You are on page 1of 5

ISOE Policy Brief No.

5 Institute for
Social-Ecological
Research

The need for transdisciplinary social-ecological


biodiversity research
More a lack of knowledge rather than a lack of action

Summary
Despite various policy and management responses, biodiversity continues to decline worldwide. We must
redouble our eorts to halt biodiversity loss. The current lack of policy action can be partly linked to an
insucient knowledge base regarding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Biodiversity
research needs to incorporate both social and ecological factors to gain a deeper understanding of the in-
terrelations between society and nature that aect biodiversity. A transdisciplinary research approach is
crucial to fullling these requirements. It aims to produce new insights by integrating scientic and non-
scientic knowledge. Several measures need to be taken to strengthen transdisciplinary social-ecological
biodiversity research: Within the science community: rstly, scientists themselves must promote trans-
disciplinarity; secondly, the reward system for scientists must be brought into line with transdisciplinary
research processes; and thirdly, academic training needs to advocate transdisciplinarity. As for research
policies, research funding priorities need to be linked to large scale biodiversity policy frameworks, and
funding for transdisciplinary social-ecological research on biodiversity must be increased signicantly.

Zusammenfassung
Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse zeigen, dass die Ur- ttsverlust weltweit fort. Um den Verlust der biologi-
sachen fr den fortschreitenden Verlust der biologi- schen Vielfalt zu stoppen, msste der bisherige Auf-
schen Vielfalt vor allem in fehlendem oder unsiche- wand verdoppelt werden. Dabei ist es wichtig, eine
rem Wissen ber die komplexen Verbindungen zwi- breitere Wissensbasis zu schaen, denn es fehlt vor
schen Natur und Gesellschaft liegen. Wissenschaftler allem an Handlungswissen.
empfehlen daher, die Biodiversittsforschung strker Hier ist ein transdisziplinrer Forschungsansatz
als bisher transdisziplinr auszurichten. entscheidend, wenn es darum geht, wissenschaft-
Trotz einer Vielzahl nationaler und interna- liche Erkenntnisse und praktische Erfahrungen zu
tionaler Initiativen und Programme, wie etwa die integrieren und damit neues Wissen zum Schutz der
Ratizierung nationaler Biodiversittsstrategien, die Biodiversitt zu generieren. Mit diesem transdiszipli-
Ausarbeitung von Aktionsplnen im Rahmen der nren Forschungsmodus ist es zudem mglich, Nut-
Vertragsstaatenkonferenzen des bereinkommens zungsdynamiken von Biodiversitt in den Blick zu
ber die biologische Vielfalt (CBD) oder die Einrich- nehmen, wie beispielsweise Konikte, die entstehen,
tung von Schutzgebieten, schreitet der Biodiversi- wenn verschiedene Interessengruppen unterschied-
ISOE Policy Brief No. 5: The need for transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research 2

liche Nutzungsansprche an kosystemleistungen NachwuchswissenschaftlerInnen mssen als trans-


haben. Hierfr mssen neue Bndnisse zwischen den disziplinre ExpertInnen ausgebildet werden kn-
Disziplinen (Natur- und Sozialwissenschaften) ge- nen. Hierfr mssen entsprechende Karrierepfade
schaen sowie wissenschaftliches mit nicht-wissen- sowie Bildungsangebote zur Verfgung gestellt
schaftlichem Wissen verbunden werden. Die Einbe- werden.
ziehung von lokalem Wissen ber Biodiversitt WissenschaftlerInnen mssen die Bewusstseinsbil-
sowie die Integration von gesellschaftlichen Part- dung fr die Bedeutung transdisziplinrer For-
nern in den Forschungsprozess ist dabei unerlss- schung strker vorantreiben, indem das Selbstver-
lich. Innerhalb der Forschungsgemeinschaft, aber stndnis der Biodiversittsforschenden gestrkt
auch in der Forschungspolitik mssen daher Ma- wird.
nahmen ergrien werden, um die transdisziplinre
sozial-kologische Biodiversittsforschung zu str- Forschungspolitik
ken und zu etablieren: Die Prioritten der Forschungsfrderung mssen
strker mit nationalen und internationalen Bio-
Forschungsgemeinschaft diversittszielen, wie sie im Strategischen Plan fr
Bisher wird die wissenschaftliche Leistung unter Biologische Vielfalt, im bereinkommen fr Biolo-
anderem ber die Anzahl der wissenschaftlichen gische Vielfalt (CBD) oder in der EU-Biodiversi-
Publikationen bewertet. Dieses Anreizsystem muss ttsstrategie verankert sind, in Einklang gebracht
fr WissenschaftlerInnen, die transdisziplinr ar- werden.
beiten, berdacht und angepasst werden. Denn Transdisziplinre sozial-kologische Biodiversitts-
transdisziplinre Forschung erfordert einen hhe- forschung muss nanziell deutlich gestrkt wer-
ren Aufwand fr Kooperationen und gemeinschaft- den. Im Interesse des internationalen Biodiversi-
liches Arbeiten wie CO-Design, Co-Production und ttsschutzes sollte sektorbergreifend argumentiert
Co-Dissemination. und gehandelt werden.

Transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research

is transdisciplinary in its research mode: Different types of knowledge such as scientific and non-scientific
(e. g. indigenous and local) are integrated into the research process in order to approach biodiversity loss.
is problem-oriented: The focus of the research is on finding concrete and affordable solutions to specific prob-
lems with patterns of non-sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Transformation knowledge is
needed to address the question What can we do?
is normatively focused on the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity: The overall aim is to help stop
global biodiversity loss. Orientation knowledge is needed to address the question What should we do?
is systemically conceptualised through social-ecological systems (SES): The underlying societal causes and
effects of biodiversity change are addressed. The focus is on the social-ecological dynamics of ecosystem
services and a critical analysis of the non-sustainable regulation and transformation of biodiversity use and
protection. System knowledge is needed to address the question What can we do?

Findings and recommendations


Transdisciplinarity in biodiversity is crucial as biodi- diversity, as well as looking at problem-oriented ways
versity research increasingly begins to address the un- of tackling the non-sustainable use of biodiversity and
derlying societal causes and eects of biodiversity ecosystem services.
change. What's needed is a social-ecological perspec- Various types of action in the elds of science and
tive on biodiversity research that is normatively fo- research policy are required to foster research into
cused on the sustainable use and conservation of bio- transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity:
ISOE Policy Brief No. 5: The need for transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research 3

The science community: scientists have a role to play Research policy: transdisciplinary research coopera-
Reward system: There is an urgent need to revise the tion must be strengthened
reward system for scientists involved in transdiscipli- Policy framework: In order to evaluate and improve
nary research processes. So far, scientific achieve- biodiversity policy, research funding priorities should
ment has been measured mainly in rates of publica- be linked to large scale biodiversity policy frameworks
tion. This can be problematic for scientists involved in such as the adapted Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
transdisciplinary research, which is far more focused (20112020), the Aichi biodiversity targets of the Con-
on collaboration such as co-design, co-production vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the adapted
and co-dissemination. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, as well as the na-
tional biodiversity policies.
Academic training: Scientific academic training must
provide means and opportunities to train young pro- Research funding: In the interests of mainstreaming
fessionals as transdisciplinary experts in collaborative the biodiversity issue, ministers for the environment
work with stakeholders. Current educational and insti- and for education and research should be more vocal
tutional frameworks need revising in order to provide in all sectors about the international biodiversity
such training and career opportunities. agreements. Environmental policy representatives at
national and European level must open up to and inter-
Raising awareness: Scientists must raise awareness
act with other sectors to advocate global biodiversity
about the importance of transdisciplinarity in biodiver-
agreements more effectively and mobilise more fund-
sity research. The biodiversity research community
ing for transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity
needs to reinforce its self-understanding and establish
research.
larger influential groups to better support decision
making processes at national and European levels.

Global biodiversity continues to decline pending on national circumstances and priorities to


The Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (2014), a mid-term accelerate the implementation of the Strategic Plan for
assessment of progress towards the implementation of Biodiversity 2011-2020 and to facilitate the achieve-
the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, provides serious in- ment of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. COP 13 in Can-
dications that the pressures on biodiversity will con- cun, Mexico readdressed these key actions, and the
tinue to increase until 2020. At the same time, the sta- ministers and heads of the delegation came up with the
tus of biodiversity will decline. Despite ongoing policy Cancun Declaration, which focused on the mainstream-
and management responses, the impacts of current pol- ing of the conservation and sustainable use of biodi-
icy eorts are unlikely to result in any improvement to versity for well-being. The subscribers committed to
biodiversity by 2020. Reasons for this may be partly working at all levels within the respective governments
due to time lags between taking positive actions and but also across all sectors to mainstream biodiversity in
seeing discernible positive outcomes. However, reach- areas such as agriculture, forestry or urban planning
ing these joint objectives will also require changes and not just in nature conservation.
within society, including much more ecient use of However, despite these policy responses, biodiver-
natural resources as well as rethinking consumption sity continues to decline. Many scholars claim that
habits. (policy) actions need to be redoubled if biodiversity
goals are to be met by 2020, while others argue that it
The role of policy action is more a case of a lack of knowledge than a lack of
In response to this, key actions were identied at the action.
Twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity (CBD); they included the More a lack of knowledge than a lack of action
streamlining of communication, the development and The boundaries and barriers between knowing how to
implementation of policy plans, the reduction of nutri- act and actually taking action need to be addressed. It
ent pollution, the expansion of the protected areas net- is particularly crucial to analyse the factors responsible
work, and the promotion of initiatives that support tra- for a lack of action (such as lack of interest and moti-
ditional and local knowledge of biodiversity. The CBD vation, or dierent priorities across key players). One
recommended measures that countries can take de- can then consider how these relate to insucient -
ISOE Policy Brief No. 5: The need for transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research 4

nancing or what capacities for more expedient Strengthening the science-policy interface:
processes are required. Consideration must be given to The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
the respective economic, societal and political circum- Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
stances to enhance knowledge about the status of The IPBES was initiated in 2010. The aim is to
threatened species and initiate successful measures for strengthen the sciencepolicy interface for biodiversity
their protection. and ecosystem services to ensure the conservation and
In attempting to bridge this lack of knowledge sustainable use of biodiversity. The platform is the
about how to handle the loss of biodiversity, it is nec- intergovernmental body that assesses the state of bio-
essary to deal with dierent kinds of knowledge: igno- diversity and ecosystem services for society. The IPBES
rance (for example about undetected species that might aspires to create a new type of sciencepolicy interface,
be relevant for medicine), contested knowledge (e. g. since it is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
access to biodiversity and benet sharing) and uncer- The IPBES Conceptual Framework was developed espe-
tain knowledge (e.g. trade-os between using ecosys- cially for this reason. The framework intends to facili-
tem services and any conicts arising from such use). tate cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural understand-
In particular, system knowledge (What is true?), orien- ing. It is a simplied model of the interactions between
tation knowledge (What should we do?), and transfor- nature and human beings, and seeks to embrace not
mation knowledge (What can we do?) is needed (see only dierent disciplines but also dierent knowledge
Box 1). This complexity in biodiversity (i. e. the social- systems such as scientic, non-scientic and indige-
ecological denition that biodiversity is not only about nous knowledge.
the number and spread of species or habitats but is In its early stages, the IPBES saw a lot of discus-
also related to human well-being and thus to society) sion about the lack of knowledge on biodiversity. How-
always leads to uncertain or contested knowledge. And ever, this was very often focused on general knowledge
inactivity as a consequence thereof will result in yet gaps or biased towards natural science-based knowl-
more losses an aspect that is covered by the precau- edge. There is still a considerable need to improve the
tionary principle. Given this kind of complex problem knowledge base for the conservation and sustainable
structure, there is an increasing consensus about the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services. It is impor-
need to nd new ways of producing knowledge. tant to gain a better understanding of the economic,
Political decision makers have to deal with this societal and political conditions surrounding conser-
complexity by carefully weighting the dierent trade- vation eorts, and this should represent a major topic
os, whereas creating the evidence base for responsible for social sciences and integrated transdisciplinary
decision making is the role of scientists. research dealing with biodiversity issues.

Figure 1: The role of transdiscipli-


narity in producing different types
of knowledge in order to approach
biodiversity loss (Jahn et al. 2012,
modified in Mehring et al. 2017)
ISOE Policy Brief No. 5: The need for transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research 5

Assets of transdisciplinary research loss as an all-embracing issue requiring the attention


Transdisciplinarity can provide adequate answers to of dierent disciplines from the natural and social sci-
these challenges, since it seeks to produce knew knowl- ences as well as the humanities. Seeking to integrate
edge by integrating dierent scientic insights and dierent types of knowledge, transdisciplinary biodi-
non-scientic knowledge (Figure 1). Transdisciplinary versity research facilitates mutual learning between
research is conducted at the interface of society and science and society. Added values comprise 1) a better
science. A major characteristic of transdisciplinarity is exchange of knowledge between dierent stakeholders
its reference to real-world problems such as sustainable on the use and conservation of biodiversity, 2) better
development or the use of natural resources. Generally interlinking of dierent knowledge types, and 3) in-
speaking, an ideal transdisciplinary research process creased acceptance of the results.
consists of three consecutive steps (Figure 1): (1) iden- However, there is an urgent need for scientic
tication of a common research object by scientic careers to include means and opportunities to train
and societal stakeholders, which translates the real- transdisciplinary experts. Working in a transdiscipli-
world problem into a scientic issue; (2) production of nary research mode requires expertise in specic
new knowledge by means of interdisciplinary collabo- methodologies (such as integration methods) or the
ration, and (3) evaluation of the new knowledge in ability to work in a collaborative setting with diverse
terms of its contribution to societal and scientic stakeholders. So far, for example, the scientic curric-
progress. ula and the prevailing reward system are very much
Transdisciplinarity in biodiversity is critical as bio- based on producing output in terms of publications
diversity research increasingly addresses the underly- instead of stimulating and enhancing transformation
ing societal causes and eects of biodiversity change. pathways towards sustainability as happens in trans-
Transdisciplinary biodiversity addresses biodiversity disciplinary science.

References nal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management,


This issue of the ISOE Policy Brief is based on research conducted 13(1): 172180, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1289246
by ISOE Institute for Social-Ecological Research as part of its col- Pullin, Andrew / Geoff Frampton / Rob Jongman / Christian Kohl /
laboration with the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Barbara Livoreil /Alexandra Lux / Gyrgy Pataki / Gillian Petrokof-
Centre BiK-F. Within BiK-F, interdependencies between biodiversity sky /Aranka Podhora /Heli Luis Saarikoski / Luis Santamaria /Ste-
dynamics and climate change are being investigated. ISOE is a fan Schindler / Isabel Sousa-Pinto / Marie Vandewalle /Heidi Witt-
founding partner of the research centre and coordinates the re- mer (2016): Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis
search area Ecosystem Services and Climate. The content is to inform biodiversity policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 25(7):
based on the following publications: 12851300
Jahn, Thomas /Matthias Bergmann / Florian Keil (2012): Transdisci-
plinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Citation
Economics 79, 110 Mehring, Marion / Diana Hummel (2017): The need for transdisciplinary
Mehring, Marion / Estelle V. Balian / Angelique Berhault / Engelbert social-ecological biodiversity research More a lack of knowledge
Schramm (2012): Transdisciplinary Research on Biodiversity rather than a lack of action. ISOE Policy Brief, No. 5. ISOE Institute
Steps towards Integrated Biodiversity Research. ISOE /EPBRS, for Social-Ecological Research (ed.). Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Frankfurt am Main, Germany /Brussels, Belgium. 32 pp
Marion Mehring /Barbara Bernard /Diana Hummel / Stefan Liehr / Keywords
Alexandra Lux (2017): Halting biodiversity loss: how social-ecolog- Biodiversity research, ecosystem services, IPBES, knowledge,
ical biodiversity research makes a difference, International Jour- transdisciplinarity

ISOE Institute for Social-Ecological Research Credits


ISOE is one of the leading non-university institutes for sustain- Editing: Nicola Schuldt-Baumgart
ability research. For 25 years, the institute has been developing Design & Layout: Harry Kleespies
the scientific foundation for decision making, as well as future- Photo credits: vege /Fotolia.com
orientated concepts for policy makers, civil society and econ- Comments and questions are welcome. Please contact us at:
omy on a regional, national, and international level. Among the ISOE Institute for Social-Ecological Research
research foci are water, energy, climate protection, mobility and Hamburger Allee 45, 60486 Frankfurt/Main, Germany
urban spaces, as well as biodiversity and people. Fon +49 (0)69 707 69 19-0
ISOE Policy Briefs are published by ISOE several times a year to E-mail: info@isoe.de
highlight new and practical approaches to sustainable develop- http://www.isoe.de/en/isoe/
ment professionals. https://twitter.com/isoewikom
The Policy Briefs are available online free of charge at
http://www.isoe.de/en/publications/isoe-policy-briefs/ ISSN: 2365-1148