Expertise for policy-relevant knowledge. IPBES’s epistemic infrastructure and guidance to make environmental assessments

References

• BarnettMN, FinnemoreM. 2004. Rules for the World: international Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• CashDW, ClarkWC, AlcockF, DicksonNM, EckleyN, GustonDH, JägerJ, MitchellRB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS. 100(14):8086–19. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CastreeN, BellamyR, OsakaS. 2021. The future of global environmental assessments: making acase for fundamental change. Anthr Rev. 28(1):56–82. doi:10.1177/2053019620971664.
   Google Scholar
• CollinsH, EvansR. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• DíazS, DemissewS, LonsdaleC, JolyW, LarigauderieN, AshA, AdhikariJR, AricoS, AricoS, BáldiA, etal. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework— connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DunkleyR, BakerS, ConstantN, Sanderson-BellamyA. 2018. Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries. IntEnviron Agreements. 18:779–799. doi:10.1007/s10784-018-9415-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GustafssonK. 2021. Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES. Ecosyst People. 17(1):47–56. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1891973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GustafssonKM, Díaz-ReviriegoI, TurnhoutE. 2020. Building capacity for the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services: activities, fellows, outcomes, and neglected capacity building needs. Earth Syst Gov. 4:100050. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2020.100050.
   Google Scholar
• GustafssonK, LidskogR. 2018. Organizing international experts. IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environ Sociol. 4(4):445–456. doi:10.1080/23251042.2018.1463488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GustonDH. 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the office of technology transfer as aboundary organization. Soc Stud Sci. 29(1):87–111. doi:10.1177/030631299029001004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HaasPM, StevensC. 2011. Organized science, usable knowledge and multilateral environmental governance. In: LidskogR SundqvistG, editors. Governing the Air: thedynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; pp. 125–161.
   Google Scholar
• Harden-DaviesH, AmonDJ, VierrosM, BaxNJ, HanichQ, HillsJM, GuilhonM, McQuaidKA, Mohammed E, Pouponneau A, etal. 2022. Capacity development in the Ocean Decade and beyond: key questions about meanings, motivations, pathways, and measurements. Earth Syst Gov. 12:100138. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2022.100138.
   Google Scholar
• HarveyB, CochraneL, Van EppM. 2019. Charting knowledge co-production pathways in climate and development. Environ Policy Gov. 29:107–117. doi:10.1002/eet.1834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HughesH, VadrotA. 2019. Weighting the world: iPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Glob Environ Polit. 19(2):14–37. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HughesA, VadrotA, AllanJI, BackT, BansardJS, ChasekP, GrayN, LangletA, LeiterT, Marion SuiseeyaKR, etal. 2021. Global environmental agreement-making: upping the methodological and ethical stakes of studying negotiations. Earth Syst Gov. 10:100121. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2021.100121.
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2013a Decision IPBES-2/3: procedures for the Preparation of the platform’s deliverables. Decision from thesecond meeting of the plenary of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. December 9–14. Antalya, Turkey: [accessed 2022 June 1]. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/Decision%20IPBES_2_3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2013b. Decision IPBES-2/4: conceptual framework for the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Decision from the Second Meeting of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; December 9–14; Antalya, Turkey:[accessed 2023 January 31] https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/Decision%20IPBES_2_4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2015. Decision IPBES-3/3: procedures for the preparation of platform deliverables. In Decision from the Third Meeting of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; January 12–17; Bonn, Germany: [accessed 2022 June 1]. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/Decision_IPBES_3_3_EN_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2022. Engagement related to multilateral environmental agreements. [accessed 2022 October 21]. https://ipbes.net/multilateral-environmental-agreements
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2023a. Building capacity. [accessed 2023 January 31] https://ipbes.net/building-capacity
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2023b. Conceptual framework. [accessed 2023 January 31]. https://ipbes.net/conceptual-framework
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2023c. Guide on the production of assessments. [accessed 2023 January 31]. https://ipbes.net/guide-production-assessments
   Google Scholar
• JabbourJ, FlachslandC. 2017. 40 years of global environmental assessments: aretrospective analysis. Environ Sci Policy. 77:193–202. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr CetinaK. 1999. Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr CetinaK. 2007. Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdiscip Sci Rev. 32(4):361–375. doi:10.1179/030801807X163571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LidskogR, StandringA, WhiteJ. 2022. Environmental expertise for social transformation: roles and responsibilities for social science. Environ Sociol. 8(3):255–266. doi:10.1080/23251042.2022.2048237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LidskogR, SundqvistG. 2015. When and how does science matter? International Relations meets science and technology studies. Glob Environ Polit. 15(1):1–20. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LidskogR, SundqvistG. 2018. Environmental expertise as group belonging: environmental sociology meets science and technology studies. Nat Cult. 13(3):309–331. doi:10.3167/nc.2018.130301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LidskogR, SundqvistG. 2022. Lost in transformation: the Paris Agreement, the IPCC, and the quest for national transformative change. Front Clim. 4:906054. doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.906054.
   Google Scholar
• MahonyM, HulmeM. 2018. Epistemic geographies of climate change: science, space and politics. Prog Hum Geogr. 42(3):395–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MillerC. 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Hum Values. 26(4):478–500. doi:10.1177/016224390102600405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MontanaJ. 2020. Balancing authority and meaning in global environmental assessment: an analysis of organisational logics and modes in IPBES. Environ Sci Policy. 112:245–253. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MontanaJ. 2021. From inclusion to epistemic belonging in international environmental expertise: learning from the institutionalisation of scenarios and models in IPBES. Environ Sociol. 7(4):305–315. doi:10.1080/23251042.2021.1958532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MontanaJ, BorieM. 2016. IPBES and biodiversity expertise: regional, gender, and disciplinary balance in the composition of the interim and 2015 multidisciplinary expert panel. Conserv Lett. 9(2):138–142. doi:10.1111/conl.12192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OppenheimerM, OreskesN, JamiesonD, BrysseK, O’reillyJ, ShindellM, WazecM. 2019. Discerning experts: the practices of scientific assessment for environmental policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• RioussetP, FlachslandC, KowarschM. 2017. Global environmental assessments: impact mechanisms. Environ Sci Policy. 77:260–267. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SundqvistG, BohlinI, HermansenEAT, YearlyS. 2015. Formalization and separation: asystematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy. Soc Stud Sci. 45(3):416–440. doi:10.1177/0306312715583737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TimpteM, MontanaJ, ReuterK, BorieM, ApkesJ. 2018. Engaging diverse experts in aglobal environmental assessment: participation in the first work programme of IPBES and opportunities for improvement. Innov Eur JSoc Sci Res. 31(sup1):S15–37. doi:10.1080/13511610.2017.1383149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TurnhoutE . 2019. Environmental experts at the Science-Policy-Society interface. In E. Turnhout, W. Tuinstra & W. Halffman (Eds). Environmental Expertise. Connecting Science, Policy and Society (pp. 222-233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• WhiteJ, LidskogR. 2023. Pluralism, paralysis, practice: making environmental knowledge usable. Ecosyst People. 19(1):2160822. doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2160822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar