149
(rather than unidirectional) relationships are preferable (Weingart 1999). Scientific
knowledge is commonly viewed as information that is useful for problem-solving,
but this is only one of a series of different possible uses of science (Roqueplo 1995).
Science is a source of legitimacy in the policy process, not only for developing new
policies, but also for delaying or avoiding action and for justifying unpopular
decisions (Boehmer-Christiansen 1995). In many cases, scientific knowledge is
unused or under-used in the policy process (Hisschemöller et al. 2001). Even if
particular scientific evidence is used for policymaking, it may remain unclear why
it was used while other knowledge is ignored. Scientific rationalization has become
an important factor in policymaking, but the decision to connect a policy decision to
scientific evidence (and the way in which this is done) depends on political, not
academic, factors. Organizing successful SPIs requires some understanding of how
the policy process works and how scientific expertise is typically treated in the
policy process (Engels 2005).
SPIs have been studied at various geographical scales. Borie and Hulme (2015)
looked at the global level with the debate among IPBES experts terminology to
include in the IPBES conceptual framework. The key solution was the presence of
mediating experts, who finally facilitated the inclusion of both competing terms. At
the regional level, Santos and Pierce (2015) reviewed the early implementation of
the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, focusing on its cetacean biodiversity
component. They identified the potential solutions including securing funding for
monitoring, reconciling conservation objectives with the needs of other marine/
maritime sectors, and clarifying governance structure. At the national level, LópezRodríguez et al. (2015) examined the establishment of an SPI between scientists
and policymakers to understand the major environmental problems and priorities in
southeastern Spanish drylands. Possible solutions identified for facilitating/operationalizing SPIs included matching different professional groups with concrete
problems in their own work fields, using graphical tools to facilitate mutual understanding, clarifying the roles involved in the problem-solving, and promoting a culture of shared responsibility for implementing collaborative actions to solve
environmental problem(s). At the subnational level, Chaves et al. (2015) relayed
some lessons from a new environmental restoration policy in São Paulo State,
Brazil. The study noted that the main solution for effective restoration policymaking
is to gain cooperation among scientists, policymakers, and experienced practitioners in identifying appropriate and user-friendly ecological indicators and associated protocols for monitoring and evaluation. These studies suggest a need to share
clear visions of SPIs (Santos and Pierce 2015); resource allocation and good governance for SPIs (Santos and Pierce 2015); engagement of different stakeholders and
clarification of each of the roles (López-Rodríguez et al. 2015); and collaboration,
trust building, capacity building, and conflict management among different stakeholders (Borie and Hulme 2015), in order to improve biodiversity SPIs.
This chapter presents a systematic review of literature on existing SPIs, identifying challenges and possible solutions to effective SPI implementation. This was
done in the context of key SPI features—goals, structure, process and outputs, and
their policy outcomes (Young et al. 2013a). These SPI features are borrowed from
8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces
(rather than unidirectional) relationships are preferable (Weingart 1999). Scientific
knowledge is commonly viewed as information that is useful for problem-solving,
but this is only one of a series of different possible uses of science (Roqueplo 1995).
Science is a source of legitimacy in the policy process, not only for developing new
policies, but also for delaying or avoiding action and for justifying unpopular
decisions (Boehmer-Christiansen 1995). In many cases, scientific knowledge is
unused or under-used in the policy process (Hisschemöller et al. 2001). Even if
particular scientific evidence is used for policymaking, it may remain unclear why
it was used while other knowledge is ignored. Scientific rationalization has become
an important factor in policymaking, but the decision to connect a policy decision to
scientific evidence (and the way in which this is done) depends on political, not
academic, factors. Organizing successful SPIs requires some understanding of how
the policy process works and how scientific expertise is typically treated in the
policy process (Engels 2005).
SPIs have been studied at various geographical scales. Borie and Hulme (2015)
looked at the global level with the debate among IPBES experts terminology to
include in the IPBES conceptual framework. The key solution was the presence of
mediating experts, who finally facilitated the inclusion of both competing terms. At
the regional level, Santos and Pierce (2015) reviewed the early implementation of
the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, focusing on its cetacean biodiversity
component. They identified the potential solutions including securing funding for
monitoring, reconciling conservation objectives with the needs of other marine/
maritime sectors, and clarifying governance structure. At the national level, LópezRodríguez et al. (2015) examined the establishment of an SPI between scientists
and policymakers to understand the major environmental problems and priorities in
southeastern Spanish drylands. Possible solutions identified for facilitating/operationalizing SPIs included matching different professional groups with concrete
problems in their own work fields, using graphical tools to facilitate mutual understanding, clarifying the roles involved in the problem-solving, and promoting a culture of shared responsibility for implementing collaborative actions to solve
environmental problem(s). At the subnational level, Chaves et al. (2015) relayed
some lessons from a new environmental restoration policy in São Paulo State,
Brazil. The study noted that the main solution for effective restoration policymaking
is to gain cooperation among scientists, policymakers, and experienced practitioners in identifying appropriate and user-friendly ecological indicators and associated protocols for monitoring and evaluation. These studies suggest a need to share
clear visions of SPIs (Santos and Pierce 2015); resource allocation and good governance for SPIs (Santos and Pierce 2015); engagement of different stakeholders and
clarification of each of the roles (López-Rodríguez et al. 2015); and collaboration,
trust building, capacity building, and conflict management among different stakeholders (Borie and Hulme 2015), in order to improve biodiversity SPIs.
This chapter presents a systematic review of literature on existing SPIs, identifying challenges and possible solutions to effective SPI implementation. This was
done in the context of key SPI features—goals, structure, process and outputs, and
their policy outcomes (Young et al. 2013a). These SPI features are borrowed from
8 Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces