice of appropriate methods with a strong emphasis placed upon specifying the question and choosing appropriate methodologies jointly with the requester and relevant stakeholders to transcend the linear model of scientific policy advice.…”

“…At the same time, however, it was recognised that networks are not always transparent and do not always provide clear lines of responsibilities (Burris et al 2005;Parker 2007). Knowledge holder organizations need to be committed to working at the interface, a task not necessarily in their mandate and often difficult to achieve (Schindler et al 2016). Thus, a more structured organizational set up, discussed in the following section as 'a platform approach', can perhaps provide more visibility and establish clear roles, which can make such commitments easier to achieve.…”

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

“…This special issue is based on the project's work and brings together a number of papers that investigate functions, processes and solutions for such a Network of Knowledge. The prototype of the NoK called ''BiodiversityKnowledge'' was installed during the KNEU project and carried out a number of trial assessments in different areas of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Schindler et al 2016a). The papers thus offer a concise overview of the challenges and opportunities that such flexible approaches of networking knowledge holders and requesters provide beyond the well-established approaches at the interface between science, policy and society.…”

“…1). Schindler et al (2016a) present an overview of the results and practical lessons learned of these trial assessments. A further evaluation of the trial assessments and how a Network of Knowledge would support them is presented in Carmen et al (2015).…”