| 1. |
- Asayama, Shinichiro, et al.
(author)
-
Three institutional pathways to envision the future of the IPCC
- 2023
-
In: Nature Climate Change. - : Nature Portfolio. - 1758-678X .- 1758-6798. ; 13:9, s. 877-880
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The IPCC has been successful at building its scientific authority, but it will require institutional reform for staying relevant to new and changing political contexts. Exploring a range of alternative future pathways for the IPCC can help guide crucial decisions about redefining its purpose.
|
|
| 2. |
- Beck, Silke, et al.
(author)
-
Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise : The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES
- 2014
-
In: GAIA. - : oekom verlag. - 0940-5550 .- 2625-5413. ; 23:2, s. 80-87
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Díaz Reviriego, Isabel, et al.
(author)
-
Five years of IPBES : Reflecting the achievements and challenges and identifying needs for its review towards a 2nd work programme.
- 2018
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- On 17 to 19th October 2017, twenty-four academics and practitioners with diverse inter- and transdisciplinary experiences gathered for a workshop to collectively reflect on IPBES’ work and performance. The workshop was held at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) in Leipzig. The workshop and this report represent an effort to proactively contribute to IPBES’ ongoing (external) review process. The external review process opens up a window of opportunity towards re-thinking the very purpose of IPBES and identifying new pathways to live up to its initial ambitions, such as to move beyond assessments. The workshop identified a spectrum of potential opportunities, provided visions for the future work of IPBES, and collected insights into how to cope with them. While the workshop focussed on identifying future challenges and possible solutions, all participants underlined the great achievements that IPBES has already accomplished. This report provides a synthesis of the workshop discussions. The main recommendations for the external review were: - The external review should seize the opportunity to establish itself in a responsive and future-oriented way so that it not only assesses past performance but also facilitates learning and identifies new pathways for IPBES. It is important that the focus of the review is not just on the extent to which IPBES has fulfilled its ambitions but also on the efficiency with which it has done this, and on the potential unintended effects of decisions. - For IPBES to achieve its initial ambitions, strengthening the (mainly global-scale) scientific knowledge base behind assessments is necessary but not yet sufficient. To meet its broader set of goals, it is required to pay critical attention to all aspects of policy support, knowledge generation and capacity-building, including the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and the incorporation of local and indigenous knowledge. This will require building synergies between knowledge systems, promoting the engagement of the social sciences and humanities, and addressing current challenges in the nomination and selection procedures for the identification of experts. - The external review also opens up space to identify a full range of alternative options and choices that are available when reforming IPBES. The review should engage in real-world dialogues and liaise closely with partners from research, policy and practice as well as with national platforms and local actors.
|
|
| 5. |
- Esguerra, Alejandro, et al.
(author)
-
Stakeholder engagement in the making : IPBES Legitimization Politics
- 2017
-
In: Global Environmental Politics. - Cambridge, USA : MIT Press. - 1526-3800 .- 1536-0091. ; 17:1, s. 59-76
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A growing number of expert organizations aim to provide knowledge for global environmental policy-making. Recently, there have also been explicit calls for stakeholder engagement at the global level to make scientific knowledge relevant and usable on the ground. The newly established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is one of the first international expert organizations to have systematically developed a strategy for stakeholder engagement in its own right. In this article, we analyze the emergence of this strategy. Employing the concept “politics of legitimation,” we examine how and for what reasons stakeholder engagement was introduced, justified, and finally endorsed, as well as its effects. The article explores the process of institutionalizing stakeholder engagement, as well as reconstructing the contestation of the operative norms (membership, tasks, and accountability) regulating the rules for this engagement. We conclude by discussing the broader importance of the findings for IPBES, as well as for international expert organizations in general.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lövbrand, Eva, et al.
(author)
-
A democracy paradox in studies of science and society?
- 2011
-
In: Science, Technology and Human Values. - : Sage. - 0162-2439 .- 1552-8251. ; 36:4, s. 474-496
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Today many scholars seem to agree that citizens should be involved in expert deliberations on science and technology issues. This interest in public deliberation has gained attraction in many practical settings, especially in the European Union, and holds the promise of more legitimate governance of science and technology. In this article, the authors draw on the European Commission’s (EC) report “Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously” to ask how legitimate these efforts to “democratize” scientific expertise really are. While the report borrows from deliberative democrats' normative accounts of legitimacy, the authors identify a tension between the principles for legitimate rule prescribed by deliberative democratic theory and the report’s celebration of diversity and dissent. While this inconsistency suggests that the legitimacy of deliberative governance arrangements is justified on empirical rather than normative grounds, it remains an open question whether studies of science and technology offer enough empirical support for such a justification. In this article, the authors address this pressing question and propose three possible responses.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lövbrand, Eva, et al.
(author)
-
Who speaks for the future of Earth? : how critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene
- 2015
-
In: Global Environmental Change. - : MIT Press. - 0959-3780 .- 1872-9495. ; 32, s. 211-218
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper asks how the social sciences can engage with the idea of the Anthropocene in productive ways. In response to this question we outline an interpretative research agenda that allows critical engagement with the Anthropocene as a socially and culturally bounded object with many possible meanings and political trajectories. In order to facilitate the kind of political mobilization required to meet the complex environmental challenges of our times, we argue that the social sciences should refrain from adjusting to standardized research agendas and templates. A more urgent analytical challenge lies in exposing, challenging and extending the ontological assumptions that inform how we make sense of and respond to a rapidly changing environment. By cultivating environmental research that opens up multiple interpretations of the Anthropocene, the social sciences can help to extend the realm of the possible for environmental politics.
|
|
| 9. |
- Settele, Josef, et al.
(author)
-
Rice ecosystem services in South-east Asia
- 2018
-
In: Paddy and Water Environment. - : Springer. - 1611-2490 .- 1611-2504. ; 16:2, s. 211-224
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
