| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Borie, Maude, et al.
(author)
-
Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
- 2020
-
In: Environmental Science and Policy. - : Elsevier. - 1462-9011 .- 1873-6416. ; 110, s. 71-76
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the wake of controversies surrounding both the legitimacy and effectiveness of intergovernmental expert organisations, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012 as a new intergovernmental expert organisation with the explicit mandate to move beyond ‘one-size-fits-it-all’ approaches. During its first eight years of operating, this attempt to ‘do different’ has made IPBES develop into a space for individual, experiential, and organisational learning and has made significant progress towards becoming a ‘learning organisation’. However, learning can take different forms. Looking towards the future development of IPBES, the importance of transformative learning and the need to establish institutional reflexive processes in which this transformative learning can take place will be critical. IPBES has a number of novel features, three key features facilitating transformative learning are its ambitious principles and inclusive approach to a wide range expertise and knowledges, its fellowship programme, and commitment to a transparent and on-going review process. While IPBES’ social organisation is significantly different from previous initiatives and has created opportunities for transformative learning, not all learning and all changes that have taken place have been reflexive and some innovative features also have had unintended consequences for the results of the learning activities. As a result, to live up to its ambitions of contributing to positive and transformative societal and environmental change, IPBES must strengthen its capacity for transformative learning. Some proposals on how to systemise it further are outlined.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Gupta, Aarti, et al.
(author)
-
In pursuit of carbon accountabiity : the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems
- 2012
-
In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier. - 1877-3435 .- 1877-3443. ; 4:6, s. 726-731
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article reviews critical social science analyses of carbon accounting and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems associated with reducing emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and conservation, sustainable use and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+). REDD+ MRV systems are often portrayed as technical. In questioning such a framing, we draw on perspectives from science and technology and governmentality studies to assess how MRV systems may exercise disciplinary power (through standardization, simplification and erasing the local) but also mobilize counter-expertise, produce resistance and thus have necessarily contingent effects. In doing so, we advance the concept of ‘carbon accountability’ to denote both how forest carbon is accounted for in REDD+ and the need to hold to account those who are doing so.
|
|
| 5. |
- Gustafsson, Karin M, 1983-, et al.
(author)
-
Building capacity for the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services : Activities, fellows, outcomes, and neglected capacity building needs
- 2020
-
In: Earth System Governance. - : Elsevier. - 2589-8116. ; 4:June
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Capacity building has been identified as being of importance for the Intergovernmental Science-PolicyPlatform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). As the IPBES is becoming an influentialexpert organization, it is essential to examine what capacity building means in its context, what capacitiesit has built, and what implications these capacities have. This study explores these issues byfocusing on the IPBES's general strategy for capacity building, the IPBES's fellowship programme and towhat extent there are additional capacity building needs that can be addressed. The study shows that theIPBES has focused its capacity building efforts on the science side of the science-policy interface while,thus far, it has neglected to build capacities on the policy side of the interface. The study provides insightinto how capacity building for the science-policy interface sets preconditions for science-policy relationsat different levels and scales within biodiversity and ecosystem services and beyond.
|
|
| 6. |
- Koh, Niak Sian, 1991-
(author)
-
Safeguarding nature and people : Integrating economics, politics, and human rights to transform biodiversity policies and governance
- 2022
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- None of the world’s biodiversity goals from the last decade were fully met, as biodiversity losses are occurring at an unprecedented rate. Policies are not always effective; their use may have adverse effects on people and nature. Biodiversity offsets are an example of a policy that can be used to protect and restore biodiversity loss from economic development. Yet, offsets have been criticized for poor ecological outcomes, commodifying nature, and creating social inequality. To address this challenge, we need to learn from the shortcomings of biodiversity policies and governance as new goals are being drafted under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.This thesis examines how biodiversity policies can be designed and implemented for effective and equitable outcomes for people and biodiversity. I focus on the design (Paper I) and implementation (Paper II) by examining economic instruments in conservation. I then broaden to the governance landscape by analysing the implementation of policies in national (Paper III) and international regulatory contexts (Paper IV).The 4 papers cover a diversity of cases across the globe at different governance levels. Paper I conducted a policy analysis of offsets from six countries (Australia, England, Germany, Madagascar, South Africa, and the US), through an economic framing of biodiversity trading and institutional arrangements. Paper II reviewed market instruments for conservation, ecotourism and sport hunting in eastern and southern Africa, to analyse whether these instruments can be compatible with new ideas for conservation such as conviviality. Paper III investigated the politics around Mekong hydropower development, through multi-stakeholder interviews and a discourse analysis of the social and environmental impacts of a dam in Laos. Paper IV examined the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and how review mechanisms of human rights law can improve compliance.This thesis highlights that a human rights-based approach provides important conceptual and political support for biodiversity governance. It contributes to the science-policy interface with these insights. First, the institutional design and implementation are as important for the outcomes as the type of policy. In economic policies such as offsets, a high involvement of the market does not influence the level of commensurability, but increases the degree of commodification. Second, the contextual factors (politics and power relations) of policies should be acknowledged to address inequality. An institutional design and implementation that ensures meaningful participation and a balance of power is crucial for effective and equitable outcomes. Review mechanisms used in human rights help to navigate power inequities, by ensuring that all rights-holders have a substantial voice.Third, offsets can be designed with different institutional arrangements (state, market, voluntary). If a market approach is chosen with biodiversity trading, effective monitoring and regulation is needed to safeguard biodiversity. Lastly, to foster compliance with policies, management and enforcement approaches can be used in a complementary manner through positive incentives, sunshine methods, and negative incentives. Overall, this thesis provides insights of how to meet our global goals for protecting and restoring biodiversity, while safeguarding people and nature.
|
|
| 7. |
- Turnhout, Esther, et al.
(author)
-
Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy
- 2022
-
In: Climate and Development. - : TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. - 1756-5529 .- 1756-5537. ; 14:9, s. 834-838
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- According to a recent article in this journal, the failure of policy action on climate change despite scientific consensus points to a broken science-society contract. To avoid this tragedy of climate science, the authors call for a moratorium on its production. As scholars of, and participants in, global science-policy interfaces, we recognize the authors assumptions and reasonings but also see an urgent need for a deeper understanding of the current limitations of environmental research, and the challenges of connecting knowledge to policy and society. Rather than a blanket moratorium, we argue that what is needed is a profound transformation of environmental research. This entails a shift in research priorities towards currently marginalized approaches in social sciences, humanities and participatory research, to generate a much-needed understanding of obstacles to action and just and equitable strategies for overcoming them with due consideration of issues of justice and equity. We also propose a new science-society contract that recognizes the politics of environmental knowledge. This is necessary to enable critical reflection on what interests environmental research serves whose knowledge needs are excluded, and with what consequences. We recognize that our proposal can be uncomfortable and that it challenges deeply held beliefs in the neutrality of science. However, deep reprioritization in environmental science and science policy are urgently needed to strengthen the contribution of environmental research to the transformative changes that it calls for.
|
|
| 8. |
- Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid, et al.
(author)
-
Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development : Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development
- 2021
-
In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier BV. - 1877-3443 .- 1877-3435. ; 53:21, s. 20-28
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- While there is much debate on transformative change among academics and policymakers, the discussion on how to govern such change is still in its infancy. This article argues that transformative governance is needed to enable the transformative change necessary for achieving global sustainability goals. Based on a literature review, the article unpacks this concept of transformative governance. It is: integrative, to ensure local solutions also have sustainable impacts elsewhere (across scales, places, issues and sectors); inclusive, to empower those whose interests are currently not being met and represent values embodying transformative change for sustainability; adaptive, enabling learning, experimentation, and reflexivity, to cope with the complexity of transformative change; and pluralist, recognizing different knowledge systems. We argue that only when these four governance approaches are: implemented in conjunction; operationalized in a specific manner; and focused on addressing the indirect drivers underlying sustainability issues, governance becomes transformative.
|
|
