Conclusion

Far from being a new term, “SPI” has become increasingly relevant in several scholarly and policy fields, especially within environmental governance. However, the idea of “science–policy interface” remains elusive to many. In some ways, “SPI” has become a buzzword, resulting in the emergence of various “SPI myths,” both in theory and practice. In this book, I endeavored to shed light on some of these myths. Rather than debunking them, my aim was first and foremost to reveal them, laying the ground for deeper and more critical understandings of “science–policy interface” (singular) and of “science–policy interfaces” (plural). Indeed, the starting point of my journey was the recognition that “science–policy interface” can be thought of in these two different ways: the “SPI singular” (denoting the abstract and more conceptual acceptation of the term) and the “SPI plural” (referring to SPI tangible embodiments, i.e., in the form of practical institutional arrangements). For this reason, when referring to both “SPI singular” and “SPI plural,” I used the expression “SPI(s).” Notwithstanding my attention to SPI myths, in this book I sought to strike a balance between critical and constructive approaches to SPI(s). In particular, in my exploration of SPI theory and SPI practice from a global environmental governance perspective, I considered both challenges and opportunities for SPI(s).