Search

Biodiversity is the foundation of our lives. Yet we destroy ecosystems and drive species to extinction. Human-induced biodiversity loss does not yet receive sufficient public attention, although biodiversity is fundamental for dealing with global environmental crises. Effective communication of biodiversity-related knowledge is challenging but crucial and should contribute to evidence-based decision-making transparent to the public. It is essential to promote science communication on biodiversity, and to stimulate dialogue between science, policy, and society. We emphasize the role of science journalism in critically mediating the complexity of scientific knowledge and suggest Dos and Don'ts for scientists to guide biodiversity-related science communication.

Indicators of biodiversity protection at the national level are used to assess progress towards global goals but provide little information at conservation-relevant scales. We provide SDG indicator 15.4.1 on mountain biodiversity protection for individual mountain ranges and further perform an area-based calculation compatible with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We enable the identification of mountain areas in need of conservation and discuss differences between area- and official site-based indicator values.

Indicators of biodiversity protection at the national level are used to assess progress toward global goals. However, they provide little information at scales relevant for conservation and management. Hence we provide an area-based alternative to the current indicator calculated at the level of individual mountain ranges, which is directly relevant for assessing progress toward SDG 15.4.1. This allows identifying mountain areas in need of enhanced conservation efforts, within and across countries.

1. Decision-making processes are complex and time-intensive, particularly when a consensus needs to be achieved amongst more than two parties. Discussions and negotiations must consider all relevant stakeholders and their individual perspectives on the decision to be taken. Methods for identifying, understanding, and acknowledging divergent perspectives can support successful consensus building. A tool pointing to those perspectives that have a consensus is missing though.2. Here, we propose a policy support tool to statistically guide the processes of consensus building around sets of goals or statements, using the Q method. Priority rankings of the goals or statements are used to analyze group perspectives. Our Q approach then expands Q method by consolidating the group perspectives and producing a novel consensus priority score indicating the level of consensual preference or priority for each goal or statement.3. We demonstrate the applicability of our Q approach in a hypothetical prioritization example involving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although all 193 United Nation’s member states have agreed upon the 17 SDGs, the implementation of sustainable development measures often requires the prioritization of one or more goals. In the example, we use 40 individual stakeholder perspectives to identify which SDGs should be prioritized to successfully achieve the 2030 Agenda. This is, to satisfy most of the 40 people the best way possible, SGDs 4, 8, and 3. It is important to note that every individual perspective matters.4. The Q approach to consensus building provides a transparent and replicable method to calculate consensus priority scores for goals or statements of interest and identify those that have medium to high consensus. The approach can be applied to a wide range of situations where diverse perspectives and objectives need to be reconciled and synthesized at a range of scales. It can thereby be applied in consensus building processes from subnational to international levels.

Biodiversity conservation faces a methodological conundrum: Biodiversity measure- ment often relies on species, most of which are rare at various scales, especially prone to extinction under global change, but also the most challenging to sample and model. Predicting the distribution change of rare species using conventional species distribu- tion models is challenging because rare species are hardly captured by most survey systems. When enough data are available, predictions are usually spatially biased to- wards locations where the species is most likely to occur, violating the assumptions of many modelling frameworks. Workflows to predict and eventually map rare species distributions imply important trade-­offs between data quantity, quality, representa- tiveness and model complexity that need to be considered prior to survey and analy- sis. Our opinion is that study designs need to carefully integrate the different steps, from species sampling to modelling, in accordance with the different types of rarity and available data in order to improve our capacity for sound assessment and predic- tion of rare species distribution. In this article, we summarize and comment on how different categories of species rarity lead to different types of occurrence and distri- bution data depending on choices made during the survey process, namely the spatial distribution of samples (where to sample) and the sampling protocol in each selected location (how to sample). We then clarify which species distribution models are suit- able depending on the different types of distribution data (how to model). Among oth- ers, for most rarity forms, we highlight the insights from systematic species-­targeted sampling coupled with hierarchical models that allow correcting for overdispersion and spatial and sampling sources of bias. Our article provides scientists and practi- tioners with a much-­needed guide through the ever-­increasing diversity of methodo- logical developments to improve the prediction of rare species distribution depending on rarity type and available data.

Mountains are facing growing environmental, social, and economic challenges. Accordingly, effective policies and management approaches are needed to safeguard their inhabitants, their ecosystems, their biodiversity, and the livelihoods they support. The formulation and implementation of such policies and approaches requires a thorough understanding of, and extensive knowledge about, the interactions between nature and people particular to mountain social–ecological systems. Here, we applied the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to assess and compare the contents of 631 abstracts on the interactions among biodiversity, ecosystem services, human wellbeing, and drivers of change, and formulate a set of research recommendations. Our comparative assessment of literature pertained to the Andes, the East African mountains, the European Alps, and the Hindu Kush Himalaya. It revealed interesting differences between mountain systems, in particular in the relative importance given in the literature to individual drivers of change and to the ecosystem services delivered along elevational gradients. Based on our analysis and with reference to alternative conceptual frameworks of mountain social–ecological systems, we propose future research directions and options. In particular, we recommend improving biodiversity information, generating spatially explicit knowledge on ecosystem services, integrating knowledge and action along elevational gradients, generating knowledge on interacting effects of global change drivers, delivering knowledge that is relevant for transformative action toward sustainable mountain development, and using comprehensive concepts and codesigned approaches to effectively address knowledge gaps.

Boundary spanning activities in the biodiversity science-policy interface are urgently needed. Effective science communication and uptake of scientific findings by policymakers is crucial for a successful, cross-scale policy implementation. For this, national platforms promoting knowledge exchange between different stakeholder groups are key. Established in 2009, the Network-Forum on Biodiversity Research Germany (NeFo) until 2018 has organized more than 40 workshops bringing together actors from science, policy and society. In this paper, we present a network and cluster analysis of these NeFo workshops. Based on this, we discuss the importance of science-policy interface projects and networks as knowledge brokers and boundary organizations, as well as challenges in using network analysis as a tool for evaluating workshop impacts. Based on the network analysis outcomes as well as experiences in the conduction of workshops, recommendations to strengthen the innovation impact of networking efforts are drawn.

Rich biological diversity in mountains provides ample benefits to people locally and beyond. However, mountain biodiversity is decreasing rapidly, often as a result of geographically distant demands. We can achieve the transition to sustainable development only by accounting for the drivers and benefits of mountain biodiversity from a local to global level.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) strengthens the science-policy interface by producing scientific assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy. IPBES fosters knowledge exchange across disciplines, between researchers and other knowledge holders, practitioners, societal actors and decision makers working at different geographic scales. A number of avenues for participation of stakeholders across the four functions if IPBES exist. Stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, businesses, and non-governmental organization. They represent multiple sources of information, data, knowledge, and perspectives on biodiversity. Stakeholder engagement in IPBES seeks to 1. communicate, disseminate, and implement the findings of IPBES products; 2. Develop guidelines for biodiversity conservation within member countries; and 3. create linkages between global policy and local actors – all key to the implementation of global agreements on biodiversity. This paper reflects on the role of stakeholders in the first work programme of IPBES (2014–2018). It provides an overview of IPBES processes and products relevant to stakeholders, examines the motivation of stakeholders to engage with IPBES, and explores reflections by the authors (all active participants on the platform) for improved stakeholder engagement and contributions to future work of the platform.

Das Biodiversitätsmonitoring in Deutschland ist disziplinär und institutionell stark fragmentiert ‐ mit der Folge, dass weder der Zustand der Biodiversität noch ihre Entwicklungstrends einheitlich abgebildet werden. Das wäre jedoch die Voraussetzung, damit Deutschland dem Biodiversitätsverlust gezielt entgegentreten sowie seinen nationalen und internationalen Berichtspflichten nachkommen kann. Fur ein erfolgreiches Biodiversitätsmonitoring mussen Akteure aus Wissenschaft, Politik und Zivilgesellschaft besser zusammenarbeiten und ihre Strategien zum Biodiversitätsmonitoring abstimmen.