Increasing effectiveness of the science-policy interface in the socioecological arena in Brazil

Abstract A group of scientists created in 2015 the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES), the first national-level initiative to emerge independently but inspired by the enterprise undertaken by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The main goal of BPBES is to develop assessment and special reports in co-production and dialogue with governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in Brazil, but independently from governmental perusal. This paper describes BPBES’s principles, design, routine practices, outputs, achievements, challenges, near-future perspectives, and costs. After three and a half years of activities, BPBES emerges as a link that connects various organisations within a boundary chain at the science-policy interface. By navigating the socioecological arena, engaging with various actors, we argue that BPBES is an emerging important player in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Brazil. Differently from the regular scientific panel that produces assessment reports and special reports from time to time, we discuss the BPBES approach whereby such reports are due to be continuously updated by a system that combines consultation to and engagement of multiple actors, curators of specific themes, revision work, and communication to non-expert audiences. Challenges include how to avoid fatigue typical of extensive participatory processes, how to deal with the issue of representativeness of stakeholders selected, and long-term fundraising strategy. Finally, we discuss the potential relevance of other national level initiatives to facilitate on-the-ground implementation of practices and aspirations fostered by intergovernmental panels.

[1]  P. Archambault,et al.  Our House Is Burning: Discrepancy in Climate Change vs. Biodiversity Coverage in the Media as Compared to Scientific Literature , 2018, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[2]  R. Pardini,et al.  A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation , 2018, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[3]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Summary for policymakers , 1963 .

[4]  L. Gallagher,et al.  Wrestling with the complexity of evaluation for organizations at the boundary of science, policy, and practice , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Matthias Bergmann,et al.  Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization , 2012 .

[6]  Nathan L. Engle,et al.  What influences climate information use in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance regimes in Brazil and the U.S. , 2013 .

[7]  S. Beck,et al.  The IPCC and the new map of science and politics , 2018, WIREs Climate Change.

[8]  Carl Folke,et al.  Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability , 2017 .

[9]  The IPCC Experience and Lessons for IPBES , 2016 .

[10]  S. Hove,et al.  Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces , 2014 .

[11]  Christine J. Kirchhoff,et al.  Creating synergy with boundary chains: Can they improve usability of climate information? , 2015 .

[12]  Jorge Soberón,et al.  IPBES ≠ IPCC. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  F. Esteves,et al.  Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil , 2017, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[14]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Adding ‘iterativity’ to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: A novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces , 2015 .

[15]  R. K. Neumann,et al.  Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities , 2015 .

[16]  Christine J. Kirchhoff,et al.  Narrowing the gap between climate science and adaptation action: The role of boundary chains , 2015 .

[17]  Sujatha Raman,et al.  Science advice for global challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC , 2018 .

[18]  Christine J. Kirchhoff,et al.  Narrowing the climate information usability gap , 2012 .

[19]  Kong Luen Heong,et al.  Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. , 2011, Science.

[20]  D. Abessa,et al.  The systematic dismantling of Brazilian environmental laws risks losses on all fronts , 2019, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[21]  C. Joly,et al.  Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot , 2018, Ecosystem Services.

[22]  J. Barlow,et al.  Navigating the Space between Research and Implementation in Conservation , 2017 .

[23]  A. Troumbis Declining Google Trends of public interest in biodiversity: semantics, statistics or traceability of changing priorities? , 2017, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[24]  Ritesh Kumar,et al.  Options for Governance and Decision-Making across Scales and Sectors , 2018 .

[25]  M. Enserink,et al.  Breakdowns of the year. , 2018, Science.

[26]  Maria Carmen Lemos,et al.  Usable climate knowledge for adaptive and co-managed water governance , 2015 .

[27]  E. McNie Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature , 2007 .

[28]  K. Vohland,et al.  Ensuring the success of IPBES: between interface, market place and parliament , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Antonio M. Saraiva,et al.  Relatório temático sobre polinização, polinizadores e produção de alimentos no Brasil , 2019 .

[30]  Art Dewulf,et al.  What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity , 2016 .

[31]  Richard B. Rood,et al.  Moving Climate Information off the Shelf: Boundary Chains and the Role of RISAs as Adaptive Organizations , 2014 .

[32]  Zuzana V. Harmáčková,et al.  Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services” , 2018 .

[33]  D. Jamieson,et al.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities , 2017 .

[34]  H. Escobar Scientists, environmentalists brace for Brazil's right turn. , 2018, Science.

[35]  A. Knight,et al.  Science-policy interface: scientific input limited. , 2011, Science.

[36]  Sarah Michaels,et al.  Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings , 2009 .

[37]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[38]  The IPCC at a crossroads: Opportunities for reform , 2015, Science.

[39]  E. Masood The battle for the soul of biodiversity , 2018, Nature.

[40]  C. Howarth,et al.  Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK , 2016, Palgrave Communications.

[41]  Alexandra Lux,et al.  Governance options for science–policy interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: comparing a network versus a platform approach , 2016, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[42]  Daniel G. Brown,et al.  Boundary organizations to boundary chains: Prospects for advancing climate science application , 2015 .

[43]  C. Joly,et al.  Brief history of the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services/BPBES , 2017 .

[44]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Boundary organizations and environmental governance : Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development , 2017 .

[45]  S. Polasky,et al.  Assessing nature's contributions to people , 2018, Science.

[46]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact , 2016, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[47]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[48]  J. Penha,et al.  Poor alignment of priorities between scientists and policymakers highlights the need for evidence-informed conservation in Brazil , 2018, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation.

[49]  Barbara Gabriella Renzi,et al.  Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage , 2016 .

[50]  E. Archer,et al.  The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa , 2018 .