Science-policy interfaces coping with the complexity of environmental sustainability: Exploring a network of institutional collaboration.

Environmental crises like climate change, biodiversity loss, and desertification are becoming increasingly complex, transcending sectors, communities and borders. Many of these inter-linked and multifaceted problems continue to be addressed in silos, leading to trade-offs among solutions. A fragmented international governance system leading to policy incoherence is further exacerbating the impacts of these problems, hampering progress on achieving sustainable development by 2030. When developing an integrated, evidence-based response, policymakers often refer to expertise for advice, typically provided by global organizations facilitating the science-policy interface (SPI). While there is substantive literature recently discussing how the interfaces can be more effective through the adoption of co-production models, there is limited data available on the recent rise of collaborative initiatives among many SPIs as a complementary approach to coping with complex problems. In this study, I examine how global SPIs cope with the complexity of problems related to environmental sustainability through institutional collaborations. I map the network of global SPIs, identify the level (forms) of collaboration among SPIs, and the perceived performance, benefits, barriers, and factors of institutional collaboration for science-policy interfaces to effectively address complex, inter-linked problems. To map the network, I applied social network analysis, using Gephi, on data collected from 53 semi-structured interviews, 11 survey responses (27.5% response rate), and third party archives. The analysis revealed that global SPIs related to environmental sustainability interact in a dense, internal network. Additionally, a few disconnected peripheral organizations were identified, suggesting limited and sporadic interactions with SPIs. Most of the collaborations are relatively clustered within their organization types and there is an average of 7 connections per organization. There was a primarily high level of collaboration (20+ connections) indicating regular initiatives, for example, writing joint reports, co-organizing events, and sharing resources. Using thematic content analysis to assess the perceptions of stakeholders, I found a perceived increase of collaboration among SPIs over time. This collaboration occurred in a mostly irregular or informal manner and resulted in multiple benefits such as the inclusion of diverse perspectives, broad dissemination of concepts, coherence of processes, and a reduction in duplication of efforts. Stakeholders cited different factors that encouraged collaboration with other SPIs, including leadership by key individuals, stipulations in the mandate, and the impact of the SPI. However, the barriers mentioned by stakeholders, such as, the lack of capacity in SPIs and the enforcement of strict mandates by policymakers, restricted closer and more frequent collaborative initiatives to further communicate and cope with complex knowledge on these crises, despite the immense perceived value among stakeholders of institutional collaborations. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is an extensive, growing network of SPIs collaborating, indicating a transformation from liner to more collaborative co-production models among global SPIs. Whether formal or informal, irregular or regular, all the different activities of collaboration among SPIs are valuable and important, considering the extremely limited resources available. Crucially, a preferred level of collaboration can only be achieved depending on the unique context i.e., demands from parties and stipulations in the mandate.