Science–Policy Interfaces Related to Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: The Case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE

Markus Leibenath,Gerd Lintz,Markus Kurth

doi:10.3390/su12093701

Markus Leibenath, Gerd Lintz + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093701

Copy DOI

Abstract

Responding to the UN programme “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), TEEB-DE (2012–2018) was a science–policy interface (SPI) set up in Germany with the objective of mobilising scientific expertise for a better consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in political and corporate decision-making. The aim of this paper is to contribute to an assessment of TEEB-DE by analysing its objectives, structure, processes and outputs. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that takes credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE) as normative criteria for examining SPIs. Methodologically, the paper relies on a fine-grained analysis of published documents and interviews with key figures of TEEB-DE. The results allow for a preliminary assessment of TEEB-DE in regard to CRELE and illuminate how its conceptual foundation—namely the ecosystem services concept—was discussed in the public realm. We also consider a number of trade-offs which the coordinators of TEEB-DE had to negotiate. In conclusion, we identify some proposals for designing future SPIs in the domain of biodiversity and nature conservation in Germany such as paying greater attention to policy windows, broadening the thematic scope beyond economics and providing better opportunities for debate and contestation.

Highlights

In recent decades, there has been a proliferation of collaborative endeavours involving large numbers of researchers aimed at providing policymakers with scientific evidence on complex sustainability issues such as climate, land-use and biodiversity
The official overarching objective of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB)-DE was “to produce four topic-based reports presenting the economic case for nature conservation as a complement to ethical and ecological arguments” [28]
The main findings are that, on the one hand, TEEB-DE was highly successful in involving a large number of experts and stakeholders, in integrating different kinds of knowledge under the umbrella of its so-called broad economic approach, in attracting public attention and in producing an impressive set of reports and other outputs

Summary

Introduction

There has been a proliferation of collaborative endeavours involving large numbers of researchers aimed at providing policymakers with scientific evidence on complex sustainability issues such as climate, land-use and biodiversity. A great deal of experimentation is going on to try to resolve the complex challenges facing such co-operative organisations and projects at the science–policy interface (SPI) This has sparked discussions about the design and assessment of SPIs, for instance regarding the participating researchers who have to weigh personal neutrality against advocacy and adopt an appropriate role in this respect [1,2], find mechanisms to deal with uncertainties and divergent viewpoints [3,4] and present their findings as knowledge that can be understood and used by policymakers [5,6]. Such terminology has been adopted by conservationists and environmentalists from the late 1990s in the hope of exerting greater influence on decisions made by governments, businesses as well as private citizens

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion