Science-Policy Interface: Beyond Assessments
| Autor: | Eva Lövbrand, Peter Bridgewater, Mohd Norowi Hamid, Roger A. Pielke, Alice B.M. Vadrot, Aurelia Figueroa, Mike Hulme, Marie Vandewalle, Sybille van den Hove, Mariteuw Chimère Diaw, Heidi Wittmer, Josef Settele, Silke Beck, Axel Paulsch, Christoph Görg, Martin Mahony, Bernd Hansjürgens, Stefan Böschen, Pierre J. Fabre, Chad Monfreda, Jennifer Hauck, Marten Winter, Carsten Nesshöver, Horst Korn, Kong Luen Heong, Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, Rik Leemans |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2011 |
| Předmět: |
Sociology of scientific knowledge
Multidisciplinary business.industry media_common.quotation_subject Environmental resource management Stakeholder Library science Indigenous Ecosystem services Blueprint Political science Taverne Science policy Intergovernmental Conference Empowerment business media_common |
| Zdroj: | Science, 633, 697. American Association for the Advancement of Science ResearcherID |
| ISSN: | 1095-9203 0036-8075 |
| DOI: | 10.1126/science.333.6043.697 |
| Popis: | In their Policy Forum “The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface” (4 March, p. [1139][1]), C. Perrings et al. frame the new Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as a body responsible primarily for assessment. They consistently base their elaboration of the work of IPBES on the experiences of past assessments (such as the Millennium Assessment, the Global Biodiversity Outlook, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and interpret the Busan outcome [recommendations made by a 2010 intergovernmental conference ([ 1 ][2])] solely through the lens of how scientific knowledge is assessed. We believe that the blueprint suitability of previous assessments for the IPBES process is very limited. Strengthening the (mainly global-scale) scientific knowledge base behind assessments is important, but the goals of IPBES should be expanded. First, we should move beyond conventional scientific knowledge assessments that legitimize, almost exclusively, only peer-reviewed material. Knowledge established across all scales (especially the knowledge of local and indigenous peoples) and validated in multiple ways must be eligible for inclusion in IPBES processes. Changes in biodiversity are first experienced locally and thus many forms of local expertise have particular relevance for biodiversity issues ([ 2 ][3]). Second, we should link IPBES assessment results to decision-making at multiple spatial scales (including tackling biodiversity loss at the grassroots level). Both of these goals require all aspects of capacity-building, including empowerment of different kinds of actors, to be reflected in the structural design of IPBES. To achieve this much broader set of objectives as laid out in the Busan outcome, including the explicit incorporation of local and indigenous knowledge, the IPBES structure should knit together existing multiscale networks ([ 3 ][4]) of scientific, policy, and stakeholder communities. 1. [↵][5] United Nations Environment Programme, “Busan Outcome,” Busan, Korea, 7 to 11 June 2010 ([www.unep.org/pdf/SMT\_Agenda\_Item\_5-Busan\_Outcome.pdf][6]). 2. [↵][7] 1. W. Reid et al. , Eds., Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystems (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2006). 3. [↵][8] Leipzig Workshop Recommendations for a Knowledge-Policy Interface for Biodiversity Governance, 4 October 2006 ([www.ufz.de/data/leipzig\_recom\_final4614.pdf][9]). [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6021/1139.full [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: http://www.unep.org/pdf/SMT_Agenda_Item_5-Busan_Outcome.pdf [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [9]: http://www.ufz.de/data/leipzig_recom_final4614.pdf |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|