Governing Climate–Biodiversity Knowledge: Evidence from a Multi-Country Social Network Analysis of National Science–Policy Interfaces

Transnational science–policy initiatives such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are increasingly positioned as strategic partnerships for governing grand environmental challenges. Yet how knowledge generated through these global assessments is structured, mediated, and circulated within national policy systems remains poorly understood. This paper examines the governance of climate–biodiversity knowledge at the national level, focusing on who provides information, who receives it, and through which institutional and communication channels. Drawing on survey data from seven cases (Armenia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Spain, Colombia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo), the study applies directed social network analysis to map information flows across public authorities, scientific institutions, civil society organizations, intermediaries, and international bodies. Rather than assuming reciprocal exchange, the analysis distinguishes between patterns of knowledge provision and receiving, enabling comparison across governance contexts. The results reveal highly institutionalized but uneven knowledge systems in which ministries, agencies, and research organizations dominate visibility, while feedback mechanisms, cross-sectoral brokerage, and subnational integration appear limited in our sample. Respondents also point to additional constraints, including the perceived relevance of global assessments, limited guidance for localized problems, and barriers to accessibility that may further shape integration. Among the European cases, Finland and Spain exhibit more distributed networks with more active intermediary roles; Germany appears more centralized with a more pronounced periphery; and Hungary shows a hybrid core with uneven brokerage. Scientific institutions and civil society actors often act as de facto intermediaries, whereas private sector and local governance actors are structurally peripheral. By treating science–policy interfaces as knowledge governance systems rather than linear uptake pathways, the paper contributes to debates on transnational strategic partnerships and climate–biodiversity governance. It demonstrates how national institutional configurations condition the circulation and use of scientific knowledge, highlighting persistent asymmetries between knowledge production, circulation, and use. The findings highlight the need to move beyond assumptions of bidirectional exchange and to strengthen organizational incentives, intermediary capacities, and feedback channels within national science–policy architectures.