Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Institute
The workshop “Transdisciplinary Research on Biodiversity, Steps towards Integrated Biodiversity Research” was organized on 14-15 November 2011 in Brussels by the German-based Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) in cooperation with the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) and the Belgian Biodiversity Platform.
The workshop was a follow up of the EPBRS summit “Positive Visions for Biodiversity” organized in November 2010, and its aim was to explore ways to further increase the capacities of transdisciplinary biodiversity research in Europe. It brought together researchers and experts, representatives and decision-makers from European institutions and research funding agencies, as well as members from civil society and the private sector.
Participants discussed and identified in working groups key research topics and the added value of transdisciplinary approaches for three main themes of the “Positive Visions for Biodiversity” summit:
1/ The integration of biodiversity into every part of life
2/ Values and behaviours to a more harmonious way of life
3/ Governance that is more transparent and effective and that balances global and local responsibilities.
During the final plenary panel discussion, participants highlighted recommendations for promoting transdisciplinary biodiversity research:
➢ Scientists have a role to play in raising awareness on the importance of biodiversity as a transdisciplinary issue.
➢ Environmental policy representatives at national and European level have to open up to and interact with other sectors to better advocate for global biodiversity agreements and mobilize more funding for transdisciplinary research on biodiversity.
➢ There is a need for scientists who are interested in comunicating and advocating. The biodiversity community needs people who are able to bridge between worlds, both science and advocacy, to get transdisciplinary biodiversity topics on European research agendas.
➢ Scientific academic training should provide means and opportunities to train these new professionals to become the “in-between” links. Current educational and insitutional frameworks need to be adapted to provide such training and career opportunities.
➢ Innovation should be understood in a broader sense than technology and products with market value. Research is needed on innovative ways to increase sustainable use, recycling of natural resources and learning from natural processes.
➢ The biodiversity community needs to reinforce its identity and build up larger influential groups to be able to advocate more efficiently at national and European levels.
Among the main barriers to developing and implementing an efficient transdisciplinary research on biodiversity issues, the current trends in European research agendas to focus on technological and product oriented research is particularly detrimental. Improving advocacy on biodiversity and the implementation of transdisciplinary biodiversity research will be critical for the next decade to ensure the necessary knowledge for informing political decisions.
This assessment concept paper provides a methodological approach for the formative assessment and summative assessment of GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP) and its component partnerships. IWaSP promotes partnerships between the private sector (corporations and SMEs), the public sector and the society to tackle shared water risks and to manage water equitably to meet competing demands. This evaluative assessment concept describes the generic approach of the assessment, the cycle for the assessment of partnerships, the country coordination and the programme.
The overall goal of the assessment is to provide evidence for taxpayers in the donor countries and for citizens in the partnership countries. It also aims to examine the relevance of the programme’s approach, its underlying assumptions, and the heterogeneity of stakeholders and their specific interests. Since the assessment is also formative feedback to GIZ and IWaSP stakeholders, it aims to guide the future implementation of the partnerships and the programme.
The assessment is guided by several generic principles: assessing for learning (formative assessment); assessment of learning (summative assessment); iteration; structuring complex problems; unblocking results; and conformity with other assessment criteria set out by the OECD the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and GIZ’s Capacity Works success factors (GTZ 2010).
These generic criteria are adapted to the three levels of the IWaSP structure. First, the assessment cycle for partnerships includes the validation of stakeholders (mapping), the analysis of secondary literature, face-to-face interviews and a process for feeding back the findings. Generic tools are provided to guide the assessment, such as a list of key documents and an interview guide. Partnerships will undergo a baseline, interim assessment and final assessment. As progress varies across individual IWaSP partnerships, the steps taken by each partnership to assess shared water risks, prioritise and agree interventions, are expected to differ slightly. In response to these differences the sequencing and content of the assessment may need to be adapted for the different partnerships.
Second, the country-level assessment considers issues such as the coordination of partnerships within a country, scoping strategies, and interaction between partnership and the programme. Information gathered during the partnership assessment feeds into the country-level assessment.
Third, the assessment cycle for the programme involves a document and monitoring plan analysis, reflection on the different perspectives of the programme staff, country staff and external stakeholders.
The final section is concerned with reporting. Several annexes are provided relating to the organisation and preparation of the assessment, including question guidelines and analysis procedures.
The interactions of changes in climate and biodiversity with societal actions, structures and processes are a priority topic within the international scientific debate – and thus, a relevant subject matter for BiKF’s work. This paper outlines a concept for transdisciplinary research within BiKF. It focuses on the analysis of social-ecological systems supporting society with biodiversity driven ecosystem services. Such research is considering different issues: defining sustainable societal adaptations to climate induced biodiversity changes; permitting adequate understanding of the social-ecological reproduction of ecosystem functions, including their conservation and restoration; analysing the societal values and socio-economic utilisation of ecosystem services. Gaining knowledge in these areas provides an improved basis for decision-making in biodiversity and resource management.
The anthropocene – the epoch of humankind – is currently a topic of great interest. What consequences does the idea of humanity as a geological force have for the undertaken path of sustainable development? What new questions are arising for sustainability science? Diagnosing contemporary society from an anthropocene perspective could change the relationship between natural and social sciences, as well as between society and science: science will be needed even more as a critical authority and must be organized to an even greater extent in a transdisciplinary manner. New forms of social participation in the process of producing scientifically legitimated knowledge are indispensable.∗
More than ten years ago the Dutch chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen coined the term “Anthropocene” to describe the period during which humans have begun to significantly influence biological, geological and atmospheric processes, thus becoming a relevant geological force on planet Earth (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000, Crutzen 2002). In the earth sciences the anthropocene represents nothing less than a transition to a new epoch and is therefore being discussed intensively. Until 2016 data have been collected by geologists from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to provide evidence that might help answer the question whether a turning point has been reached in the history of the Earth (Zalasiewicz et al. 2011). A decision will be made as to whether and when a new epoch in Earth history has begun.
The significance and consequences outside the geoscientific discourse of identifying an “epoch of humans” (Zalasiewicz 2013) has, so far, only been understood to a small extent. Yet this change of perspective is one of the most important in the last 100 hundred years, for it means society and nature have become so closely intertwined that they can no longer be studied independently of each other. Natural spheres and societal spheres have merged into one large system (Guillaume 2015, Becker und Jahn 2006). A well-founded acceptance of the concept of the anthropocene, however, has been lacking, especially where transitions to a sustainable development are being researched. It remains unclear whether the concept of the Anthropocene will lead to a new fundamental understanding of the relationships between nature and society and, if so, what opportunities this new understanding might open for shaping these relationships in a more sustainable manner. And lastly, and equally importantly, it is still unclear whether science’s role and responsibilities will change in the course of developing visions of the future. With this article we hope to stimulate further discussions of these issues.