91̽��

We’re happy to have you as the chair of the GGBC steering group, Marie. We see this as an opportunity to better incorporate aspects of biodiversity work beyond the natural sciences within the GGBC. What is your vision regarding this?

Thanks, I am happy to intensify my engagement in GGBC! GGBC provides a unique interface between science and partners working with knowledge production and knowledge transfer by other means. In my vision, GGBC, with a broader range of expertise and also increased interaction between its partners and members, will significantly contribute to enhancing biodiversity in West Sweden and elsewhere in the world. Following the GGBC's mission statement Biodiversity awareness through research and outreach, there is great potential to bring in more partners and members with solid scientific knowledge on human perceptions, norms and behaviours and the logics of business as well as, for example, welfare aspects associated with biological diversity, legal, economic and communicative instruments and spatial planning. 

If you could dream wildly, what would you like to see the GGBC achieve in the next three years ?

Not sure about my capability to be wild, but I would like to see the following:

• Fruitful win-win interactions between researchers and non-academic partners in GGBC, leading to joint activities, including increased research that provides important knowledge and improved outreach
• The establishment of new groups/platforms to enhance knowledge generation, as well as interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary interactions. I could think of the following: one on Business and biodiversity – building on the network that has already started at the School of Business, Economics and Law; one on Social sciences and Humanities to strengthen those perspectives on biodiversity; and one on Interdisciplinarity, to stimulate interactions and overcoming the disciplinary hurdles for addressing the complex problems.
• Increased and improved strategic interactions between GGBCs outreach-focused partner organisations 

Your role as Co-chair of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel of Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has recently ended. What are some of the most important lessons you take with you from this experience?

The most important lesson I bring with me from IPBES is the global perspective in a broad sense. It has meant profound insights into the immensely different social and ecological conditions and contexts all over the world and a humbleness (I would like to think) that keeps me from taking for granted how and why people and businesses in different places and regions interact with the rest of nature. It has, however, also given me insights into how the world is interlinked. The global challenges are indeed integrated and indivisible as stated in Agenda 2030, which is why the loss of biodiversity must not be seen or treated as a stand-alone problem. The IPBES global report shows that the loss of biodiversity and human impacts on ecosystem functions has made the world more unequal over the last 50 years. The great expansion since 1970 in the production of food, feed, fibre and bioenergy, has meant increasing benefits to those that are already economically privileged, while the cost has been largely paid by poor and marginalised people in terms of degraded living environments, degraded ecosystems and the loss of species richness.

Secondly, I have learnt the need to acknowledge plural epistemologies and also some skills on how to work towards that. I would like to think that those skills will prove useful in my engagement with GGBC. It is a recognition that we need to seek common ground to address the many ‘wicked problems’ related to biodiversity loss. This implies an openness to different knowledge approaches, an increased awareness about how disciplines and knowledge holders far from ones own work and contribute to addressing the loss of biodiversity and how to change the negative trends. It has been quite visible in IPBES that there is a special need to better understand and incorporate contributions from social sciences and humanities. There is much of ‘social science light’, done by natural science experts with good intentions that realise the need for including human dimensions, but not recognising all that has been done in social sciences and humanities already, nor how to build on previous research and established knowledge in those scientific strands.

Marie Stenseke, Professor in Human Geography at the Department of Economy and Society. Can you tell us a bit about some biodiversity research that is going on in your department? 

The department hosts three disciplines, but we have a joint research group, Landscape and Planning, with researchers broadly concerned with the interactions between human activities and the environment, seen from a landscape perspective. Per Hallén, Economic history, is doing research on the green areas 91̽��, their history and use. Per is also studying the role of fish and fishery in the human society and how that has developed over time. Several of us are human geographers, and at present we are working in projects concerned with: parks and green areas, blue-green infrastructure and nature’s contributions to people in cities (Mattias Sandberg, Shelley Kotze); Sustainable reacreational use of land and water in Mistra Sport&Outdoors (Andreas Skriver Hansen, Marie Stenseke, Oskar Abrahamsson); integrated framework for assessing the consequences of human activities for water quality and biodiversity, EU-funded (Andreas Skriver Hansen, Marie Stenseke). Over the years, we have also had a number of projects on semi-natural pastures, landscape management, marine spatial planning, children and nature). At the same time as we work with mainly qualitative methods, of our research is interdisciplinary and the projects carried out together with scholars in natural sciences.

