Co-creation at the Science-Policy Interface: Adapting IPBES Assessments to national needs

Since 2012, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has successfully produced global and multilateral negotiated assessments. These reports are milestones for biodiversity action and provide a scientific foundation for environmental governance and the necessary transformative change. However, translating and incorporating global IPBES recommendations into national policies remains a major challenge, since there is a persistent gap between global objectives and national implementation. National implementation depends on political, scientific, and cultural parameters, including traditions of how scientific knowledge is used to advise and inform decision-making. Therefore, to make IPBES assessments actionable on a national level, they must be interpreted within national realities and institutional settings which require dedicated processes, practices, and interfaces between science and policy. Austria provides a unique example, where IPBES assessments are not only available German (translated by the German IPBES coordination office), but are also systematically adapted and applied to the ecological, political, legal and societal needs and conditions at the national level.  

To ensure the science-policy relevance of the documents for the Austrian case and to provide credible, legitimate and salient knowledge, the process involves a broad network from various disciplines depending on the topic of the assessment, who work in thematic working groups to synthesize national data and expertise. These experts range from the fields of biodiversity, landscape design and nature conservation, but also include scientists from the social sciences and humanities like economics, political science, and law.  Furthermore, a review process has been established, which includes other experts and ministry staff, responsible for environmental issues, especially from the Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management (BMLUK).  

Based on two examples – the Nexus and the Transformative Change Assessment – we will illustrate the process of translating global IPBES assessments for a national context, highlighting methodological innovations and lessons learned. This can inform other countries seeking to bridge the gap between global biodiversity knowledge and the national level with the goal of strengthening the science–policy interface and fostering trust through knowledge co‑creation.