Collective scientific assessment as a relevant tool to inform public debate and policymaking: an illustration about the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Several sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without implementing a new generation of environmental measures to better preserve or restore biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, understanding and addressing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation is a challenging problem that is not solvable without integrating the best and latest science. It is crucial to enhance the legibility of this knowledge for decision-makers and policymakers following good-practice standards of scientific assessment. This is the main objective of collective scientific assessments (CSAs), as carried out by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE) since the early 2000s following a documented procedure to inform public policy and foster public debate on complex interdisciplinary issues. This article describes the main steps of the CSA procedure designed by INRAE's Directorate for Collective Scientific Assessment, Foresight and Advanced Studies, from formulation of the initial question asked by public or para-public bodies (typically ministry divisions or environmental agencies) to wider dissemination of the results and conclusions. This process description is then illustrated through the example of a CSA recently commissioned by three French Ministries (for Ecology, for Research, and for Agriculture) regarding (i) contamination of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems by plant protection products (PPPs); (ii) the resulting effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (iii) possible prevention and mitigation strategies. The capacity of this kind of CSA to inform public debate and policymaking is then exemplified through a description of the main outcomes generated by the latest CSA dealing with the adverse effects of PPPs. We also provide a short overview of some key expectations from the current CSA, with a focus on the recent development of the ecosystem service approach in ecological risk assessments of PPPs in the European Union. This illustration demonstrates that CSAs, which are applicable to a wide variety of complex interdisciplinary questions that are not limited to environmental issues, are a relevant tool to inform public debate and policymaking.

What is socio-ecological research delivering? A literature survey across 25 international LTSER platforms.

With an overarching goal of addressing global and regional sustainability challenges, Long Term Socio-Ecological Research Platforms (LTSER) aim to conduct place-based research, to collect and synthesize both environmental and socio-economic data, and to involve a broader stakeholder pool to set the research agenda. To date there have been few studies examining the output from LTSER platforms. In this study we enquire if the socio-ecological research from 25 self-selected LTSER platforms of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network has produced research products which fulfil the aims and ambitions of the paradigm shift from ecological to socio-ecological research envisaged at the turn of the century. In total we assessed 4983 publically available publications, of which 1112 were deemed relevant to the socio-ecological objectives of the platform. A series of 22 questions were scored for each publication, assessing relevance of responses in terms of the disciplinary focus of research, consideration of human health and well-being, degree of stakeholder engagement, and other relevant variables. The results reflected the diverse origins of the individual platforms and revealed a wide range in foci, temporal periods and quantity of output from participating platforms, supporting the premise that there is a growing trend in socio-ecological research at long-term monitoring platforms. Our review highlights the challenges of realizing the top-down goal to harmonize international network activities and objectives and the need for bottom-up, self-definition for research platforms. This provides support for increasing the consistency of LTSER research while preserving the diversity of regional experiences.