1. Experiencing the science-policy interface in BECC research BECC Action Group: “Monitoring Forests and the Effects of Forest Governance in a Changing Climate” Fariborz Zelli

2. Monitoring Forests & Forest Governance Members: –Wille Dubber, Lars Eklundh, Fredrik Lagergren (all phys. geo.), –Tobias Nielsen (pol.) Anna Nordén (econ.), Fari Zelli (pol.) Goals: –Mapping diversity of natural and social monitoring approaches –Analyzing natural and social Implications of these approaches Activities: –Regular meetings (about once a month, 2012-2013) –International expert workshop on 7 May 2013 in Lund –Side-event at UN climate conference on 9 Dec 2014 in Lima –Joint draft journal article on ‚navigating the jungle‘ (to be submitted in early 2015) –BECC policy brief (2015)

3. What Scientific results/knowledge? Choice of approaches (remote sensing, field inventories and modelling) –yields significant differences in carbon monitoring results; –depends on political ideologies of different institutions and actors (World Bank, national governments, investors); –depends on economic motivations such as capacity gaps, implementation mechanisms, uncertainty and trust; –makes big difference for legitimacy, social inclusion and distributive justice; –creates coordination issues within and across policy levels. Findings may be of different importance for different types of stakeholders –Investors: economic efficiency and natural / physical effectiveness –Forest users and vulnerable groups: legitimacy, justice –Policy-makers: physical effectiveness, coordination

4. Who were the stakeholders and how were they involved? Who? –Forest researchers –Policy-makers –Forest users When? –Agenda-setting of our action group –Expert workshop in May 2013 –UN side event in Dec 2014 –Academic conferences 2012-14 –Research fellowships 2012-14

5. Communication What worked? –We clicked as a group! –not only complimentary, but integrative cooperation: researchers write their products together and build on each other’s work; –Getting out of our comfort zone / learning about our different disciplinary approaches; –We developed a network with other institutions and policymakers (Oxford University, FOCALI, SLU). What did not work? –Delays in the writing of products What did you learn? –Successful interdisciplinary research needs Common understanding & goals Mutual respect Flexibility Right level of ambition Time!

6. Concluding remarks Opportunities in the science/policy interface –Early involvement in agenda-setting; –Diversity of addressees; –Holistic perspective of interdisciplinary team can be appealing to different sides. Challenges in science/policy interface –Economization / quantification of results; –Short attention spans & timeframes; –Selective perception.