I would like to offer three observations on the discussion over the last 2 days regarding "What is Biodiversity" and whether species are necessary or sufficient for assessing biodiversity.

First, what appeared initially to be a pointed debate or disagreement in which Alan and Ferdinando were "framing" the problem quite differently eventually led to greater understanding for all of us who were tuned in. This conversation is a good example of how people can talk past (or through) their "frame differences" to achieve greater understanding.

Second, Ben Delbaere reported on a constructive process in which agreement was reached on a preliminary answer to the "What is Biodiversity" question. The process he described sounds like a good model for how consensus can be forged on difficult issues. However, from a process design perspective, even with consensus-building processes like that one, attention also has to be paid to how others who didn't construct the consensus document can be "brought on board." In negotiations processes, this is called the "two-table" problem because those negotiators "at the table" face a second negotiation with their constituents back home. Ben mentioned that the political decision about indicators is now being brought back to research experts to show how the indicators can be "underpinned with data." I am wondering if there is a way that other interested researchers can provide input to that process or at least learn about the results it produces?

Ben can you shed any more light on these issues? The answers seem to be very germane to our topic here. Are there any recommendations that we might want to carry forward from this e-conference about how interested researchers can contribute to those ongoing discussions?

Finally, I would like to share some brief reflections from some successful consensus-building processes in the US. We have had some success with facilitated policy dialogues (sponsored by organizations like the Keystone Center and the Conservation Foundation who serve as third party conveners). These dialogues typically seat 25-30 stakeholders who (with the help of a skilled facilitator) deliberate about future policy issues extensively over several months with the objective of reaching some consensus recommendations. Because these dialogues are typically held at the national level, if consensus recommendations are reached, these are presented to the Congress, to relevant Federal Agencies, NGOs etc. The Keystone Center in Keystone, CO has hosted several of these policy dialogues over the years as have other third party organizations.

A second model is what we call "regulatory negotiations." These are more targeted discussions around a potential regulation that a governmental agency wishes to promulgate. Again, representatives of the relevant stakeholders are convened (by the agency) to formulate a draft regulation. If the group reaches consensus, the regulation is promulgated for review and comment. Technical experts are also often brought in to inform these discussions. The US Environmental Protection Agency has had the most success with this form of policy making.

While these kinds of processes may not solve the problems noted earlier in the e-conference about the long-time horizons needed for collecting new research data to answer policy-makers' queries, they do offer promising models for improving the science-policy interface. Even if consensus cannot be reached, participants report that greater understanding of each other's perspectives results from these processes.

Have comparable processes been used for generating biodiversity policy at the country or EU levels in Europe and, if so, with what degree of success? If not, might such processes be useful for enhancing science-policy interaction w/r/t biodiversity?