148
to ensure more dynamic, iterative and collaborative interactions between policymakers and other actors.
Keywords Natural capital · Ecosystem services · SPI · Science–policy dialogue ·
Transdisciplinary · Environmental policy · Biodiversity policy · Stakeholder
participation · CRELE · IPBES · Knowledge holder · Policy impact · Trust
building
8.1 Introduction
A strong interface between science and policy is essential for the effective conservation and management of biodiversity. Science–policy interfaces (SPIs) can generally be defined as social processes encompassing the relations between scientists
and actors in the policy process (van den Hove 2007) and can take the form of
organizations, initiatives, or projects operating at the boundary between science and
policy. SPIs aim to enrich decision-making, improve understanding of problems,
and eventually produce well-informed policy and/or behavioural changes as outcomes (Sarkki et al. 2015). The perceived importance of SPIs for biodiversityrelated decision-making has been demonstrated by the formulation of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES). The purpose of IPBES is to establish a continuous dialogue between
decision- makers, scientists and a wide range of knowledge holders for a more robust
SPI on biodiversity and ecosystem services, based in large part on a series of comprehensive assessments on pressing conservation issues (Larigauderie and
Mooney 2010a).
There is general consensus on the need for good biodiversity science to inform
policy decisions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA] 2005; Sutherland et al.
2004), and a number of approaches to synthesize scientific knowledge have been
established (Pullin and Stewart 2006; Pullin et al. 2009; Sutherland et al. 2014). A
number of institutions and processes aim to bring this knowledge to policy processes but, in practice, often fail to produce meaningful policy outcomes (Koetz
et al. 2008; Can et al. 2009). Furthermore, they often fail to include the full range of
existing knowledge and knowledge holders. Consequently, networking and communication components among different stakeholders are not adequately reflected
in many existing SPIs related to biodiversity and other scientific fields (Nesshöver
et al. 2016).
A number of studies have demonstrated that effective SPIs do not consist of
simple knowledge transfer. The linear model of academics providing scientific
advice to governments for policymaking has been rejected from both the perspectives of science studies and policy analysis (van Eeten 1999). Instead, reciprocal
I. Matsumoto et al.
to ensure more dynamic, iterative and collaborative interactions between policymakers and other actors.
Keywords Natural capital · Ecosystem services · SPI · Science–policy dialogue ·
Transdisciplinary · Environmental policy · Biodiversity policy · Stakeholder
participation · CRELE · IPBES · Knowledge holder · Policy impact · Trust
building
8.1 Introduction
A strong interface between science and policy is essential for the effective conservation and management of biodiversity. Science–policy interfaces (SPIs) can generally be defined as social processes encompassing the relations between scientists
and actors in the policy process (van den Hove 2007) and can take the form of
organizations, initiatives, or projects operating at the boundary between science and
policy. SPIs aim to enrich decision-making, improve understanding of problems,
and eventually produce well-informed policy and/or behavioural changes as outcomes (Sarkki et al. 2015). The perceived importance of SPIs for biodiversityrelated decision-making has been demonstrated by the formulation of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES). The purpose of IPBES is to establish a continuous dialogue between
decision- makers, scientists and a wide range of knowledge holders for a more robust
SPI on biodiversity and ecosystem services, based in large part on a series of comprehensive assessments on pressing conservation issues (Larigauderie and
Mooney 2010a).
There is general consensus on the need for good biodiversity science to inform
policy decisions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA] 2005; Sutherland et al.
2004), and a number of approaches to synthesize scientific knowledge have been
established (Pullin and Stewart 2006; Pullin et al. 2009; Sutherland et al. 2014). A
number of institutions and processes aim to bring this knowledge to policy processes but, in practice, often fail to produce meaningful policy outcomes (Koetz
et al. 2008; Can et al. 2009). Furthermore, they often fail to include the full range of
existing knowledge and knowledge holders. Consequently, networking and communication components among different stakeholders are not adequately reflected
in many existing SPIs related to biodiversity and other scientific fields (Nesshöver
et al. 2016).
A number of studies have demonstrated that effective SPIs do not consist of
simple knowledge transfer. The linear model of academics providing scientific
advice to governments for policymaking has been rejected from both the perspectives of science studies and policy analysis (van Eeten 1999). Instead, reciprocal
I. Matsumoto et al.