The role of innovative global institutions in linking knowledge and action

Rangeland stewardship envisioned through a planetary lens

Rangelands comprise approximately 50% of ecologically intact landscapes available to mitigate biodiversity loss and to provide natural climate solutions. However, their planetary value is often overshadowed by local priorities on select provisioning services. A transformative stewardship strategy will require an inversion of priorities placed on ecosystem service categories supplied by rangelands.

Contradictory or complementary? Stakeholders' perceptions of a circular economy for single-use plastics

Single-use plastics (SUPs) represent one of the largest and rapidly growing segments of the plastics industry. The strategies to mitigate plastic hazards has become more difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic; SUPs have gained positive health-related attributes among consumers and remain the preferred packaging material. One of the most promising strategies to tackle the SUPs problem is a worldwide transition towards a circular economy (CE) for plastics. Here, we propose the reconceptualization of a CE for SUPs based on an analysis of the perceptions of stakeholders and the public from social, psychological, and communication-related perspectives. Our study utilized focus groups with primary and secondary stakeholders - differing in their power regarding SUP CE governance - and general consumers to identify their perceptions regarding challenges to and solutions for a CE for SUPs, thereby unveiling the potential for trustworthy knowledge co-creation. Our findings demonstrate that trustworthy knowledge-in-action is the primary driver for achieving sustainability transitions across stakeholders and suggest a significant discrepancy between young consumers and producers. Furthermore, we argue that exploring diversified approaches to knowledge co-creation necessitates various disciplinary entry points, ranging from different perspectives (challenges vs. solutions, individual vs. systemic levels, diversity in agenda-setting) to innovative attempts to understand knowledge production behaviour, especially for policymakers. Perceiving scientists as science communicators who can effectively inform involved stakeholders and general consumers and engage them in SUP crisis mitigation actions, the results of our study (jointly created manifest followed by a series of posters) are subject to further research and proposals for policy decisions.

Transforming Research and Innovation for Sustainable Food Systems—A Coupled-Systems Perspective

Current research and innovation (R&I) systems are not equipped to fully serve as catalysts for the urgently needed transformation of food systems. Though research on food systems transformation (first order: ‘what?’) and transformative research (second order: ‘how to’) are rapidly gaining traction in academic and policy environments, current efforts fail to explicitly recognize the systemic nature of the challenges associated with performing transformative second-order research. To recognize these manifold and interlinked challenges embedded in R&I systems, there is a need for a coupled-systems perspective. Transformations are needed in food systems as well as R&I systems (‘how to do the “how to”’). We set out to conceptualize an approach that aims to trigger double transformations by nurturing innovations at the boundaries of R&I systems and food systems that act upon systemic leverage points, so that their multisystem interactions can better support food system transformations. We exemplify this coupled-systems approach by introducing the FIT4FOOD2030 project with its 25 living labs as a promising multilevel boundary innovation at the cross-section of R&I and food systems. We illustrate how this approach paves the way for double systems transformations, and therefore for an R&I system that is fit for future-proofing food systems.

The role of the Technical Review Panel of the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria: an analysis of grant recommendations

The independent Technical Review Panel (TRP) of the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a unique mechanism to review funding proposals and to provide recommendations on their funding. Its functioning and performance have received little attention in the scientific literature. We aimed to identify predictors for TRP recommendations, whether these were in line with the Global Fund's ambition to give priority to countries most in need, and whether they correlated with grant performance. We combined data on proposals and applications under the Rolling Continuation Channel, TRP recommendations and grant implementation during the rounds-based mechanism (2002-2010) with country characteristics. Ordered logistic and OLS regressions were used to identify predictors for per-capita funding requests, TRP recommendations, Global Fund funding and grant performance ratings. We tested for financial suppression of large funding proposals and whether fragile or English-speaking countries performed differently from other countries. We found that funding requests and TRP recommendations were consistent with disease burden, but independent of other country characteristics. Countries with larger populations requested less funding per capita, but there is no evidence of financial suppression by the TRP. Proposals from fragile countries were as likely to be recommended as proposals from other countries, and resulting grants performed equally well except for lower performance of HIV/AIDS grants. English-speaking countries obtained more funding for TB and malaria than other countries. In conclusion, the independent TRP acted in line with the guiding principles of the Global Fund to direct funding to countries most in need without ex ante country allocation. The Global Fund appears to have promoted learning on how to design and implement large-scale programs in fragile and non-fragile countries. Other pooled financing mechanisms may consider TRP operating principles to generate high-quality demand, to promote learning and to direct resources to countries most in need.

