Liisa Varumo

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy will soon come to an end and may not have been as successful as envisioned. In the current context of the global biodiversity crisis, the European Commission, the research community, and broader society cannot risk another, likely ineffective, attempt by the EU to halt biodiversity loss after 2020. Through the development of the EU post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the scientific community of the ALTER-Net and EKLIPSE networks saw a unique opportunity to make a difference for biodiversity in Europe by better involving scientists, policy makers, and society. We developed an innovative, transparent, and collaborative process—called the multiphased, iterative, and consultative elicitation of scientific expertise (MICESE) method. This process allowed us to produce a set of 12 key messages developed by scientists for the EU to prioritize in the development of the new post 2020 biodiversity strategy. These key messages were structured according to their systemic value, scale, and nature. We provide insights and analyses of the new MICESE method before reflecting on how to improve the future involvement of scientists in science–policy interfaces.

The current European Union biodiversity strategy is failing to reach its targets aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020, and eyes are already set at the post-2020 strategy. The European Commission is encouraging the active role of citizens in achieving policy objectives in the coming years. In this paper, we explore ways citizens discuss their priorities regarding biodiversity and abilities to influence environmental problems at individual, collective and policy levels. We also examine how the citizen discussions resonate with scientific environmental priorities and how researchers see the role of citizens in policy processes and harmonising citizen and scientific knowledge. To pursue the citizen voices, an expert working group acting as knowledge brokers, facilitated a series of citizen workshops in seven European locations and a reflective researcher workshop in Belgium. Based on the results, participants identified many concrete and value-related measures to stop environmental degradation. The environmental priorities differed between citizens and scientists, but not irreconcilably; rather, they complemented one another. Both groups stressed environmentally minded attitudes in individuals and policy. Displaying diversity of perspectives was regarded as positive and adding legitimacy. Improving methods for balanced encounters among science and society is central for participation to become more than rhetoric in the EU.