Search

Global biodiversity is facing unprecedented pressures, calling into question the effectiveness of existing governance systems aimed at halting extinctions. Renewed hope arose with the recent Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15 December 2022) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (COP19 November 2022). Yet, barriers remain that hamper biodiversity conservation. Identifying and overcoming these barriers is crucial for success. We considered previous lessons learned to show that current barriers to conservation are centered on a multidimensional array of mismatches among legal (law), ecological (science), and sociocultural (human) dimensions across the short, medium, and long term. Focusing on highly migratory marine megafauna (whales, sharks, and turtles), we used the Rubik's cube as a metaphor to conceptualize the multidimensional mismatches and devised a pathway for solutions that is highly dependent on strict alignment across all dimensions. We recommend the continuous cycling across all dimension interfaces to align the use (and update) of regulations and processes in law, improve data and experimentation methods in science, and develop education and engagement actions in the human dimension. This timely alignment across all dimensions is key to achieving biodiversity targets and avoiding further extinctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in protected areas (PAs) is often dominated by scientists from outside the conservation agencies managing them. This can potentially lead to misalignment with local needs, insensitivity to the local context and a lack of investment in and use of local expertise. These issues often arise when international researchers work in another country without local engagement (known as ‘parachute science’). Despite PAs being key end users of actionable science, there is limited understanding of the prevalence and impact of parachute science in these areas. Here, we investigate parachute versus collaborative research in two national parks in the Global South (Kruger National Park, South Africa; Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina) and one park from a developed economy (Kakadu National Park, Australia). To explore the prevalence, risks, benefits and complexities of research practices, we analyse the patterns of authorship, funding and acknowledgement in a random sample of peer‐reviewed papers from research conducted in these parks. Our findings show a higher incidence of potential parachute science in Kruger National Park (18% of papers with only out‐of‐country authors) compared to Nahuel Huapi (4%) and Kakadu (2%) national parks. However, the occurrence of internationally collaborative research (national and international authors) was double in Global South parks (35%–38%) than in the Australian park (18%). The study illustrates the potential benefits of international collaboration for PAs, including increased research productivity, expanded funding sources and possibly higher impact and visibility of published studies. PAs in developed countries may have fewer opportunities to obtain those benefits. Most papers, even those with in‐country authors, lacked authors affiliated with the agency managing the PA and often failed to even acknowledge these agencies. This suggests the potential for a different form of parachute science (which we term ‘park parachuting’) in which lack of local involvement may hamper integration of research with management. Synthesis and applications: Establishing conditions that foster collaboration between national and international researchers, and between PA agency staff and external researchers (regardless of their nationality), would enable parks to better serve as catalysts for research collaboration. This collaborative approach can facilitate access to additional funding, enhance research capacity, increase research productivity and amplify research impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a heuristic tool aiming at bringing the multiple dimensions of interdisciplinarity (ID) and transdisciplinarity (TD) into direct conversation for researchers, funders, and policymakers. These societal actors have divergent conceptions, definitions, and practices of ID and TD that can be fruitfully put into dialogue to prosecute successful projects and programs. We anchor our study on the concept of "knowledge regime" and its three components (ideologies and myths, shared beliefs and practices, and imaginaries and values) to develop a comprehensive view of the heterogeneous understandings of ID and TD that goes beyond the cognitive dimension. Founded on a qualitative methodology, we designed a heuristic tool to disentangle this heterogeneity and bridge the different understandings in a comparable way. Through a semi-structured dialogue, users of the tool discuss ten questions that guide reflections on understandings of ID and TD used in projects, funding programs, and policy processes and their implications to reveal differences and increase mutual understanding. The findings offer details on the tool and systematize insights from those users who tested it in different contexts. We conclude by discussing the contribution this heuristic tool makes when considering ID and TD as knowledge regimes in the scientific and policy domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there has been much discussion about what kind of expertise the IPCC needs to develop to (better) guide climate policy, little has been said about how the experts themselves assess the challenges of making science policy-relevant. The paper aims to address this gap by exploring how leading IPCC experts reflect on and evaluate their work. The empirical material consists of an interview study with experts currently or recently involved in the IPCC. The selection strategy aimed to achieve a broad range of experience among those with key roles in the assessment work, including experts from all three working groups, from different regions, and of different genders. Data from the interviews was analyzed thematically using NVivo. The concept of boundary work was used to analyze the distinctions and boundaries in this work; how the IPCC experts draw boundaries between science and policy, between policy-relevance and policyprescriptiveness, and between certain and uncertain knowledge. By analyzing the experts' own experiences and ideas about what makes science relevant to policy-making, the paper contributes to the discussion about current and future challenges for the IPCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using qualitative data, we investigate the impact of the problem‐framing process on stakeholder mobilization for fish habitat restoration and its influence on transforming agricultural practices in floodplains. Problem‐framing involves defining and delineating a problem to suggest practical and measurable solutions for addressing it. We are examining how the conservation conflict changes over time in Lac Saint‐Pierre (LSP), part of the St. Lawrence River Basin in Québec, Canada. Such conflicts arise when there are differing perspectives, interests, or actions regarding conservation goals and objectives. In recent decades, the LSP floodplain has undergone significant changes, particularly the conversion of perennial crops to intensive annual crops, which are deemed incompatible with the ecological needs of yellow perch. This species has experienced a notable decline in LSP since the 1990s, prompting Québec authorities to impose a moratorium on yellow perch fishing in 2012 to safeguard stocks. This moratorium has catalyzed efforts at the policy level to restore its habitat. However, it has also engendered tensions between agricultural activities and conservation endeavors aimed at restoring yellow perch habitat, constituting the conservation conflict under investigation. To investigate this issue, we adopt a post‐normal science approach characterized by reflexivity, inclusivity, and transparency in addressing epistemological and ontological uncertainties among LSP stakeholders. Our findings offer insights into stakeholders' perspectives on the problem‐framing process and its outcomes, highlighting both supportive actions enhancing the effectiveness of certain strategies among LSP stakeholders and barriers hindering their mobilization. These results underscore the importance of incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives during the problem‐framing process to enhance the robustness of the science–policy interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By generating and explaining facts, science holds an important role in environmental policy decision‐making. However, scientific knowledge is often framed as objective and neutral in policy debates, which can be challenged by stakeholders who have a different view of the issue. To counter this situation, we propose a novel scientific approach to analyze problems that are highly contested and seem difficult to resolve, that is, wicked problems. Our study combined post‐normal science and environmental justice perspectives to shed light on a wicked problem—the largely unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate yellow perch stocks in Lac Saint‐Pierre (LSP), Quebec, Canada. The combination of these two perspectives allows us to investigate the causes of the decrease of yellow perch stocks and the social and institutional barriers to rehabilitation—which can only be overcome if the injustice perceived by different stakeholders is overcome. Our study presents an approach that addresses uncertainties, integrates various knowledge forms, reassesses decision‐making procedures, and highlights inequalities within a specified territory. The research also underlines the importance of the qualitative dimension in the development of knowledge and the need to address equity in the development of environmental policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many of the proposed solutions to the global biodiversity crisis rely on national governments to act. The conservation movement needs to motivate governments or face an ongoing extinction crisis. Here we explore how linking biodiversity to electoral systems may assist in motivating government action. Using Australia as a case study, we analyze the intersection of 151 electoral districts and 1651 threatened species. We show all districts contain at least 14 threatened species. Half of the species analyzed (n = 801, 49%) are confined to one district (n = 44), with 1345 (81%) species intersecting with less than five. This geographical information shows that alongside local social and economic issues, the threatened species crisis can be made relevant to all Australian elected representatives. Locally relevant information can encourage integration of species needs into the scope of political representation. As such, linking biodiversity to political geography offers a potential pathway to creating transformative change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People's trust in science is generally high. Yet in public policy disputes invoking scientific issues, people's trust in science is typically polarized, aligned with their political preferences. Theorists of science and democracy have reasoned that a polarization of trust in scientific information could be mitigated by clearly disentangling scientific claims from political ones. We tested this proposition experimentally in three German public policy disputes: a) school closures versus openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, b) a ban on versus a continuation of domestic air traffic in view of climate change, and c) the shooting of wolves in residential areas or their protection. In each case study, we exposed participants to one of four versions of a news item citing a scientist reporting their research and giving policy advice. The scientist's quotes differed with regard to the direction and style of their policy advice. As an epistocrat, the scientist blurs the distinction between scientific and political claims, purporting to "prove" a policy and thereby precluding a societal debate over values and policy priorities. As an honest broker, the scientist distinguishes between scientific and political claims, presenting a policy option while acknowledging the limitations of their disciplinary scientific perspective of a broader societal problem. We find that public policy advice in the style of an honest broker versus that of an epistocrat can attenuate political polarization of trust in scientists and scientific findings by enhancing trust primarily among the most politically challenged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion and Sunrise Movement are among the new climate movements that have come into the public spotlight since 2019. While their successes in agenda-setting are undisputed, conclusions vary on whether and how this re-politicizes climate discourses. This article presents a new framework to analyze the dynamics of (de-)politicization along the dimensions of vision, agency and process. Based on a narrative analysis, we compare US movement and media documents from 2019 and identify five key narratives, namely, 'Evidence First,' 'Intergenerational Divide,' 'Climate Justice & Intersectionality,' 'System Change' and 'Political Fight.' While all movements use politicizing notions, we find that tensions between the dimensions inhibit the articulation of alternative visions of the future. This overall depoliticizing tendency appears to be rooted in process understandings that originate in dominant discursive framings of climate change and of science–policy interfaces – a finding that is informative for climate discourses in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Swiss Political Science Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Quantification of states, corporations, nature or self has become pervasive in the past 40 years. The water world’s struggles are rife with, and shaped by, numbers, indicators, metrics and models. This review explores how the production, promotion and use of 'water numbers' conceals deeply political processes, hypotheses, worldviews, intents, old habits and new fashions. Whether embodied in scientific or expert practices, or in indicators, thresholds, water accounts or cost–benefit analyses, water numbers promote specific values and interests; they also obfuscate complexity, heterogeneities and uncertainties, they manufacture legitimacy and authority, and they act as control devices to shape behaviour We offer a more detailed analysis of water indicators that describe water scarcity, ecological status, progress towards SDG 6, and embody New Public Management principles. We end with a call for critical water studies to more forcefully engage with these debates, in line with the centrality of quantification in water management and policy.

Rapid global change threatens to outstrip global efforts to establish sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems (SES). Place-based research can enhance effectiveness of global sustainability policies and actions by providing contextualized knowledge underpinning bottom-up solutions. However, the use and transfer of place-based knowledge remains a major challenge. In this study, we analyze place-based knowledge transfer in a local-to-global and knowledge-to-action context. We aim to provide insights on when, how, and why place-based research can inform decision making at the global scale and lead to action toward more sustainable and just futures. Our iterative and exploratory methodology involved alternating rounds of literature reviews and interviews with interdisciplinary researchers. We identified four key steps (place-based knowledge production, knowledge synthesis, knowledge use at the global scale, and knowledge revision and lessons learned) and five facilitative factors (bridging organizations, knowledge brokers, boundary organizations, institutionalized knowledge governance, and polycentric governance systems), which provide a comprehensive understanding of place-based knowledge transfer. Our conceptual framework provides suggestions on how to set up place-based knowledge transfer to be more effective, complete, and inclusive. Furthermore, our study discusses two major structural challenges that currently inhibit place-based knowledge transfer and shows ways forward for science and policy to overcome these. We argue that placebased knowledge transfer can be an effective means to undo dominant power relations and the epistemic status quo and enable a shift from short-termism in science and policy toward more long-term SES goals. Therefore, it is seminal to open up the predominant value system to more diverse knowledge systems, signifying a shift away from global decision making that is guided by neoliberal capitalist principles and over-emphasizes short-term and individual gains. Finally, it is crucial to prioritize learning over knowing to exploit the long-term value of place-based knowledge transfer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How we have come to think about climate futures has predominantly been shaped by science- and expert-driven assessments. As research turns to the role of future visions as a driver of social change and overcoming political gridlock, political struggles are understood as conflicts over making (alternative) desirable futures socially performative. The recent advent of the new climate movements (NCMs) has given rise to the assumption that they could contribute to a re-politicization of climate politics by introducing alternative future visions. Their names and slogans articulate future expectations, such as futures "worth studying for" (Fridays for Future) or averting extinction (Extinction Rebellion). Yet, research on the politicizing qualities of the NCMs is inconclusive. I use a new framework for examining (de-)politicization dynamics to study public communication of German factions of both movements from 2019 to 2022. The results underscore climate movements' strong affiliation to science from their inception, yet over time, increasing attempts to adhere to principles of climate justice. However, climate movements still struggle to re-politicize climate futures beyond dominant positive visions of modernization and negative visions of collapse. I argue that this bounded politicization is indicative of the broader discursive dynamics that have weakened the ability to formulate alternative visions and discuss to what extent the centrality of scientific imaginative logics and understandings of the science-policy interface act to inhibit the articulation of alternative visions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been growing interest in the Conference of Parties (COPs) meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in food systems, which account for a third of global emissions and are heavily impacted by climate change. While there has been much rhetoric about the need for transformation at recent COPs, we examine whether this solely remains at the level of rhetoric and ambition or is likely to deliver the climate action that is needed. Based on literature, documentation of UNFCCC meetings, and our own participation, we observe that progress in the past on agriculture has been extremely slow and has led to limited action, while the recent verbiage on food systems has not been matched by significant progress in the negotiations. The urgent action needed is not realised through the UNFCCC processes. New and radically different ways to catalyse action are needed, and the UNFCCC process urgently needs reform as part of wider multilateral reforms. We propose that the scale of the COPs is reduced and that the focus shifts to the results delivered through rigorous evaluation, accountability and transparency, and a shift towards less consensus-based approaches to drive action and ambition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes a boundary work analysis of the case of acid mine drainage (AMD) in South Africa to the existing boundary work literature. We conduct our analysis by applying a synthesized multi-level boundary work framework to examine whether the knowledge that was produced during the boundary work conducted was usable and influential in decision-making and resulted in successful policy implementation. We conclude that contrary to expectations, a closed, technocratic boundary work process resulted in the relatively successful implementation of a short-term intervention in the AMD problem, whereas a subsequent open and deliberative process did not result in the successful implementation of the long-term policy solution. We ascribe this finding to the influence of critical enabling and constraining factors characterizing the South African socio-political context within which the AMD issue is situated, and therefore, we recommend adding a meta-analytical layer to boundary work analyses, especially in developing country contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantification of states, corporations, nature or self has become pervasive in the past 40 years. The water world’s struggles are rife with, and shaped by, numbers, indicators, metrics and models. This review explores how the production, promotion and use of 'water numbers' conceals deeply political processes, hypotheses, worldviews, intents, old habits and new fashions. Whether embodied in scientific or expert practices, or in indicators, thresholds, water accounts or cost–benefit analyses, water numbers promote specific values and interests; they also obfuscate complexity, heterogeneities and uncertainties, they manufacture legitimacy and authority, and they act as control devices to shape behaviour. We offer a more detailed analysis of water indicators that describe water scarcity, ecological status, progress towards SDG 6, and embody New Public Management principles. We end with a call for critical water studies to more forcefully engage with these debates, in line with the centrality of quantification in water management and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linking science with action affords a prime opportunity to leverage greater societal impact from research and increase the use of evidence in decision-making. Success in these areas depends critically upon processes of producing and mobilizing knowledge, as well as supporting and making decisions. For decades, scholars have idealized and described these social processes in different ways, resulting in numerous assumptions that now variously guide engagements at the interface of science and society. We systematically catalog these assumptions based on prior research on the science-policy interface, and further distill them into a set of 26 claims. We then elicit expert perspectives (n = 16) about these claims to assess the extent to which they are accurate or merit further examination. Out of this process, we construct a research agenda to motivate future scientific research on actionable knowledge, prioritizing areas that experts identified as critical gaps in understanding of the science-society interface. The resulting agenda focuses on how to define success, support intermediaries, build trust, and evaluate the importance of consensus and its alternatives – all in the diverse contexts of science-society-decision-making interactions. We further raise questions about the centrality of knowledge in these interactions, discussing how a governance lens might be generative of efforts to support more equitable processes and outcomes. We offer these suggestions with hopes of furthering the science of actionable knowledge as a transdisciplinary area of inquiry.

While there has been much discussion about what kind of expertise the IPCC needs to develop to (better) guide climate policy, little has been said about how the experts themselves assess the challenges of making science policy-relevant. The paper aims to address this gap by exploring how leading IPCC experts reflect on and evaluate their work. The empirical material consists of an interview study with experts currently or recently involved in the IPCC. The selection strategy aimed to achieve a broad range of experience among those with key roles in the assessment work, including experts from all three working groups, from different regions, and of different genders. Data from the interviews was analyzed thematically using NVivo. The concept of boundary work was used to analyze the distinctions and boundaries in this work; how the IPCC experts draw boundaries between science and policy, between policy-relevance and policy-prescriptiveness, and between certain and uncertain knowledge. By analyzing the experts’ own experiences and ideas about what makes science relevant to policy-making, the paper contributes to the discussion about current and future challenges for the IPCC.

Integrative research approaches have lost prominence in the scientific literature, and related concepts of ‘wicked problems’ and ‘post-normal science’ complement but do not adequately replace them. From a detailed examination of the foundational literature, three key principles are shown to be central to integrative research: (i) the knowledge cycle; (ii) representativeness and participation; and (iii) knowledge exchange mechanisms at the science–policy interface. As an example of the importance of the integrative research framework in the context of policy-relevant science, it is argued that the shortcomings of current climate change mitigation efforts arise from inappropriately ‘closing down’ the science–policy interface and focusing on a few narrow options acceptable to powerful stakeholders. This can lead to what is described as an ‘ascientific’ ratchet effect, where the knowledge cycle just loops endlessly between technology and capital, and science as a public good is excluded. An integrative research approach can ‘open up’ discourse to new ideas and actors and restore the iterative links between science–policy mechanisms. A theoretical framework is proposed in which the three concepts ‘wicked problems’, ‘post-normal science’ and ‘integrative research’ are nested together. Integrative research is a way to address wicked problems, sitting within the critical framing of post-normal science.

Abstract The interface between science and policy is a complex space, in theory and practice, that sees the interaction of various actors and perspectives coming together to enable policy-relevant evidence to support decision-making. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are increasingly interested in working at the science-policy interface to support evidence-informed policy, with the number of opportunities to do so increasing at national and international levels. However, there are still many challenges limiting ECRs participation, not least how such a complex space can be accessed and navigated. While recommendations for engaging at the science-policy interface already exist, a practical ‘map’ of the science-policy interface landscape which would allow for ECR participation in evidence co-production and synthesis in science-policy is missing. With the purpose of facilitating the engagement of ECRs producing biodiversity and ecosystem services policy-relevant evidence at the interface between science and policy, the authors have co-created a ‘mind-map’—a tool to review the landscape of and leverage access to the science-policy interface. This tool was developed through reviewing published literature, collating personal experiences of the ECR authors, and validating against wider peer perspectives in an ECR workshop during the 7th Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This co-created tool sees ECR engagement in (co-)producing evidence at the science-policy interface as an interaction of three main factors: the environment of the ECR, which mediates their acts of engagement at the science-policy interface leading to outcomes that will ultimately have a reciprocal impact on the ECR’s environment.

ABSTRACTGovernments and intergovernmental organizations support scientific research to produce the knowledge and tools needed to monitor and mitigate global environmental changes (GEC). However, GEC-related policy decisions are often not based on scientific evidence, and GEC research is often not based on policy-relevant questions, resulting in a science-policy gap. Assessing the GEC policy priorities of researchers and policymakers is an essential step towards closing this gap. This task was undertaken by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), an intergovernmental organization pursuing science and capacity building to reach the vision of a sustainable Americas. The assessment included survey consultations, listening sessions, and an analysis of policy documents for 17 countries of the Americas. Three key findings emerged from this assessment. First, the top current priority for policymakers was Climate action, and Biodiversity and ecosystem services for researchers, with a poor alignment between the priorities of these social actors at the country level. Second, clusters of non-neighboring countries had a profile of GEC priorities more similar than clusters of neighboring countries, although there were some sub-regional clusters around particular GEC goals. Third, researchers and policymakers agreed that the lack of cross-sectoral collaboration and communication between technical and non-technical actors are important barriers. A key opportunity for policymakers was the growing funding and international cooperation for GEC, while for researchers, the growing body of evidence to inform GEC decision-making. These findings have implications for the design of research and capacity-building actions targeted to the priorities and needs of the region.

AbstractGlobal environmental assessments (GEAs) support international environmental governance by synthesizing state-of-the-art scientific knowledge. Increasingly, they also articulate solutions to environmental risks. The interlinked “triple planetary crisis” (biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution) requires action that considers potential tradeoffs and seeks to harness synergies between the responses. Subsequently, there are concerted efforts to collaborate across different global assessments and to synthesize messages on synergistic action. But how could these global syntheses and messages be leveraged for national action? We explored the question through two multi-stakeholder workshops organized in Finland in 2020 and 2021, complemented through a literature review. Adopting systemic perspectives, syntheses that integrate various environmental dimensions are well-placed to inform sustainability transformations through shaping national debates and public discourses on the interconnected environmental crises, helping to legitimize contentious, difficult decisions. As processes, they support transdisciplinary learning and capacity-building, understanding different worldviews and challenging assumptions and value systems, while communicating the urgency of action. Yet, while scientists are increasingly bridging disciplinary and thematic silos, corresponding governance structures remain highly sectoral, and a capacity deficit in systems thinking by policymakers prevails. Interlocutors of global knowledge synthesis, including national scientific experts, can be crucial in interpreting messages and catalyzing action that accounts for cross-sectoral synergies and tradeoffs. By empowering local experts and actors not only in utilizing global knowledge syntheses but in participating in the knowledge co-production processes, both the impact and the accuracy of new global assessments can be improved.

The interface between science and policy is a complex space, in theory and practice, that sees the interaction of various actors and perspectives coming together to enable policy-relevant evidence to support decision-making. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are increasingly interested in working at the science-policy interface to support evidence-informed policy, with the number of opportunities to do so increasing at national and international levels. However, there are still many challenges limiting ECRs participation, not least how such a complex space can be accessed and navigated. While recommendations for engaging at the science-policy interface already exist, a practical 'map' of the science-policy interface landscape which would allow for ECR participation in evidence co-production and synthesis in science-policy is missing. With the purpose of facilitating the engagement of ECRs producing biodiversity and ecosystem services policy-relevant evidence at the interface between science and policy, the authors have co-created a 'mind-map'—a tool to review the landscape of and leverage access to the science-policy interface. This tool was developed through reviewing published literature, collating personal experiences of the ECR authors, and validating against wider peer perspectives in an ECR workshop during the 7th Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This co-created tool sees ECR engagement in (co-)producing evidence at the science-policy interface as an interaction of three main factors: the environment of the ECR, which mediates their acts of engagement at the science-policy interface leading to outcomes that will ultimately have a reciprocal impact on the ECR's environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of "thick legitimacy" (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit productivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scientists who occupy this space are integral in today's public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a powerful source of legitimatizing in decision-making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repression to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disciplines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. allyship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science-policy interfaces are influential institutions that support policymakers in addressing complex environmental challenges. However, the power that SPIs wield in this capacity has been largely overlooked by the existing literature, which has primarily focused on the effectiveness of SPIs, often portraying them as apolitical and policy-neutral institutions.Drawing on an integrative literature review, this article proposes a shift from effectiveness towards justifying the power of SPIs through assessing their legitimacy. We develop a framework for enhancing the democratic and epistemic quality of SPIs that comprises 12 criteria across the three dimensions of input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Input legitimacy criteria include inclusivity, consideration of multiple knowledge systems, and transdisciplinarity. Throughput legitimacy criteria address process accessibility, transparency, reflexivity, conflict management, and accountability. Output legitimacy criteria cover efficacy, accessibility, understandability, and dissemination.The article provides a pathway for SPIs to foster both knowledge-based and participatory decision-making, by providing scholars and practitioners an evaluative tool to bridge the potential tensions between expertise and democratic representation in environmental governance.

The European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (EU BDS) represents a pivotal step forward in the commitment to protect and restore biodiversity, not only within Europe but also at a global scale. In order to reinforce its implementation, an innovative biodiversity knowledge governance has been established. It includes, among other measures, a progress monitoring system that fosters transparency and can inform corrective action to be taken when progress is being reviewed. In this context, we introduce the official, publicly available, online tools at the core of the EU BDS progress monitoring system: the actions tracker and the dashboard. The actions tracker is specifically designed to track progress on the implementation of the more than a hundred actions stemming from the EU BDS, while the dashboard monitors progress across 16 targets using indicators. However, while the actions tracker is a mature tool, the work on the dashboard is still in progress, as indicators are missing for several targets. New scientific input is needed to propel policy tracking and ensure transparent and data-driven monitoring of the EU BDS targets. With this paper, we invite the scientific community to seize this opportunity to actively participate in the policy monitoring process.

In recent years, the chemical production and waste generation have been rapidly increasing, presenting substantial hazards to the ecosystem and human well-being. To address this issue, a series of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have been developed internationally, that provide essential decision-making support for the appropriate governance of chemicals and wastes in the participating countries. MEAs have established subsidiary bodies known as science-policy interface (SPI) institutions to provide evidence-based support and scientific assessments for environmental policies. However, the existing SPIs face limitations that hinder their ability to tackle the obstacles presented by the vast quantities of chemicals and wastes currently found in the environment. Therefore, the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly made the decision to establish a science-policy panel to promote the effective management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution (SPP-CWP). This panel is intended to be an independent intergovernmental body, similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The United Nations Environment Programme convened an ad hoc open-ended working group (OEWG) to design strategies for the SPP-CWP. Since 2022, three OEWG meetings have been conducted, and draft documents outlining the panel's scope, functions, operational principles, conflict of interest policy, institutional setup, work processes, and procedures have been formulated. In this article, we analyzed the background and development of the SPP-CWP and provided updates regarding the progress of the panel's establishment. We also suggested future trends for the SPP-CWP. We concluded that SPP-CWP will be a comprehensive and authoritative international body, providing policymakers with exhaustive reports, consequently strengthening the capacity of life cycle management of chemicals. Thus, the panel will effectively reduce or prevent waste production and pollution, promote material circulation, and minimize resource consumption, making significant contributions to the establishment of a circular economy and an environmentally friendly society.

One Health recognizes the health of humans, agriculture, wildlife, and the environment are interrelated. The concept has been embraced by international health and environmental authorities such as WHO, WOAH, FAO, and UNEP, but One Health approaches have been more practiced by researchers than national or international authorities. To identify priorities for operationalizing One Health beyond research contexts, we conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with professionals across One Health sectors (public health, environment, agriculture, wildlife) and institutional contexts, who focus on national-scale and international applications. We identify important challenges, solutions, and priorities for delivering the One Health agenda through government action. Participants said One Health has made progress with motivating stakeholders to attempt One Health approaches, but achieving implementation needs more guidance (action plans for how to leverage or change current government infrastructure to accommodate cross-sector policy and strategic mission planning) and facilitation (behavioral change, dedicated personnel, new training model).

Rapid global change threatens to outstrip global efforts to establish sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems (SES). Place-based research can enhance effectiveness of global sustainability policies and actions by providing contextualized knowledge underpinning bottom-up solutions. However, the use and transfer of place-based knowledge remains a major challenge. In this study, we analyze place-based knowledge transfer in a local-to-global and knowledge-to-action context. We aim to provide insights on when, how, and why place-based research can inform decision making at the global scale and lead to action toward more sustainable and just futures. Our iterative and exploratory methodology involved alternating rounds of literature reviews and interviews with interdisciplinary researchers. We identified four key steps (place-based knowledge production, knowledge synthesis, knowledge use at the global scale, and knowledge revision and lessons learned) and five facilitative factors (bridging organizations, knowledge brokers, boundary organizations, institutionalized knowledge governance, and polycentric governance systems), which provide a comprehensive understanding of place-based knowledge transfer. Our conceptual framework provides suggestions on how to set up place-based knowledge transfer to be more effective, complete, and inclusive. Furthermore, our study discusses two major structural challenges that currently inhibit place-based knowledge transfer and shows ways forward for science and policy to overcome these. We argue that place-based knowledge transfer can be an effective means to undo dominant power relations and the epistemic status quo and enable a shift from short-termism in science and policy toward more long-term SES goals. Therefore, it is seminal to open up the predominant value system to more diverse knowledge systems, signifying a shift away from global decision making that is guided by neoliberal capitalist principles and over-emphasizes short-term and individual gains. Finally, it is crucial to prioritize learning over knowing to exploit the long-term value of place-based knowledge transfer.

We here report of a conference about "Pesticides in Soil, Groundwater and Food in Latin America as part of One Health" that took place at the "IV Seminario Internacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (SISA)" in Varadero, Cuba, 8–12 May 2023. Researchers of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico) and Switzerland (workshop initiator) held presentations about occurrence and effects of pesticides on the environment, human health, the replacement of highly hazardous pesticides (HHP) by agroecological alternatives and the agri-food value chain. In a subsequent round table discussion, the presenters identified deficits, needs, interests and opportunities. According to them, the lack of awareness of pesticide use affects the health and safety of workers applying the chemicals. Despite Latin America representing the main agricultural area in the world with a very intense pesticide use, monitoring data of pesticides in soil, surface and groundwaters, food, as well as in humans are missing. Risks of pesticides to humans should be assessed so that authorities can withdraw or limit within "short time" the access to corresponding formulations on the market. Also, communication is not state of the art and should be improved as, e.g. the teaching of workers and farmers, how to correctly use and apply pesticides or the briefing of decision makers. Pollinators suffer from multiple stressors not the least due to pesticides, and alternatives are badly needed. On the technical side, the different analytical methods to determine residues of active ingredients and transformation products in matrices of concern should be harmonized among laboratories. Seven future actions and goals were identified to overcome the above deficits. Next steps after the publishing of this conference report are to harmonize and complete the information status of the presenters by exchanging the results/data already present. Therefore, a platform of interaction to address issues described above and to enhance collaboration shall be created. Samples of different matrices shall be exchanged to harmonize the chemical analysis and establish interlaboratory comparisons. Such activities might be facilitated by joining international associations or organizations, where researchers can offer their expertise, or by forming a new pesticide network for Central and South America that could present tailored projects to national and international organizations and funding agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The application of ecosystem service (ES) knowledge to planning processes and decision-making can lead to more effective climate change adaptation. Despite the increased attention given to the ES concept, its degree of integration and use in spatial planning processes are still below the expectations of those who are promoting this concept. Barriers hindering its operationalisation cover a span of aspects ranging from theoretical to procedural and methodological issues. Overall, there is a general lack of guidance on how and at what point ES knowledge should be integrated into planning processes. This study aims to promote the inclusion of ES knowledge into spatial planning practices and decision-making processes to enhance climate change adaptation. A replicable GIS-based methodology is proposed. First, the potential supply of ESs that can support climate change adaptation (ESCCAs) is defined, mapped, and quantified. Then, a need for an ESCCA supply is identified, and territorial capacities to respond to the expected climate change impacts on natural and socio-economic sectors are assessed. The methodology is applied to the Friuli Venezia Giulia Autonomous Region (Italy) as an illustrative case study. The results reveal that areas with similar geomorphological characteristics tend to respond similarly. Forest ecosystems, inland wetlands and specifically salt marshes can potentially supply a greater variety of ESCCAs. In the case study area, about 62% of the supplied ESCCAs can contribute to reducing the impacts in more than 50% of the impacted sectors. The territory of the study site generally shows good preparedness for expected impacts in most of the analysed sectors; less prepared areas are characterised by agricultural ecosystems. This reading approach based on land cover analyses can thus assist in developing policies to enhance different territorial capacities, ultimately leading to better and more sustainable decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current soil‐ and land degradation seriously challenge our societies; it contributes to climate change, loss of biodiversity and loss of agricultural productions. Yet, soils are also seen as a major part of the solution, if maintained or restored to provide ecosystem services. Climate‐smart sustainable management of soils can provide options for soil health maintenance and restoration. In the European Union, the resource management and sustainability challenge are addressed in the Green Deal that, among other goals, aspires towards a healthy climate‐resilient agricultural sector that will produce sufficient products without damaging ecosystems and contribute to better biodiversity and mitigate climate change. The European Joint Programme (EJP) SOIL was set up to contribute to these goals by developing knowledge, tools and an integrated research community to foster climate‐smart sustainable agricultural soil management that provides a diversity of ecosystem service, such as adapting to and mitigating climate change, allowing sustainable food production, and sustaining soil biodiversity. This paper provides an overview of the potential of climate‐smart sustainable soil management research to the targets of the Green Deal that are related to soils most directly. The EJP SOIL EU‐wide consultation (interviews and questionnaires) and literature analysis (national and international reports and papers) done in the first year (2020–2021) generated a wealth of data. This data showed that there are specific manners to do research that are essential for it to be effective and efficient and that can actively contribute to the Green Deal targets. We concluded that research needs to be: (i) interdisciplinary, (ii) long‐term, (iii) multi‐scaled, from plot to landscape, (iv) evaluating trade‐offs of selected management options for ecosystem services and (v) co‐constructed with key stakeholders. Research on climate‐smart sustainable soil management should be developed (1) on plot scale when mobilizing soil processes and on landscape scale when addressing sediment and water connectivity and biodiversity management; and (2) address the enabling conditions through good governance, social acceptance and viable economic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Politicization of science is often described as the process of political actors overemphasizing scientific uncertainty to cast doubt on a scientific consensus. We argue that in addition to exploiting the inherent uncertainty of science, actors resort to so-called technical and national arguments to politicize science. Applying the pragmatic sociology of Boltanski and Thévenot and the method of discourse network analysis to Finnish news media debate on forest policy (2015–2020), we analyze the different modes of valuation used by the so-called forestry coalition to defend increased logging and politicize the broad scientific consensus on its harmful environmental impacts. Technical arguments appeal to the common principles of technical efficiency, productivity and expertise, while national arguments invoke shared, cultural ideas of Finnish forestry. We conclude that pragmatic sociology carries considerable potential to improve our understanding of the broader cultural factors that lay the foundation for successful politicization of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biological invasions represent one of the major threats to the world's biodiversity. National and international efforts are taken to address the complexity and dynamic of invasions in legislation. However, based on the Polish experience of implementing the European Union's regulation on invasive alien species (IAS), we suggest that an unclear and disorganized process of law implementation results in the regulations being counterproductive. We describe how a well‐planned policy can become a burden impeding effective research and, consequently, scientific feedback to improve the policy. The results of our study suggest that there is a large scale of scientists' noncompliance with new legal requirements. For many researchers, the implementation of the new IAS regulation was changing the rules in the middle of the game. Researchers strictly following the new regulations must wait for the relevant permits and may risk the successful completion of their projects. Conversely, researchers who prioritize project completion may be forced to continue their research violating the law. We argue that this example of implementing the new IAS regulation illustrates the need to include some intermediate solutions providing more flexibility and time for researchers to adjust to policy change, thus minimizing the negative impacts of the new legislature on scientific progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A widely considered climate change mitigation strategy in agriculture is enhancing soil carbon (C) sequestration—the process of capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and storing it in the soil. By adopting natural climate solutions (NCS) such as cover crops, reduced tillage, and diverse crop rotations, farmers can increase soil C sequestration and co-benefits such as improved biodiversity. Canada is increasingly interested in better positioning farmers to adopt NCS via government cost-share programs, ecosystem marketplaces, and outreach and education initiatives. Given the policy and market-driven interest in soil C sequestration in agriculture, there is a need to advance the science–policy interface, ensuring foundational science, NCS implementation, and approaches to promote NCS are aligned. Herein, the objective is to present insights from multiple disciplines that can help build connections between soil C sequestration science and policy relevant to Canada's croplands. The method is a review of literature on soil and pedoclimate science, agricultural NCS adoption, agricultural NCS governance, and science–policy interfaces to achieve this objective. From this review, key insights underline that Canadian cropland soils do not have a homogenous history in NCS adoption and production type, nor are all regions influenced by the same contextual factors, have the same potential in C storage, or exist within the same agri-environmental conditions. Therefore, it is emphasized herein that policies that aim to enhance soil organic C in croplands should consider local context and C sequestration potential. Policies and programs implemented locally to enhance C sequestration across Canada should be complemented by nationally scalable measuring and monitoring to ensure outcomes are accounted for against climate goals. This review aims to contribute to building a common understanding of soil C sequestration in Canada's croplands and its science–policy interface. Efforts to further strengthen the science–policy interface for soil C sequestration in Canada's croplands might include greater integration and utilization of science and data from multiple disciplines, co-design and collaborative opportunities, and establishing on-the-ground test projects to explore innovation in policy and market design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the global environmental science-policy interface has come to include a greater variety of knowledge. Social scientists have joined natural scientists at the policy table, and Indigenous and local knowledge is being taken ever more seriously. But this pluralisation raises political, normative, and epistemic challenges for environmental expert organisations, including with respect to how knowledge is managed, how it is judged to be valid, how it is made policy-relevant, and how it is presented to policy-makers and decision-takers. Based on an interview study of experts involved in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), we identify three broad approaches to these challenges: the integrationist logic, which seeks to combine all knowledge into a single ontology; the parallelist, which looks for similarities and connections between irreconcilable ontologies; and the pragmatist, which strives to apply knowledge when and where it will have the greatest positive impact. Rather than champion any one of these approaches, the paper explores their origins and how they negotiate paralyses to the timeliness of work. In avoiding ultimate formalisation of how value and knowledge pluralism are to be handled, IPBES allow more contextually sensitive practices to come to the fore. The paper concludes by discussing implications for environmental expertise more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China has long sought to address climate change in line with other development goals. However, research supporting this alignment often employs data-driven models that downplay the policies and institutions needed to achieve the multiple benefits that studies feature in their analyses. This oversight is troubling because it neglects gaps between goals and the actual integration of climate and development or co-control of air pollution and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Additionally, this oversight may overlook growing implementation challenges as China pursues synergies between net-zero emissions, biodiversity, and circularity. This article illustrates these challenges by tracing the goals and policies/institutions in China over three phases: (1) integration (1979–2010), (2) co-control (2011–2019), and (3) synergies (2020–present). This article argues that China needs to strengthen the science–policy interface and ensure that new market-based policy instruments (such as emissions trading programs) as well as the leadership responsibility system incentivize reductions in overall GHG emissions while shrinking ecological footprints in the shifts to synergies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communication at the science-policy interface can be bewildering not only for early-career researchers, but also for many within the research community. In the context of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, decision-makers operating within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) aspire to use the best available science as a basis for their decision-making. Therefore, to maximize the impact of Antarctic Treaty Parties' substantial investment in southern polar research, researchers wishing to contribute to policy and management must understand 1) how their work relates to and can potentially inform Antarctic and/or global policy and 2) the available mechanisms by which their research can be communicated to decision-makers. Recognizing these needs, we describe the main legal instruments relevant to Antarctic governance (primarily the ATS) and the associated meetings and stakeholders that contribute to policy development for the region. We highlight effective mechanisms by which Antarctic researchers may communicate their science into the policy realm, including through National Delegations or the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), and we detail the key contemporary topics of interest to decision-makers, including those issues where further research is needed. Finally, we describe challenges at the Antarctic science-policy interface that may potentially slow or halt policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hard-bodied ticks have become a major concern in temperate regions because they transmit a variety of pathogens of medical significance. Ticks and pathogens interact with hosts in a complex social-ecological system (SES) that influences human exposure to tick-borne diseases (TBD). We argue that addressing the urgent public health threat posed by TBD requires an understanding of the integrated processes in the forest ecosystem that influence tick density and infection prevalence, transmission among ticks, animal hosts, and ultimately disease prevalence in humans. We argue that collaborative modeling of the human-tick SES is required to understand the system dynamics as well as move science toward policy action. Recent studies in human health have shown the importance of stakeholder participation in understanding the factors that contribute to human exposure to zoonotic diseases. We discuss how collaborative modeling can be applied to understand the impacts of forest management practices on ticks and TBD. We discuss the potential of collaborative modeling for encouraging participation of diverse stakeholders in discussing the implications of managing forest ticks in the absence of large-scale control policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How we have come to think about climate futures has predominantly been shaped by science- and expert-driven assessments. As research turns to the role of future visions as a driver of social change and overcoming political gridlock, political struggles are understood as conflicts over making (alternative) desirable futures socially performative. The recent advent of the new climate movements (NCMs) has given rise to the assumption that they could contribute to a re-politicization of climate politics by introducing alternative future visions. Their names and slogans articulate future expectations, such as futures “worth studying for” (Fridays for Future) or averting extinction (Extinction Rebellion). Yet, research on the politicizing qualities of the NCMs is inconclusive. I use a new framework for examining (de-)politicization dynamics to study public communication of German factions of both movements from 2019 to 2022. The results underscore climate movements’ strong affiliation to science from their inception, yet over time, increasing attempts to adhere to principles of climate justice. However, climate movements still struggle to re-politicize climate futures beyond dominant positive visions of modernization and negative visions of collapse. I argue that this bounded politicization is indicative of the broader discursive dynamics that have weakened the ability to formulate alternative visions and discuss to what extent the centrality of scientific imaginative logics and understandings of the science–policy interface act to inhibit the articulation of alternative visions.