Knowledge diffusion within a large conservation organization and beyond

The spread and uptake of new ideas (diffusion of innovations) is critical for organizations to adapt over time, but there is little evidence of how this happens within organizations and to their broader community. To address this, we analyzed how individuals accessed information about a recent science innovation at a large, international, biodiversity conservation non-profit–The Nature Conservancy–and then traced the flow of how this information was shared within the organization and externally, drawing on an exceptionally data-rich environment. We used surveys and tracking of individual internet activity to understand mechanisms for early-stage diffusion (knowledge seeking and sharing) following the integration of social science and evidence principles into the institutional planning framework: Conservation by Design (CbD 2.0). Communications sent to all employees effectively catalyzed 56.4% to exhibit knowledge seeking behavior, measured by individual downloads from and visits to a restricted-access site. Individuals who self-reported through a survey that they shared information about CbD 2.0 internally were more likely to have both received and sought out information about the framework. Such individuals tended to hold positions within a higher job grade, were more likely to train others on CbD as part of their job, and to enroll in other online professional development offerings. Communication strategies targeting external audiences did not appear to influence information seeking behavior. Staff who engaged in internal knowledge sharing and adopting “evidence” practices from CbD 2.0 were more likely to have shared the document externally. We found a negative correlation with external sharing behavior and in-person trainings. Our findings suggest repeated, direct email communications aimed at wide audiences can effectively promote diffusion of new ideas. We also found a wide range of employee characteristics and circumstances to be associated with knowledge diffusion behavior (at both an organizational and individual level).

The Global Fund's paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique

Background

The Global Fund is one of the largest actors in global health. In 2015 the Global Fund was credited with disbursing close to 10 % of all development assistance for health. In 2011 it began a reform process in response to internal reviews following allegations of recipients’ misuse of funds. Reforms have focused on grant application processes thus far while the core structures and paradigm have remained intact. We report results of discussions with key stakeholders on the Global Fund, its paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique.

Methods

We conducted 38 semi-structured in-depth interviews in Maputo, Mozambique and members of the Global Fund Board and Secretariat in Switzerland. In-country stakeholders were representatives from Global Fund country structures (eg. Principle Recipient), the Ministry of Health, health or development attachés bilateral and multilateral agencies, consultants, and the NGO coordinating body. Thematic coding revealed concerns about the combination of weak country oversight with stringent and cumbersome requirements for monitoring and evaluation linked to performance-based financing.

Results

Analysis revealed that despite the changes associated with the New Funding Model, respondents in both Maputo and Geneva firmly believe challenges remain in Global Fund’s structure and paradigm. The lack of a country office has many negative downstream effects including reliance on in-country partners and ineffective coordination. Due to weak managerial and absorptive capacity, more oversight is required than is afforded by country team visits. In-country partners provide much needed support for Global Fund recipients, but roles, responsibilities, and accountability must be clearly defined for a successful long-term partnership. Furthermore, decision-makers in Geneva recognize in-country coordination as vital to successful implementation, and partners welcome increased Global Fund engagement.

Conclusions

To date, there are no institutional requirements for formalized coordination, and the Global Fund has no consistent representation in Mozambique’s in-country coordination groups. The Global Fund should adapt grant implementation and monitoring procedures to the specific local realities that would be illuminated by more formalized coordination.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-017-0308-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory

Given that research on sustainable development usually relates to real-world challenges, it requires researchers to align scientific knowledge production with concrete societal problem situations. To empirically explore how researchers frame scientific contributions when designing and planning projects, we conducted a qualitative study on land use-related projects based on the methodology of grounded theory. We identified major influence factors and various types of research design. Among the factors that influence project framing, scientific considerations were found to be more important than expected. Core characteristics of project framings concerned (a) type of scientific contributions envisaged; (b) real-world sustainability challenges addressed, and (c) researchers' conceptions of how knowledge would reach its addressees. Three different types of project framing were found, suggesting that framing strongly depends on (the researchers' perception of) how well a real-world problem situation is understood scientifically and how strongly are societal actors aware of the problem and act upon it. The spectrum of how researchers planned that knowledge would reach its addressees comprised communicating results to interactive conceptions allowing for mutual learning throughout the research process. The typology reveals a variety of useful and promising project framings for sustainable development research. The typology may serve to reconcile conceptual ideals and expectations with researchers' realities.