Your department is the first one from outside of the Faculty of 91̽�� at GU to join the GGBC. You are a huge proponent of the benefits of working in an interdisciplinary way.  What do you see as the biggest potential benefit of bringing together the natural sciences with the humanities and social sciences?

Since the contemporary global challenges are complex and interrelated, interdisciplinary cooperations are fundamental for the academia in order to provide knowledge about sustainable ways forward. We need to pair knowledge on the character and magnitude of environmental problems, status and trends with knowledge of socioeconomic drivers, governance, trade, business, how various groups are affected, justice, behaviour, values, norms etc. to come up with robust solutions. This does not mean that all research has to be interdisciplinary. It is crucially important to recognize and make transparent the difficulties with interdisciplinary work that has to be handled. A couple of key issues are lack of understanding of the differences between various scientific strands and a lack of insights in what research is ongoing in other faculties. Bringing together scholars from different disciplines, can cure these deficits and build stronger sustainability research together more thoroughly based on previous research.

You are also the Co-chair, Multidisciplinary Expert Panel of Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES). How has your time within IPBES influenced your own approach to biodiversity research? 

My time in IPBES has certainly increased my interest in how to improve interdisciplinary work in biodiversity research. The issues and challenges I have encountered on this global arena are very similar to the ones I had previously experienced in a more narrow Swedish context. I have developed my insights and strengthened my arguments when it comes to why, when and how to include competencies from social science and humanities in biodiversity research, naturally recognising that scholars from social science and humanities, like myself, also fit to the label ‘biodiversity researchers’.

Welcome to the GGBC steering group, Marina. Could you tell us a bit about your background and your role as debuty director of the Centre for Sea and Society?  
Thank you! For many years I worked in evolutionary genomics. Then a few years back I changed the focus to developing environmental DNA tools for monitoring biodiversity, i.e. much more applied research. It involves many interactions outside academia, which is very stimulating and helps me to look at my research from another angle. My role in the Centre for Sean and Society is, together with the director Per Knutsson, to strengthen the collaboration across the disciplines (that is why we are two, representing natural and social sciences) and to further develop the marine research at GU. Personally, I want to inspire more natural science researchers to look ”outside the box” and try collaboration across the disciplines.  

What are some of the major projects focusing on biodiversity at the Centre for Sea and Society? 
All our members’ research is about the sea and therefore is related to marine biodiversity but from different perspectives. For example, some projects focus on genetic diversity and the ecological role of commercial fish species, while others look at cultural, economic and legal aspects of fishing industries. I’d like to highlight two directions developing within the Centre for Sea and Society: food from the sea and farming, as well as ocean literacy. Both address urgent societal problems in an integrated and innovative way.  

The Centre for Sea and Society has done an excellent job of bringing together very different disciplines around your core foci. Are there any particular actions that you feel the centre has taken that have really brought people from different areas together to tackle new research questions? 
I believe that inter-disciplinary collaborations develop naturally when we set to work together on a common clearly defined task. A good example is our cross-disciplinary Master's program where we have teachers from five faculties. Another example is our work on important policy documents related to the ocean, or being involved with fun outreach public activities! We learn to understand each other's way of thinking and conducting research as well as develop a cross-disciplinary language, which later leads to new innovative research projects. 

Åsa, could you tell us a bit about your background and your role as the head of the Department of Biology and Environmental 91̽��s, GGBC’s host department?  

My background is in biology and environmental sciences. My research focus has been on ecotoxicology, i.e. how toxic chemicals affect organisms. My research has mainly been on microbial communities and how biodiversity can be affected by e.g. antifouling agents, pharmaceuticals and mixtures thereof. After finishing my PhD and some postdoc time, I have now worked as principal research engineer for 10 years. The position has included many different tasks around research, teaching and outreach – the three important responsibilities we have at the University. For the last six years, I have served as coordinator of the FRAM centre, the Centre for Future Chemical Risk Assessment and Management Strategies at the University 91̽��. 

I started as head of BioEnv on April 1^st 2022 and it is indeed a challenging and rewarding task. I learn new things every day and try to live up to expectations that come with the assignment. Being part of GGBCs steering group is indeed a interesting part of the new job.

You have been a part of another important centre hosted at BioEnv for many year: FRAM. It is no secret that chemicals in the environment affect biodiversity. Can you tell us about some of the initiatives that researchers at BioEnv and FRAM are working on to better understand how chemicals affect our planet? 

Several ongoing projects focus on different types of chemicals (pharmaceuticals, pesticides, biocides, industrial chemicals and more) and particles (both smaller ones, such as nanoparticles, and larger ones, such as microplastics). It sheds light on all biological levels; genes, cell, individuals, populations, communities and ecosystems, and different environments, mainly aquatic. It focuses not only on potential effects of exposure to a single compound and/or mixtures but includes also monitoring studies in the field to follow trends of effects due to pollutants in the environment. How organisms could be used for bioremediation is also a pressing research question. Another important part of the ongoing research at BioEnv and FRAM is within chemical risk assessment were we evaluate chemical risks (in particular associated with chemical mixtures) to enable a safe and sustainable use of chemicals.

At FRAM we work in different parts of the world to study the effects in different types of ecosystems but also different chemical management systems. Chemicals do not see borders and hence there is a need for global action. FRAM has been active in the efforts to establish an International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) similar to IPCC. The aim is to increase global awareness of the chemical cocktail humans and the environment are exposed to and to fill critical gaps in the communication between science, policy and the public. 

How does the department benefit from being a host institution to centres such as FRAM and GGBC? What role do you see that the centres play in connecting the department with the rest of the university and society at large?

As a department, we benefit from the funding brought in by the centres, and with more funding more important research can be done. Importantly, the activities around the centres are not only research but a lot more. All the regular seminars, workshops, courses, and different events that the centres organise are something both departmental colleagues and our students benefit a lot from. It makes the department an interesting workplace for us and others.

The centres at the University play an important role in connecting faculties, departments, other organisations and society. They bring together different types of expertise and contribute to a deeper understanding of ourselves and our planet. They accelerate visions and solutions for sustainable development. I cannot see that any part alone can bring all the answers, so the centres provide the necessary links or bridges to other research environments and society at large.

Welcome to the GGBC steering group Mattias and congratulations on your new role at ��ä���ٰ�ܲ��ٲ��پ��ڳٱ�������. You’re not new to the GGBC though! Could you tell us more about your career path and this new assignment?

It's true that I'm not completely new to this. I have been an active member of GGBC both when I was a doctoral student at GU and in my position as a conservation biologist at the Gothenburg Museum of Natural History. In the past, I have also worked as a nature conservation consultant with a focus on the protection and management of western Swedish nature areas. In my new position as head of nature conservation at ��ä���ٰ�ܲ��ٲ��پ��ڳٱ�������, I will have overall responsibility for the nature conservation work in the nature reserves that we manage.

With all your applied biodiversity work experience here on the West Coast of Sweden, are there any specific new directions you would like to explore with ��ä���ٰ�ܲ��ٲ��پ��ڳٱ�������?

We will work more with large-scale nature conservation measures such as burning of forest for conservation and restoration of wetlands. Fire is a natural element in the forest landscape and there are many species that either benefit or are directly dependent on the forest burning. Here we will experience positive landscape effects for biological diversity, which will be very exciting to follow up.

How does partnership in GGBC help ��ä���ٰ�ܲ��ٲ��پ��ڳٱ������� strengthen its work towards its mission?

Our membership in GGBC enables us to be close to the research. The circumstances are changing ever faster for biological diversity and it is important that we have up-to-date and relevant knowledge when carrying out our nature conservation measures.

Hi Viktor!
You have a PhD degree in Business Administration and a research background in banking and finance. For the past few years, you have been working in the field of sustainable finance and are also part of the Mistra project BIOPATH. 

How do you think the partnership with GGBC will help the Department of Business Administration strengthen its work?

It is very difficult to do relevant research in the cross-section between business and biodiversity without a sound rooting in the physical ecology that we are studying. Researchers in economics and business administration generally have a rather limited understanding of the processes and physical characteristics of nature and we are therefore highly dependent on getting that input from others. We believe that GGBC is an excellent forum for us to meet and interact with biologists and ecologists that can soundproof our ideas and help us develop relevant proposals for research and practice with the goal to prevent further depilation on biodiversity. We also view GGBC as an excellent partner for co-organization of events and other activities in this area.

What new perspectives do you expect you and your department will bring to the GGBC?

We will bring the business-perspective. Many businesses are increasingly understanding that they are highly dependent and that they do in fact have an impact on nature. However, few business-leaders understand how to translate this awareness into something actionable and those that do are limited in their understanding of how to utilize the insights from natural sciences in a business context. So hopefully we can work together in making biodiversity a factor in business decisions. If we can successfully mobilize businesses we can create further momentum towards reducing biodiversity loss.