SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:

Proposes an eu-wide mechanism for science-policy interface in biodiversity and ecosystem services policy.

MERITS:

Cool if successful.

CRITIQUE:

Very difficult to assess implementability based on abstract. Is the wealth of critical STS studies included in the development of "a mechanism" for science-policy interfacing? It's a tall order, given the challenges identified in that vast literature...

DISCUSSION:

Potentially important.

- - -
INTRO:

The abstract refers to the description of the EKLIPSE project. EKLIPSE aims to build a mechanism to provide the best available evidence on biodiversity and ecosystem services to make decisions and to inform society in the EU. This mechanism refers to a platform based on mutual understanding and engagement with policy and society. The results of the project will contribute to bridging science, policy and society in the debate of sustainability. 

MERITS:

Regarding the abstract positively the basic concept behind the project and presentation is clearly stated.

CRITIQUE:

Although your abstract is clear, to better understand the abstract and your presentation it would be beneficial to have further details on exactly what the support mechanism is, as well as a more detailed account of the methodologies used to build the mechanism. In addition to this, examples of the challenges faced at the science-policy-society would be welcome.

DISCUSSION:

EKLIPSE addresses one of the most interesting and challenging topics for global scientific and policy communities: how to improve decision maker's use of scientific information across their different scales to make better conservation decisions. In the Anthropocene age, these types of innovative research projects are urgently needed to improve the scientific knowledge impact on policy and society to progress towards a sustainable future from a collective perspective. EKLIPSE is an excellent avenue for finding solutions to narrow the existing gap between science, policy, and society in the EU.