Esther Carmen

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building.

Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland

ABSTRACT The concept of ecosystem services has been extensively studied in recent decades. Most studies have focused on describing the specific aspects such as production, spatial extent, valuation of services and the trade-off between services. Few studies however assess the practitioners’ views on the frameworks, models or tools developed. In this paper, we report on a multi-stakeholder workshop where two tools were tested (i) the ecosystem service cascade framework was tested as a means to frame the issues and (ii) a participatory-spatial modelling method, QUICKScan, was tested as an aid to support discussion over natural resource management and planning in a multi-use landscape. A focused group discussion was utilised to determine stakeholders’ views of the cascade framework and pre- and post-workshop questionnaires quantified the stakeholders’ views of the QUICKScan method. The stakeholders identified both positive and negative aspects of both tools. The diversity of views expressed were associated with (i) the past experience of the individual with the issues discussed, (ii) the technical aspects of the tools i.e. the ability with GIS and (iii) the level of new shared knowledge they reported acquiring on the day which was related to their initial knowledge of the issue and area studied. EDITED BY Davide Geneletti

Arguing for biodiversity in practice: a case study from the UK

With a web of different local actors, often with different perspectives and interests, turning ideas into practice for biodiversity often involves communicating, negotiating, bargaining and, therefore, argumentation. Within this process arguments are selected by actors, to achieve their goals, with varying levels of effectiveness. We examine the use of arguments in UK national biodiversity policies and at the local level from the perspective of those putting forward and receiving arguments. We assess the positive and negative framings within arguments and the effectiveness of arguments. Using interviews and formal documents as sources of data, we analyse nine argumentative interactions from a case study in the Greater Manchester area in the UK. Our findings highlight differences between arguments in national biodiversity policy and those used at the local level. We also show a link between positive framing and salient arguments that were particularly effective. In more polarised, high conflict situations the credibility of the argument, specifically how well it aligned with policy frameworks, strongly influenced its effectiveness. These findings suggest that selecting arguments that identify common ground at the local level contributes to effective outcomes by highlighting areas of mutual benefit. Where this is not possible, a strong policy framework for the conservation of biodiversity is important. A combination of bottom up and top down approaches is most likely to provide effective arguments for biodiversity.

Taking stock of the spectrum of arguments for biodiversity

This paper provides an analysis of the spectrum of arguments associated with the term biodiversity, as expressed in the literature. Through sampling of the grey and peer-review literature, and testing of results through semi-structured interviews, this review presents a total of 31 different instrumental and non-instrumental premises used in arguments for biodiversity. Based on the identified premise statements, this review offers a simple classification by which to understand the complex public discourse associated with arguments for biodiversity, and outlines the current frequency of use of arguments in the literature. Although a wide range of premise statements were identified, the majority of arguments were instrumental with the most frequently used ones putting forward economic perspectives as well as emphasising the role of biodiversity in underpinning ecosystem services. Results from interviews with decision-makers emphasise the need to combine arguments in order to strengthen biodiversity conservation generally, and minimise possible risks associated with individual arguments.