The Co-production of Scale and Power: The Case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 534-549

  Beck, Silke ^a   Esguerra, Alejandro ^a   Goerg, Christoph ^a,b  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

expertise; governance; Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Scale

Indexed keywords

EID: 84916624975     PISSN: 1523908X     EISSN: 15227200     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2014.984668     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Beck, S., Borie, M., Esguerra, A., Chilvers, J., Heubach, K., Hulme, M., … Görg, C., (2014). Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(2), 80–87.
2. Beck, S., & Forsyth, T., (2014). Democratizing global environmental assessments: The IPCC and adaptation. In S., Hilgartner, C. A., Miller, & R., Hagendijk (Eds.), Science and democracy. Making knowledge and making power in the biosciences and beyond. London: Routledge (accepted for publication).
3. Berkes, F., (2010). Devolution of environment and resources governance: Trends and future. Environmental Conservation, 37(4), 489–500. doi: 10.1017/S037689291000072X
4. Brand, U., Görg, C., Hirsch, J., & Wissen, M., (2008). Conflicts in environmental regulation and the internationalization of the state: Contested terrains. London: Routledge.
5. Brand, U., Görg, C., & Wissen, M., (2011). Second-order condensations of societal power relations. Environmental politics and the internationalisation of the state from a neo-poulantzian perspective. Antipode, 43(1), 149–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00815.x
6. Brenner, N., (2001). The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 591–614. doi: 10.1191/030913201682688959
7. Brenner, N., et al. (2003). State/space: A reader. Malden: Blackwell.
8. Brenner, N., & Keil, R., (Eds.). (2006). The global cities reader. London: Routledge.
9. Brosius, J. P., (2006). What counts as local knowledge in global environmental assessments and conventions? In W., Reid, F., Berkes, T., Wilbanks, & D., Capistrano (Eds.), Bridging scales and knowledge systems: Concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment (pp. 129–144). Washington, DC: Island Press.
10. Brown, J. C., & Purcell, M., (2005). There's nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum, 36, 607–624. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.09.001
11. Bulkeley, H., (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24(8), 875–902. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.002
12. Carpenter, S. R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H. A., Polasky, S., Reid, W. V., & Scholes, R. J., (2006). ECOLOGY: Enhanced: Millennium ecosystem assessment: Research needs. Science, 314, 257–258. doi: 10.1126/science.1131946
13. DIVERSITAS. (2005). Oaxaca declaration on biodiversity—DIVERSITAS. Retrieved from http://www.diversitas-international.org/activities/open-science-conferences/osc1–1/oaxaca-declaration
14. Filer, C., (2009). A bridge too far: The knowledge problem in the millennium assessment. In J., Carrier & P., West (Eds.), Virtualism, governance and practice: Vision and execution in environmental conservation (pp. 84–111). New York: Berghahn Books.
15. Goldman, M., (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Goldman, M., Nadasdy, N., & Turner, M., (Eds.). (2010). Knowing nature. Chicago, IL: University Press.
17. Görg, C., & Rauschmeyer, F., (2009). Multi-level-governance and the politics of scale—the challenge of the millennium ecosystem assessment. In G., Kütting & R., Lipschutz (Eds.), Environmental governance, power and knowledge in a local-global world (pp. 81–99). London: Routledge.
18. Görg, C., et al. (2007). International science-policy interfaces for biodiversity governance—needs, challenges, experiences a contribution to the IMoSEB consultative process. Leipzig: UFZ.
19. Granjou, C., et al. (2013). Assessing nature? The genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Science Technology & Society, 18(1), 9–27. doi: 10.1177/0971721813484232
20. Guston, D., (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401
21. Haas, P. M., (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300001442
22. Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W., (2005). Performing governance through networks. European Political Science, 4(3), 340–347. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210034
23. Hirsch, J., (2003). The state's new clothes: NGOs and the internationalisation of states. Rethinking Marxism, 15(2), 237–262. doi: 10.1080/0893569032000151224
24. Hulme, M., Mahony, M., Beck, S., Gorg, C., Hansjurgens, B., Hauck, J., … van der Sluijs, J. P., (2011). Science-policy interface: Beyond assessments. Science, 333(6043), 697–698. doi: 10.1126/science.333.6043.697
25. IISD. (2012). IPBES-2 summary and analysis, 16–21 April 2012, Panama City, Panama. 16 (104). Retrieved from http://www.iisd.ca/vol16/enb16104e.html
26. IISD. (2013). Summary of the second session of the Plenary of the IPBES. 9–14 December 2013, Antalya, Turkey. 31 (13). Retrieved from http://www.iisd.ca/vol31/enb3113e.html.
27. IPBES. (2012). IPBES/1/INF/11—guidance document on the nomination and selection process for officers of the bureau and members of the multidisciplinary expert panel of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Retrieved from http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-1
28. IPBES. (2013). IPBES/1/L1: Draft report of the meeting. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)—Bonn. Retrieved from http://www.ipbes.net/bonn
29. Jasanoff, S., (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195–230. doi: 10.1177/030631287017002001
30. Jasanoff, S., (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Jasanoff, S., (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
32. Jasanoff, S., (2012). Science and public reason. Abingdon: Routledge.
33. Jessop, B., (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34. Larigauderie, A., & Mooney, H. A., (2010). The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1), 9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.006
35. Leach, M., Sumner, A., & Waldman, L., (2008). Discourses, dynamics and disquiet: Multiple knowledges in science, society and development. Journal of International Development, 20(6), 727–738. doi: 10.1002/jid.1492
36. Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G., (Eds.). (2011). Governing the air: The dynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37. Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Arroyo, M. T. K., Babin, D., Barbault, R., Donoghue, M., … Watson, R. T., (2006). Diversity without representation. Nature, 442(7100), 245–246. doi: 10.1038/442245a
38. MA. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
39. MA. (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
40. MA. (2005b). Our planet—summary for decision makers. Washington, DC: Island Press.
41. MA. (2005c). Ecosystems and human well-being: Multiscale assessments. Findings of the sub-global assessments working group of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
42. Mahony, M., (2013). Boundary spaces: Science, politics and the epistemic geographies of climate change in Copenhagen. Geoforum, 49, 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.005
43. Martello, M. L., & Jasanoff, S., (2004). Introduction: Globalization and environmental governance. In S., Jasanoff & M. L., Martello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
44. Miller, C., (2001). Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26(4), 478–500. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600405
45. Miller, C., & Erickson, P. H., (2006). The politics of bridging scales and epistemologies: Science and democracy in global environmental governance. In W., Reid, F., Berkes, T., Wilbanks, & D., Capistrano (Eds.), Bridging scales and knowledge systems: Concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment (pp. 297–314). Washington, DC: Island Press.
46. Moss, T., & Newig, J., (2010). Multi-level water governance and problems of scale setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management, 46, 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1
47. Ostrom, E., (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
48. Powell, R. C., (2007). Geographies of science: Histories, localities, practices, futures. Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 309–329. doi: 10.1177/0309132507077081
49. Reid, W. V., (2002). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Newsletter, April.
50. Reid, W. V., (2004). Bridging the science–policy divide. PLoS Biol, 2(2), 169–171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020027
51. Reid, W. V., et al. (2006). Bridging scales and knowledge systems. Concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
52. Sassen, S., (1994). Cities in world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
53. Scholes, R., et al. (2013). Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Terrestrial systems, 5(1), 16–25.
54. Scoones, I., (2009). The politics of global assessments: The case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 547–571. doi: 10.1080/03066150903155008
55. Swyngedouw, E., (1997). Neither global nor local. ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In K., Cox (Eds.), Spaces of globalization. Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137–166). New York, NY: Guilford/Longman.
56. Swyngedouw, E., (2010). Place, nature and the question of scale: Interrogating the production of nature. Materialien der interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppen IAG Globaler Wandel—Regionale Entwicklung. Diskussionspapier Nr. 5, Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
57. Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., & Wynne, B., (2012). Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience. Nature, 488(7412), 454–455. doi: 10.1038/488454a
58. Wissen, M., (2011). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse in der Internationalisierung des Staates. Konflikte um die Räumlichkeit staatlicher Politik und die Kontrolle natürlicher Ressourcen. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.