Search

In the context of global environmental change, radical policy change is often called for. Experts are frequently involved and can act as policy entrepreneurs to make such change happen. This paper presents an analysis of a historical case where radical policy change took place at large scale, namely the development of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In this endeavor, experts were deeply embedded in the designing of radical new policies. First, we demonstrate for the first time how experts can act as policy entrepreneurs alongside the EU Commission, and insist on the importance of not neglecting the agency of experts in EU radical policy change. Second, we elaborate on the complexity of the interactions between the policy and politics streams of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework. In his framework, Kingdon describes the policy process as three parallel streams (a problem, a policy and politics) where policy entrepreneurs are the ones ‘’making the coupling of the streams’’ (Kingdon, 1984, p188). However, we argue that there is more to understand from the actual processes that make the streams entangled and allow for policy change to become a reality. We propose the concept of transcoding from the STS literature to illustrate the action of policy entrepreneurs in bridging the policy and politics streams. With this concept, we intend to show the processes that translate scientifically endorsed approaches and understandings into policy decisions, and to open new research possibilities in complement to the Multiple Stream Framework.

Post-Normal Science (PNS) emphasises the need for scientists and policy-makers to iteratively co-analyse and learn together, as part of an extended peer community. However, the roles and implications for scientific experts when interacting with policy-makers are not well understood. Informed by insights from science and technology studies (STS) on modalities of interaction and the multiple potential roles of experts, we reflect on our experiences as scientific experts working on European agricultural policy within the interdisciplinary H2020 MAGIC project. We aimed to analyse and facilitate science-policy dialogue on a variety of European sustainability challenges. Whilst we achieved stimulating interactions on the nexus of issues associated with sustainable agriculture, our experiences did not fully match our deliberative vision. In part this was due to the varied constraints and reactions of policy-makers: many had limited remit for engagement, some expressed scientists should act as ‘fact’ providers in support of current tasks; others contested scientific analyses when these implied policy approaches were insufficient. Our own roles and reactions also varied across the scientific team and over time: from attempting to foster relationships, to emphasising our relevance to their tasks, or making stronger judgements. This dynamic mix was at times personally uncomfortable and challenging. Navigating such processes needs explicit reflection on the potentially plural roles expected of scientific and other experts working on and for sustainability. Meanwhile, the persistent expectations and institutional constraints that underlie and constrain science-policy interactions need more recognition, including by policy institutions themselves.

Some of the most influential explorations of low-carbon transformations are conducted with Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). The recent attempts by the IPCC to look for pathways compatible with the 1.5 °C and 2 °C temperature goals are a case in point. Earlier scholarship indicates that model-based pathways are persuasive in bringing specific possible future alternatives into view and guiding policymaking. However, the process through which these shared imaginations of possible futures come about is not yet well understood. By closely examining the science-policy dynamics around the IPCC SR1.5, we observe a sequence of mutually legitimising interactions between modelling and policy making through which the 1.5 °C goal gradually gained traction in global climate politics. Our findings reveal a practice of ‘political calibration’, a continuous relational readjustment between modelling and the policy community. This political calibration is indicative of how modellers navigate climate politics to maintain policy relevance. However, this navigation also brings key dilemmas for modellers, between 1) requirements of the policy process and experts’ conviction of realism; 2) perceived political sensitivities and widening the range of mitigation options; and 3) circulating crisp storylines and avoiding policy-prescriptiveness. Overall, these findings call into question the political neutrality of IAMs in its current position in the science-policy interface and suggest a future orientation in which modellers aim to develop additional relations with a broader set of publics resulting in more diverse perspectives on plausible and desirable futures.

Many barriers exist in academia. Shedding light on scholars from marginalized groups is important for scientific publishing and policy-science dialogs to ensure equity, beyond merely aiming to increase the numbers to achieve equality. Achieving diversity, inclusiveness, and equality in academia is not the goal, but an essential means of realizing a sustainable future.

The integration of ecosystem service (ES) knowledge into decision-making processes is increasingly endorsed by various policies and initiatives, with spatial planning targeted as one of the most relevant fields. Learning and feeding back from existing experiences is therefore a fundamental step to ensure appropriate and useful support by ES science. This paper aims to gather and critically analyse how ES science contributes to spatial planning practices. Through a systematic review of the literature about ES use in spatial planning, we map the level of integration of ES knowledge, the scale of case studies, and the type of planning addressed; and we identify and analyse case studies of real-world applications. Studies explicitly aimed at supporting spatial planning have increased over the last decade, but are still scarce. The real-world case studies reveal advantages of integrating ES knowledge into spatial planning processes, mainly concerning practical aspects such as synthesizing complex socio-environmental information and promoting participation. Windows of opportunity offered by regulatory frameworks and innovative processes and instruments, such as marine spatial plans and strategic environmental assessments, are key factors triggering the integration. However, supportive contextual conditions are necessary, including science-policy collaborations across the entire planning process and environmental awareness among policy-makers and stakeholders.

There is growing interest – and need – among researchers and research organizations to contribute societally relevant work as well as to demonstrate the policy impact of their research. Diverse science-policy interfaces (SPIs) aim for scientifically informed policymaking by connecting scientists with policymakers. Effective SPIs need to be grounded in credibility, relevance and legitimacy; at the same time, however, they become part of the complex, politicised web of public policymaking. In this article we examine how forest researchers who participate in diverse SPIs in the context of the Global South navigate this complexity. We apply the concepts of credibility, relevance and legitimacy to explore the tensions researchers experience, as well as the strategies that researchers apply when responding to them. The research is based on in-depth interviews with 23 forest researchers and highlights (i) the tensions related to ensuring both policy and political relevance particularly in the context of research led SPIs; and (ii) tensions arising from the need to maintain credibility in the face of contestation and pressure to omit research critical of existing policies and practice and also the legitimacy of ‘experts’ operating within the SPI. Ensuring SPI effectiveness (research impact) also emerged as an additional source of tension. While multiple response strategies were identified, including knowledge co-production and strategic engagement with key policy actors, some of the tensions led to compromises, which we discuss. We conclude by highlighting the need to understand power relations in terms of both planning but also evaluating effective SPIs. peerReviewed

Transdisciplinary collaborative processes like knowledge co-production have been promoted as valuable mechanisms to address complex environmental management issues. Their value is based on epistemic and participatory ideals involving academic and non-academic knowledge and values being elicited and deliberated upon. While idealised processes of participation have been described, the actual nature of non-academic contributions including those of environmental managers has received scant attention. We explore the role and input of environmental managers in knowledge co-production, drawing on two cases from Australia and South Africa. We use an analytical frame based on the co-production idiom which focuses on process legitimacy when involving lay participants in science-informed dialogue. Environmental managers tend to be treated as part of a homogeneous group of ‘policy-makers’ but our research reveals that this characterisation masks individuals with a diversity of motivations, skills and responsibilities who contribute empirical, pragmatic and normative knowledge to co-production. Our results also suggest that environmental managers were not always able to contribute meaningfully to the critical early step of issue definition. These new insights suggest better conceptualisation of decision-maker expertise and roles, and flexibility in design and implementation of collaborative processes, are required if knowledge co-production is to achieve a participatory ideal and substantively better environmental management decisions.

The linear model of science-policy interaction presents scientific knowledge as a necessary and straightforward requirement for rational decision-making. While the practices related to the linear model have been criticized by science policy actors and research funders, who promote more participatory arrangements, the linear model persists in both research policy and practice. This study investigates why and in which form the linear model continues to exist. I focus on the "professor group on energy policy", a voluntary and bottom-up science-policy initiative active in Finnish energy policy debates during 2013-2017. The analysis is based on interviews, reports, news articles and observations. I assess both the engagement practices of the group and how they are justified and evaluated. The study demonstrates the prevalence of the linear model as a repertoire that different actors employ to order science and policy. The results point to the need to critically assess the context, politics and expectations related to science-policy interaction.

A recent proposal to regulate mining within Indigenous Lands (ILs) threatens people and the unique ecosystems of Brazil's Legal Amazon. Here, we show that this new policy could eventually affect more than 863,000 km2 of tropical forests—20% more than under current policies—assuming all known mineral deposits will be developed and impacts of mining on forests extend 70 km from lease boundaries. Not only are these forests home to some of the world's most culturally diverse communities, they also provide at least US $5 billion each year to the global economy, producing food, mitigating carbon emissions, and regulating climate for agriculture and energy production. It is unclear whether new mines within ILs will be required to compensate for their direct and indirect environmental and social impacts but failing to do so will have considerable environmental and social consequences., Graphical Abstract, Highlights • Mining within Indigenous Lands may impact 20% more forests than the current scenario • Proposed bill could affect forests providing at least $5 billion in ecosystem services annually • Impact assessments must comply with best practices to safeguard ecosystems and people, Science for Society In February 2020, Brazilian President Bolsonaro signed a bill (PL 191/2020) that would permit mining inside Indigenous Lands, a unique category of protected area covering 23% of the Legal Amazon. In this study, we assess the potential impacts of this proposed legislation. We find that this proposal threatens 863,000 km2 of Amazon forests. These forests are home to 222 culturally unique indigenous groups and provide more than US $5 billion annually to society. The social and environmental impacts caused by new mines will unlikely be mitigated given the lack of environmental requirements and safeguards to indigenous rights in the current proposal. This policy could have long-lasting negative effects for Brazil's socio-biodiversity., The impacts of proposed legislation to allow mining within Indigenous Lands in the Brazilian Amazon could affect a large extent of forests—up to 20% more than the potentially affected area under current trends of mining expansion. These forests are home to 222 culturally unique indigenous groups, and it is estimated to provide more than US $5 billion annually in benefits for society; their loss will impact Brazil's socio-biodiversity.

Along with disastrous health and economic implications, COVID-19 has also been an epidemic of misinformation and rumours - an 'infodemic'. The desire for robust, evidence-based policymaking in this time of disruption has been at the heart of the multilateral response to the crisis, not least in terms of supporting a continuing agenda for global sustainable development. The role of boundary-spanning knowledge institutions in this context could be pivotal, not least in cities, where much of the pandemic has struck. 'Urban observatories' have emerged as an example of such institutions; harbouring great potential to produce and share knowledge supporting sustainable and equitable processes of recovery. Building on four 'live' case studies during the crisis of institutions based in Johannesburg, Karachi, Freetown and Bangalore, our research note aims to capture the role of these institutions, and what it means to span knowledge boundaries in the current crisis. We do so with an eye towards a better understanding of their knowledge mobilisation practices in contributing towards sustainable urban development. We highlight that the crisis offers a key window for urban observatories to play a progressive and effective role for sustainable and inclusive development. However, we also underline continuing challenges in these boundary knowledge dynamics: including issues of institutional trust, inequality of voices, collective memory, and the balance between normative and advisory roles for observatories.

Scientific models provide important input to the governance of complex socio-ecological risks. However, scientific knowledge rarely translates to policy in a simple, direct manner. By focusing on the use of scientific models for oil spill risk assessment and management in the Gulf of Finland (GoF), Baltic Sea, this paper aims to enhance the understanding of the capacity of scientific models to connect science, operational decision-making, and policy. In this study, we conceptualize scientific models as boundary objects, i.e. tools that facilitate interactions between different actors, types of knowledge, and perspectives across system boundaries. The study focuses on the different affordances associated with the models regarding their ability to represent, share, and convey knowledge between science and policy and to link the involved knowledge to action (i.e. changes in practice and in policy). We explore 1) how do the different oil spill models work as boundary objects in the science-policy interface, 2) how do different science-policy contexts affect the model affordances, and vice versa. We also provide recommendations for future research. The study is based on interviews of modelers/researchers, response operators, and policymakers. The results suggest that the existing models lack several of the important affordances that are required to successfully integrate different types of knowledge and transform new knowledge to action. As such, we suggest that currently models remain as instrumental, calculative, tools that support pre-determined policies rather than as means for exploring alternative framings of risks and the possible solutions. Finally, we argue that the co-production of knowledge best supports the plurality of model affordances needed to enable transformative change in policy and practice.

Unsustainable use of forest resources poses a serious threat to biodiversity worldwide. This threat is particularly important in boreal biomes, where intensive production-oriented forestry is widely applied. Legislation is one of the key tools for preserving nature from anthropogenic damage. Designation of environmental legislation should be grounded on sound scientific evidence in order to be effective. We assess the impact of guidelines enforcing the Finnish ad-hoc legislation aimed at preserving breeding sites and resting places of the Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans), a protected species in Finland and in the European Union under the Habitats Directive. Its habitat is under pressure from widespread forest clear-cutting practices. We collected data on site occupancy by breeding female flying squirrels from 81 sites spanning 12 years (2005-2016) and on relevant habitat variables around the site. Using generalized linear mixed models we quantified the predicted occupancy of breeding female flying squirrels in relation to the cover of breeding habitat around a site. We then compared the resulting habitat requirements of breeding females with the habitat that would be retained according to the initial national legislation guidelines and their proposed first revision. We show that both the initial and the proposed revision of the habitat protection guidelines allow the retention of breeding habitat patches of minimal size, which would yield a very low (less than 5%) predicted occupancy by a breeding flying squirrel female. The current revised guidelines are not science-driven and remain ineffective in safeguarding the species habitat from expanding forestry. These results expose the wide gap between science and policy for the implementation of environmental legislation, in this case the Habitats Directive, to protect species of conservation concern. There is an urgent need to fill the science-policy gap in order to achieve the preservation of biodiversity in a world under rapid transformation.

The linkages between water security and global health vary in space and time. Just like water connects every aspect of life, geography relates everything to everything else. Therefore, in order to address challenges at the interface of water security and global health, the use and application of medical geography, a sub-discipline of geography, is helpful in research, policy and practice. Using different water security pathway classifications (diminished water supply or quality, increased water demand, and extreme flood events) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and targets as a frame, this paper looks at water and health challenges from different angles and from a holistic perspective, while contextualizing them. Drawing on five practical examples, including water-related infectious disease exposure in watersheds in semi-arid Kenya, health system response in floodplains in Namibia, public health implications in a protracted emergency setting in arid Northeast Nigeria, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) monitoring in households, schools and healthcare facilities in Small Island Developing States in the South Pacific, and WASH-related challenges and disease exposures among marginalized ethnic minority populations in Europe, the applicability and usefulness of geography contextualizations in research, policy-makers and practitioners is presented. Moreover, cross-cutting topics and contextualizations, beyond water security and global health, including climate- and weather-related extreme events, inequality, health- and water-related education, risk perceptions and behaviour, and the cultural context, are highlighted to showcase the value of applying medical geography in understanding the key drivers, barriers and bottlenecks in complex situations; recommending actionable and contextualized measures to address these challenges; directing programming and interventions; and informing policy-making to tackle and solve these challenges.

This special issue contains a selection of papers presented during the 2014 Bergen meeting, complemented with short perspectives by young PNS-inspired scholars, presented at a mini-symposium “Post-normal times? New thinking about science and policy advice” held on 21 October 2016 in celebration of Silvio Funtowicz' 70th birthday, also in Bergen. In addition, the issue includes two more extended commentaries on the present crisis in science and the post-fact/post-truth discourse, one from Europe (Saltelli and Funtowicz, this issue) and one from Japan (Tsukahara, this issue). Far from being a complete representation of the discussions at both symposia, the six papers, three short perspectives on PNS and two extended commentaries on the present crisis, represent relevant reflections on the current state and possible future scope of PNS in the context of the rapidly changing role of science in governance.

This paper is intended for young researchers with an environmental conscience, alerting them that a self-centred ecology can work against conservation and other desirable goals. I propose that there is confusion in the biophysical ecologists’ community about the role of knowledge, stemming from several already surpassed beliefs that have been strongly criticized by scholars in the field of science and technology studies. In particular, environmental scientists still often seem trapped in the information deficit model, assuming a linear and unidirectional flow of knowledge from experts to users. This leads to an incomplete understanding and unrealistic expectations of ongoing processes of citizen participation (co-production of knowledge), impatience regarding the speed at which issues can be dealt with by politics, and a fuzzy notion of the role of our convictions regarding the value of nature conservation when we are consulted as experts. I analyse the consequences of disregarding tacit knowledge, i.e. the one knowledge beyond that codified in academic papers and books. I emphasize that preferences and values have a large influence on how we perceive, process, and act (or postpone to act) on information on our non-exclusive roles as scientists, decision makers or citizens. I argue that this is why political and ideological preferences have a large influence not only on which teams are appointed to solve problems, but also on which situations are perceived as problematic and given higher priorities. I include a cheat-sheet to enhance communication with decision-makers and other non-scientists that could prevent environmental zeal to be transformed into society's annoyance and our eventual irrelevance. I plea for a more realistic attitude towards ecological research, highlighting that in environmental debates we are also long-term stakeholders, and not only casual, external and aseptic observers. Fil: Fernandez Alduncin, Roberto Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has lacked an efficient mechanism to access scientific knowledge since entering into force in 1996. In 2011 it decided to convene an Ad Hoc Working Group on Scientific Advice (AGSA) and gave it a unique challenge: to design a new mechanism for science-policy communication based on the best available scientific evidence. This paper outlines the innovative ‘modular mechanism’ which the AGSA proposed to the UNCCD in September 2013, and how it was designed. Framed by the boundary organization model, and an understanding of the emergence of a new multi-scalar and polycentric style of governing, the modular mechanism consists of three modules: a Science-Policy Interface (SPI); an international self-governing and self-organizing Independent Non-Governmental Group of Scientists; and Regional Science and Technology Hubs in each UNCCD region. Now that the UNCCD has established the SPI, it is up to the worldwide scientific community to take the lead in establishing the other two modules. Science-policy communication in other UN environmental conventions could benefit from three generic principles corresponding to the innovations in the three modules—joint management of science-policy interfaces by policy makers and scientists; the production of synthetic assessments of scientific knowledge by autonomous and accountable groups of scientists; and multi-scalar and multi-directional synthesis and reporting of knowledge.