The regional environmental cooperation in the Baltic Sea is the leading and “forerunner” model for managing environmental challenges at the regional level. The Baltic case is very often emphasized from the perspective of the successful implementation of non-binding recommendations toward marine environment management and the political will of contracting countries toward regional environmental cooperation. Despite four decades efforts, the Baltic region is a peculiar and unique case where long-term human-induced pressures and its fragile ecosystem cause even more challenges for regional states. In this study, we investigated the Baltic case from the perspective of the science-policy interface and used data from HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) Stakeholders Conferences organized from 2006 to 2022. The science-policy is regarded as the key processes in environmental protection and management. We conducted the qualitative research based on the document review tracing down interactions and activities of major stakeholders. We found that the Baltic case has led a long-term traditional science-policy processes where there has been a strong presence of scientific community aiming at providing the best available scientific knowledge for marine environment protection and management, and developing the database for decision-making. The Baltic regional cooperation has recently progressed towards involving citizen science, deliberation, and participatory approaches. The stakeholders agreed that to implement the ambitious BSAP into practice and concrete actions, the further development of civil councils, public participation, and multi-sectoral involvement is crucial for robust knowledge production in regional environmental management. From the institutional perspective, the working groups within the HELCOM can facilitate the mediation of scientific communities and societal actors. These groups can serve as boundary organizations in the science-policy interface.

Science generates solutions for the benefit of the society: creating new knowledge, improving education, and increasing the quality of lives. It is therefore important that African scientists focuses on generating inputs for policy and institutional innovations as well as technology-based innovations to catalyse, support, and accelerate systems and systemic transformations. Also, Government decisions and legislations should ideally be guided by latest scientific knowledge. However, science culture; how a society understands and uses scientific knowledge is still at its infancy in most part of Africa. A country’s science culture determines the scope of impact that the scientific enterprise can have in terms of improving lives and advancing development. A study in this edition titled “approaches to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of knowledge translation platforms in low- and middle-income Countries” reported that generally, translating knowledge from research to practice takes a very long time. To this end, science communities ought to commit to enhanced collaboration among different disciplines of sciences in particular social sciences, natural sciences, and health-related sciences. Also, public understanding and engagement with science, and citizen participation is essential for research evidence uptake. Scientists must endeavour to make their research relevant and comprehensible to society (citizens and policymakers).