Search

Contains fulltext : 225443.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), This paper is the initial Position Statement of Evidence Synthesis International, a new partnership of organizations that produce, support and use evidence synthesis around the world. The paper (i) argues for the importance of synthesis as a research exercise to clarify what is known from research evidence to inform policy, practice and personal decision making; (ii) discusses core issues for research synthesis such as the role of research evidence in decision making, the role of perspectives, participation and democracy in research and synthesis as a core component of evidence ecosystems; (iii) argues for 9 core principles for ESI on the nature and role of research synthesis; and (iv) lists the 5 main goals of ESI as a coordinating partnership for promoting and enabling the production and use of research synthesis.

The first international Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) conference took place in August 2016 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm with nearly 100 participants from 14 countries. This conference reflected and contributed to the

Globally important U.K. fens are in poor condition, principally due to abandonment, following cessation of traditional mowing and grazing in recent decades. In the absence of management, rich fen flora are displaced as a result of succession. This leads to an increase in competitive species and subsequent biomass accumulation. In order to reverse this trajectory and increase species richness, management consisting of a single mowing event was employed. Mowing was conducted in two degraded fen communities in north-west Wales (U.K.) across three sites: (i) a species rich, tussock alkaline mire, dominated by Schoenus nigricans and Juncus subnodulosus (SN community) and (ii) a species poor basin mire Cladio-Molinietum dominated by Cladium mariscus (CM community). The early vegetation responses were monitored over two years. Results show a large treatment effect on species richness in the CM community, where mean species richness increased by 51% in the second year following mowing. Consequently, total species number across all sites increased to 74 in the treatment compared to 44 in the control. Mowing reduced vegetation height and litter cover and increased bare ground. These treatment effects combined with a reduction in graminoid and shrub cover collectively contributed to the initial stages of rehabilitation. Conversely, the SN community showed no increase in species richness, in spite of a reduction in litter cover and increased bare ground. Strong site heterogeneity and a sustained canopy height caused by rapid re-growth of the dominant graminoid S. nigricans may have impeded treatment effects. Therefore, increased mowing frequency in alternate years, switching between autumn and summer would be necessary to develop species richness in the SN community. Ongoing intervention in each fen community is needed to achieve an optimal trajectory of increased rich fen and reduction of secondary succession species.

To respond to the need for a strengthened biodiversity science-policy-society interface at the European level, this paper presents the relevant actors and steps of a knowledge synthesis process relying on a Network of Knowledge. This process aims to maximize active involvement and contribution (including holders of traditional and local knowledge), transparency, credibility, relevance and legitimacy (among other values defined during several workshops held). The presented process allows for the implementation of several synthesis methodologies, depending on the availability of resources, quantity and quality of knowledge and decided according to the expectations of the requesters and users. We put this approach in parallel with other knowledge-based recommendations and negotiation processes such as CBD and IPBES and highlight the need to encompass the diversity of approaches, values, and challenges at the European scale, while the process simultaneously has to be highly flexible, yet simple and robust. Although the presented process still holds several challenges, it offers a step forward in the development and reflections on science-policy–society interfaces, based on consultations with a significant number of the actors from the European policy–science community.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

Past and present distribution maps are presented for the endangered butter-  fly, Lycaena dispar ([Haworth], 1802), in Europe. Recent changes in distribution show  that the species is under greatest threat in the north of its range, particularly univoltine  populations. Declines have not occurred everywhere but the species is vulnerable to  rapid decline if its wetland habitats are developed for agricultural use. Priority actions  are suggested for its conservation. Zusammenfassung. Das ehemalige und aktuelle Vorkommen der bedrohten Tagfalterart  Lycaena dispar ([Haworth], 1802) in Europa wird auf Verbreitungskarten dokumentiert.  Rezente Veränderungen des Vorkommens zeigen, daß die Art am stärksten im Norden  ihres Areals bedroht ist, besonders im Falle univoltiner Populationen. Die Art ist nicht  überall im Rückgang begriffen, aber sie ist immer dort aktuell im Bestand bedroht