Stelzenmüller, Vanessa ... et al.-- 9 pages, 5 figures, 2 tables, supplementary data https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.289, Marine ecosystems are increasingly threatened by the cumulative effects of multiple human pressures. Cumulative effect assessments (CEAs) are needed to inform environmental policy and guide ecosystem-based management. Yet, CEAs are inherently complex and seldom linked to real-world management processes. Therefore we propose entrenching CEAs in a risk management process, comprising the steps of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. We provide guidance to operationalize a risk-based approach to CEAs by describing for each step guiding principles and desired outcomes, scientific challenges and practical solutions. We reviewed the treatment of uncertainty in CEAs and the contribution of different tools and data sources to the implementation of a risk based approach to CEAs. We show that a risk-based approach to CEAs decreases complexity, allows for the transparent treatment of uncertainty and streamlines the uptake of scientific outcomes into the science-policy interface. Hence, its adoption can help bridging the gap between science and decision-making in ecosystem-based management, This article is based upon work from COST Action 15121 ‘Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas (MarCons) - supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, CA15121)

Sustainability assessment (SA) is a complex appraisal method. It is conducted for supporting decision-making and policy in a broad environmental, economic and social context, and transcends a purely technical/scientific evaluation. This paper focusses on the systematisation of knowledge on technical/scientific sustainability evaluation, by addressing critical decision-making elements focussed on by domain experts. We make a distinction between integrated assessment and SA. Our systemic approach outlines how to move from integrated assessment to SA. The fundamental differences involved concern three levels: ontological, methodological and epistemological. We present a novel methodological framework for SA, based on a literature meta-review of multi-scale and multi-purpose appraisal methodologies, models and indicators. SA is essentially a structured procedure encompassing different field-specific analytical methods and models, for specific applications and decision contexts. External inputs to the methodology are “values” considered in the analysis and boundaries defined, including the relevant sustainability framework. Internal methodological elements comprise approach to be adopted (e.g. “what-if” vs. “what-to”), scenario design and analytical models and measurable indicators for an operational analysis. Methods to quantify uncertainty are key ingredients of the assessment framework. The paper highlights the relevance of and policy challenges for SA development, with due attention for applicability in real-world decision contexts.

Knowledge management (e.g., production, mobilization, integration) is key to achieve socio-ecological sustainability and to handle the many challenges that distress coastal zones – e.g. finding a balance between ecological conservation and economic development. Building on the concept of science-policy interface, we propose a new term here which is more (semantically) inclusive, the knowledge-practice interface. This article aims to articulate the most relevant elements of a general framework of the knowledge-practice interface for enhancing the management of knowledge in coastal zone management. To do this, three case studies in the Wadden Sea area are analysed focussing on knowledge and practice. First, the habitat restoration of the houting species in Denmark; second, the monitoring and management aspects related to the concentrations of suspended matter in the Ems estuary (Germany and the Netherlands); and finally, the development of environmental management systems for ports in the Dutch Wadden Sea. The analysis of these three cases is conducted and the framework is built around four central questions: why, what, who, and how. The article concludes that scientific knowledge on its own is insufficient to achieve sustainability in coastal zones; participatory knowledge and practices are increasingly required to facilitate the integration of different types of knowledge (e.g. formal and informal), and the inclusion of different stakeholders to enhance integrated coastal zone management.

Climate science is characterized by large uncertainties about the direction, extent and time frame of climate change. Communicating these uncertainties is important for decision making on robust adaptation strategies, but proves to be a challenge for scientists particularly because of the complexity of uncertainties that are part of natural variability and of human induced climate change. The aim of this paper is to assess the role of a simulation game, as intermediate, to the communication of climate change uncertainties to water managers. In three workshops with water managers, the simulation game ‘Sustainable Delta’ was played to test the influence of the game on their understanding of climate change uncertainty using ex ante and ex post surveys. In each workshop an experimental- and control group were given different assignments to measure the influence of the game. The results show that although the differences between groups were not statistically significant, a change in their understanding of uncertainties was observed. The paper concludes that the learning effect of the game is inconclusive, but that the game does fosters a broader understanding of the concept climate change uncertainty. In doing so, simulation games are a promising approach to support the communication of climate change uncertainties meaningfully and support the process of adaptation to an uncertain future.

© 2017 The Authors. Scientific knowledge is considered to be an important factor (alongside others) in environmental policy-making. However, the opportunity for environmentalists to influence policy can often occur within short, discrete time windows. Therefore, a piece of research may have a negligible or transformative policy influence depending on when it is presented. These ‘policy windows’ are sometimes predictable, such as those dealing with conventions or legislation with a defined renewal period, but are often hard to anticipate. We describe four ways that environmentalists can respond to policy windows and increase the likelihood of knowledge uptake: 1) foresee (and create) emergent windows, 2) respond quickly to opening windows, 3) frame research in line with appropriate windows, and 4) persevere in closed windows. These categories are closely linked; efforts to enhance the incorporation of scientific knowledge into policy need to harness mechanisms within each. We illustrate the main points with reference to nature conservation, but the principles apply widely. European Union Seventh Framework Programme EU Biodiversity Observation Network (No. 308454); Fondation Wiener Anspach, Belgium; Scriven fellowship; Natural Environment Research Council Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]; Natural Environment Research Council Industrial CASE studentship [NE/M010287/1]; Austrian Science Fund (FWF); Arcadia.

A key reason for undertaking transdisciplinary processes such as knowledge co-production in natural resource management is to access and apply different knowledge systems to complex issues. However, the value of co-production is predominantly framed by academics. They have focused on research design and outcomes in the form of ‘science informing policy’. In this paper we build a more inclusive and holistic framing of knowledge co-production incorporating values of non-academic participants, and values related to the participatory process. Specifically, we examine how knowledge is communicated and deliberated upon and the requirements for this to be done effectively. We draw upon empirical data from interviews with natural resource managers who participated in two case studies of knowledge co-production in Australia and South Africa. Their perspectives are captured in eight evaluation principles that build upon existing evaluation frameworks for public participation. Critically, decision-makers valued science-based outputs not just as salient knowledge sources, but to give legitimacy to their decisions. This need for legitimacy necessitates transparency, fairness and inclusivity in knowledge selection, participation and dialogue within knowledge co-production processes. The practice-based knowledge of decision-makers was important for contextualizing and applying science to specific decision contexts. Another key finding is that communicative competence is central to the process of knowledge co-production because it enables participants to critically explore and understand the knowledge claims of others.

This paper provides the synthesis of the special issue on the “role of wetlands in river basin management” and reviews lessons learnt from a comparative assessment of the presented case studies in Europe, Africa and Latin-America. Although wetlands are important for local communities and biodiversity, the services and products they deliver for local livelihoods and river basins are insufficiently known, and inadequately valued and understood by authorities. Wetlands are too often perceived as standalone elements and poorly integrated into river basin management plans. In this volume, an analytical framework is developed to formulate and compare wetland management options, also in data-poor contexts and to bridge the gap between science and policy. The framework is a set of tools and processes to structure the information flows needed to identify and score management options in terms of their impact, feasibility, vulnerability to future changes and trade-offs. In practice, it was found that the framework provided a useful set of tools to promote understanding and underpin negotiations. The major barrier for a better integration of wetlands in river basin management was found to be the lack of understanding of what the important issues were and the institutional capacity to organise cooperation and consequent implementation of the agreed plans. This paper presents the following conclusions. Firstly, rapid assessment tools and simplified scoring methods were used and proved useful in explaining issues across sectors and scales, and were important in creating mutual understanding, even though they did not necessarily present new insights for local or disciplinary experts. Secondly, in order to improve the knowledge base, an integrated database is developed, especially with regard to water quantity simulation at the river basin scale and wetland scale, potential habitat availability and the quantification of adaptive and institutional capacity, including the impact of future changes. Data has been compiled from various, scattered sources, including global data sets, sectoral wetland and/or river basin-specific quantitative and qualitative data sets. Thirdly, in case of limited data availability, rather than improving the accuracy of available quantitative data, it is proposed to better use alternative qualitative sources of data, from local experts, authority representatives and wetland users.