Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another

TLDR

A more effective, interactive dialogue between biodiversity science and policy is required, because current linear, technocratic communication models are insufficient for the complex, iterative, and selective decision‑making processes needed to address ongoing biodiversity loss and its societal impacts. The study aims to provide practical recommendations for individuals, teams, organisations, and funders to foster more collaborative science‑policy engagement. The authors synthesize literature, conduct interviews, and convene a workshop with science‑policy interface practitioners to develop these recommendations. The findings emphasize jointly framing research and policy, promoting interdisciplinary and multi‑domain working groups, and establishing long‑term structures and incentives to support sustained interactive dialogue.

Abstract

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a 'linear' or technocratic model of communication in which scientific "facts" are transmitted directly to policy advisers to "solve problems". While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to present practical recommendations aimed at individuals, teams, organisations and funders. Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter- and trans-disciplinary research and "multi-domain" working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature.