Artículos de investigación
Weighting the World: IPBES and the
Struggle over Biocultural Diversity
(cid:129)
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot*
Abstracto
This article has two aims. The first is to provide an account of the struggle over the term
biocultural diversity during the intergovernmental approval of the first IPBES thematic as-
sessment report. Segundo, in detailing this struggle, we aim to contribute to scholarship
on global environmental negotiating processes and the place and power of knowledge
within these by introducing the notion of a weighted concept. Our analysis starts with the
observation that the emergence of new scientific terms through global assessments has
the potential to activate political struggle, which becomes part of the social construction
of the concept and may travel with it into other international negotiating settings. Por
analyzing the way in which the term biocultural diversity initiated reaction from delegates
negotiating the Summary for Policy Makers of the Pollination Assessment, we illuminate
the distribution of authority or symbolic power to determine its meaning and place in
the text. We suggest that the weighted concept enables us to explore the forms of knowl-
edge underpinning political order and, en este caso, unpack how biocultural diversity
challenges the primacy of scientific knowledge by authorizing the place of indigenous
knowledge in global biodiversity politics, which initiated attempts to remove or confine
its usage in the text.
En febrero 2016, member governments of the Intergovernmental Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) successfully approved the first
* Earlier drafts of this article were presented at the Sustainable Places Research Institute, universidad-
sity of Cardiff, en 2016; the Political Ecology Group, Departamento de Geografía, Universidad de
Cambridge, en 2016; the ISA Annual Convention in 2017; the Knowledge Societies research
grupo, Universidad de Viena, en 2017; the International Politics Department at Aberystwyth Uni-
versity in 2018; and the UC Berkeley workshop on the special section in 2018. We are grateful to
all participants and for all comments received at these events. A big thank-you in particular goes
to Aleksandar Rankovic, the authors of the special section—Peter Haas, Kimberly Marion
Suiseeya, Kate O’Neill, Matthew Paterson, Jonathan Pickering, and Laura Zanotti—as well as
the reviewers and GEP team for all their hard work and thoughtful comments. Alice B. METRO. Vadrot’s
research was supported by an Erwin Schrödinger Fellowship ( J-3704) from the Austrian Science
Fund. Hannah Hughes’ research was supported by the School of Law and Politics, and by early
career support from Cardiff University.
Global Environmental Politics 19:2, Puede 2019, doi:10.1162/glep_a_00503
© 2019 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Publicado bajo una atribución Creative Commons 4.0
Internacional (CC POR 4.0) licencia.
14
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 15
Thematic Assessment on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (IPBES
2016a). This was a significant moment for IPBES in terms of process and prod-
ucts. The final report and accompanying Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)
offered an opportunity for IPBES to demonstrate its relevance as a global knowl-
edge producer to member governments and the fields of biodiversity science
and politics more broadly. A este respecto, undertaking a Pollination Assessment
(Pensilvania) was strategically important for IPBES to capture North American and
European Union interest, where risks to pollinators from pesticides had become
an important issue (Duperray et al. 2016). The intergovernmental approval of
the SPM itself, modeled on the line-by-line approval of Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, was IPBES’ first attempt at an assessment
practice that enables member governments to approve the final wording of the
report’s key findings. It is this approval process, and the controversy initiated
by a US intervention over biocultural diversity, that is the focus of this article. El
strength of the US intervention and its need to consult with the “capital” drew at-
tention and gave visibility to a concept that structured chapter 5 on biocultural
diversity, pollinators, and their sociocultural values. This chapter assessed the non-
economic valuation of pollinators and aimed to include the visions, approaches,
and knowledges of indigenous and local communities in the assessment.
This article aims to provide an account of the controversy over biocultural
diversity and use it as a site for illuminating the social and political struggles
that characterize the approval of intergovernmental texts by exploring how this
contestation imprints on the concepts and actors negotiating them. To achieve
este, we introduce the notion of a weighted concept and break with conventional
ways of understanding intergovernmental expert bodies like the IPCC and
IPBES as science–policy interfaces by analyzing the intergovernmental approval
sessions as negotiating sites. We use the notion of a weighted concept and the
account of this approval session to illuminate three different aspects of negoti-
ations over terminology in these settings:
1. repetition: how struggles over terms in assessment bodies relate to political
processes in other fora, how the discussions and debates become en-
trenched over time, and how this leads to repetition and reproduction of
position taking in the negotiation of intergovernmental texts,
2. transposition: how these struggles become transposed upon the concept—
eso es, weighted—and potentially reignited the next time the object re-
appears, y
3. political order: the object of these struggles is the constitution and distribu-
tion of authority and ultimately international political order, which strug-
gles over objects of knowledge initiate and reflect, and have the potential to
reinforce or reshape.
We begin by reviewing how IPBES has been studied, identifying recent innova-
tions in the study of global environmental negotiating processes, and exploring
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
16 (cid:129) Weighting the World
how these innovations could inform how we understand and study global en-
vironmental knowledge production exercises as negotiating sites.
Studying Intergovernmental Expert Bodies
Research into intergovernmental assessment bodies, like IPBES, has focused on
sociohistorical emergence (Charvolin and Ollivier 2017; Granjou et al. 2013;
Vadrot 2014a, 2014b); the relationship between science and politics (Brand
and Vadrot 2013; Compagnon and LePrestre 2016; Gustafsson and Lidskog
2018; Hrabanski and Pesche 2016; Morin et al. 2017; Turnhout et al. 2014,
2016); and the structural, geographical, and disciplinary makeup of the organi-
zation and its products (Duperray et al. 2016; Esguerra et al. 2017; Kovács and
Pataki 2016; Montana 2017; Montana and Borie 2016; Oubenal et al. 2017;
Timpte et al. 2018; Vadrot et al. 2018a, 2018b). The intertwinement between
science and politics, and how to characterize it, is a central scholarly focus in
IPBES and IPCC scholarship (ver, p.ej., Haas 2004; Hoppe et al. 2013; Molinero
2004; Shackley and Wynne 1996; Skodvin 2000). Despite this, relatively little
analytical attention has been given to one of the most important meeting sites:
the intergovernmental acceptance and approval of text.1 This is the moment in
the assessment’s production when government delegates, co-chairs of the assess-
mento, and authors are brought together for the purpose of approving the assess-
ment’s key findings in the SPM.
The most informative accounts of these approval sessions are descrip-
tions provided by those who participated in or observed them (Brenton
1994; Houghton 2008; Leggett 1999; Schneider 2009). These identify the level
of controversy that these sessions initiate and the attempts to maintain bound-
aries between scientific and political authority to alter the final text (Fogel
2005; Petersen 2006). Sin embargo, the analytical apparatus for understanding
and analyzing these sessions is presently narrowed by regarding the IPCC
and IPBES as intergovernmental processes distinct from other international
negotiating fora, such as conferences of the parties (COPs) to the Convention
of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The different approaches to studying intergovernmental assessment pro-
cesses (IPCC and IPBES) versus the intergovernmental negotiating processes
they inform (UNFCCC, CBD, etc.) have in part emerged from how the role of
science and expert communities has been theorized in international relations
(IR) (Lidskog and Sundqvist 2015). Traditionally, theorists in IR have regarded
the separation between science and politics as a necessary condition to produc-
ing “truth” or “usable knowledge” to inform government interests in regime
1. The main focus of research on SPMs has been in relation to readability and communication
(see Barkemeyer et al., 2016; Mach et al., 2016).
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 17
formation and negotiation (Haas 1990, 2004; Haas and Stevens 2011). Empir-
ical study has questioned the degree to which science and politics are separated
en la práctica. Studies highlight how investment in global environmental assess-
ment activities shapes scientific interests and the knowledge produced (abrazos
and Paterson 2017), and once produced, knowledge is available to all to incor-
porate in their discursive strategies and struggle to frame the issue (Hajer 1995;
Litfin 1994). Observation of IPCC and IPBES plenary proceedings, and in par-
ticular the approval sessions of SPM text, makes apparent the analogous nature
between these meetings and the drafting of decisions in UNFCCC or CBD
COPs. Además, by viewing the SPM approval process as a site of negotia-
ción, a range of methodological reflections that have arisen from the study of
global environmental meetings comes into view.
In this article, we draw on insights provided through metaphors of theater
(Campbell et al. 2014b; Craggs and Mahony 2014; Death 2011; Hajer 2005;
Leander 2011). We also identify the contribution of collaborative event ethnog-
raphy (CEE) scholarship, which draws scholarly attention to the critical impor-
tance of studying inside these meetings, and the necessity of collaborating to
cover these multiple “field sites” (Campbell et al. 2014a).
The Drama of Negotiations
Theater has proven a useful metaphor for illuminating the purposes served by
global environmental meetings. Carl Death (2011) first used metaphors of the-
ater and performance to draw attention to the symbolic role of summits in
global environmental governance. Since then, theater has been used to explore
the performative element of activities taking place inside these meetings (Craggs
and Mahony 2014) and their imprint on final texts (Weisser 2014). These ac-
counts make clear that the performance of negotiating processes and their effect
on the outcome only become apparent when researchers gain access to, observe,
and document proceedings. CEE is a significant methodological innovation in
this regard. Through establishing a shared analytical approach, researchers work
together to cover multiple sites at megaevents simultaneously (see Campbell
et al. 2014a; Suiseeya and Zanotti, this issue). CEE research conceptualizes each
conference as a single node in a network of global environmental governance,
and the politics of performance is one of the shared frameworks used to analyze
the proceedings (Campbell et al. 2014a, 2).
This is relevant to our study because when we started collaborating, we had
distinct analytical approaches and knowledge of intergovernmental assessment
bodies gained from observation at different sites (abrazos 2012; Vadrot 2014b).
The initial objective of our research was to understand the political sociology of
IPBES—the actors, activities, and social forces that shape the organization—to
compare it to the IPCC. As is the case for CEE researchers, studying these processes
collaboratively required developing a shared lens for analyzing the multiple sites
that constitute these organizations (Corson et al. 2014). Theater provided a
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
18 (cid:129) Weighting the World
practical starting point for our collaboration—a shared metaphor for describing
and presenting our knowledge of the multiple meetings and varied actors we
observado (see the online appendix https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/
suppl/10.1162/glep_a_00503/suppl_file/glep_a_00503_supplement.pdf).
In this article, to facilitate identifying, describing, and analyzing the relations
that structured the approval of the IPBES’ first thematic assessment report, we use
the metaphor of theater to help “set the scene” and describe the staging of the
reunión. This enables us to identify the different actors that make up the inter-
governmental approval session, to describe actors’ role in the proceedings, y
to explore their distinct strategies and forms of authority to shape the construction
del texto. We also use it to sensitize us to the importance of identifying scripts and
the repetitive nature of interventions that take place in these settings and how these
roles and scripts solidify over time. The second move we make is to introduce new
conceptual apparatus into analyses of intergovernmental settings with the notion
of a weighted concept. We introduce this concept to explore our observation of
delegatesʼ attempts to remove new terminology from an assessment.
The weighted concept helps us to analyze the struggles that the appearance
of new objects of knowledge generate, by situating this contestation within the
field of political action that these objects have the potential to shape. While this
concept has been developed specifically in relation to the intergovernmental
processes observed within the IPCC and IPBES, it is relevant to any site where
the meaning of a concept or term is being negotiated and contested, including at
CBD and UNFCCC COPs and meetings of the parties. De hecho, it is particularly
relevant to these and their subsidiary bodies, because the practice of negotiating
SPM texts is informed by delegates’ experiences and practices within these
meeting venues.
Bourdieu, Knowledge, and Global Environmental Order
The notion of a weighted concept is inspired by the sociological approach of
Pierre Bourdieu. Aspects of Bourdieu’s analytical toolbox have already been
used within global environmental politics (GEP), such as his notion of “doxa”
to interrogate the formation of commonsense thinking on environmental issues
(Epstein 2008) and “field” and “symbolic power” to situate organizations in
political space (abrazos 2015; Hughes and Paterson 2017). The weighted con-
cept, as a conceptual innovation, arises from research informed by Bourdieu’s
stress on the significance of “naming” (Bourdieu 1991, 105). Regarding the so-
cial world as the “site of continual struggles to define what the social world is”
(Wacquant 1989), Bourdieu suggested that social scientists take the “operations
of naming and the rites of institution through which they are accomplished” as
central objects of study (Bourdieu 1991, 105). The critical element is Bourdieu’s
stress that the ultimate purpose of struggle is not the designation of meaning
per se but the particular state of “power relations”—or social order—that successful
acts of naming “fix forever by enunciating and codifying” (Bourdieu 1986, 480).
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 19
Political struggle to designate the meaning of environmental objects is
readily apparent in intergovernmental negotiating settings, where state delegates
struggle to assert, constrain, and contest the definition of technical objects, como
observed by members of the CEE team studying “biofuels” (Scott et al.
2014). The stakes in these struggles are high, because where these objects of
knowledge appear and how they are defined structures and reflects how states
act both within and beyond that setting. As Scott et al. indicate in their study, ciencia-
entific and technical knowledge is a critical component of these struggles. Este
knowledge gives authority and, in Bourdieu’s terms, contributes to an actor’s sym-
bolic power to determine the content of a text, which means both the definition of
the object and the basis of actors’ authority to revise the text become constituents of
struggle in intergovernmental negotiating settings (see Bourdieu 1991; abrazos
2015). The symbolic power that is assigned to particular interventions, contesta-
ciones, and proposals for alternative definitions—and thus their success—is often
dependent on the knowledge used to underpin and justify them.
Hasta la fecha, scientific and technical knowledge, predominantly produced by
actors and institutions within industrialized countries or modeled on these ap-
proaches to scientific knowledge production (Corbera et al. 2016), have provid-
ed the most powerful rationales for asserting the meaning of reality (Scott et al.
2014). This has meant that interventions and revisions proposed by govern-
ments deploying this cultural resource have been most effective in determining
text and thus the form global environmental action takes. Sin embargo, these defi-
nitions of reality, even if eventually successful, rarely pass through the negotiating
process uncontested. The studies reviewed below provide evidence of how some
developing states and indigenous actors are drawing on cultural understandings of
authoritative knowledge to contest and identify alternative definitions for global
environmental objects.
While so-called alternative forms of knowledge, often identified as indig-
enous and local knowledge (ILK), are not recognized as equivalent to scientific
conocimiento, they are increasingly shaping the outputs of both IPBES (Gustafsson
and Lidskog 2018; Obermeister 2018; Tengö et al. 2017) and CBD (Suiseeya
2014; Witter et al. 2015).2 Within IPBES, contestation over scientific framings,
such as the use of “ecosystem services,” has shaped the organization and its con-
ceptual basis (Borie and Hulme 2015; Vadrot 2014a, 2014b), and the inclusion
of ILK is now explicitly recognized within IPBES products (Díaz et al. 2015,
2018; Pascual et al. 2017). The contestation by Bolivia has been important,
ensuring the inclusion of Mother Earth in the IPBES conceptual framework
(Borie and Hulme 2015), which is also where we see the notion of biocultural
diversity appearing in IPBES outputs for the first time (IPBES 2013).
2. This is demonstrated in the CBD’s stated aim to “preserve, and maintain knowledge and prac-
tices of indigenous and local communities, and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from the utilization of such knowledge and practices.” How such knowledge informs
negotiating processes is constituent of the struggle and contestation (Brand and Vadrot 2013;
Chennells 2013; Rosendal 2011, 77).
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
20 (cid:129) Weighting the World
It is not only ILK that the Global South relies on to contest and propose
alternative definitions. Cada vez más, and as identified by Scott et al. (2014),
countries in the Global South are generating their own scientific knowledge, re-
ports, and expertise to counter Northern countries’ domination over the legiti-
mate forms of authority to know and represent the environment. Sin embargo, nosotros
are concerned that our scholarly capacity to detect and analyze these shifts in the
power of knowledge is limited by our conceptual apparatus. Studies exploring
the role of knowledge and its translation into new technical objects through ne-
gotiating processes rely on analytical concepts developed within science and
technology studies, such as boundary or fire objects (Borie and Hulme 2015;
Campbell et al. 2014b; Gray et al. 2014; Scott et al. 2014). These bring into focus
the processes of negotiation and translation that realize co-produced or hybrid
scientific and political objects. While these concepts have attuned us to the inter-
twinement between knowledge, political authority, and social order, we still find
ourselves unable to analyze the mechanisms through which this is realized and
reproduced in practice.
En particular, we want to better understand and render visible the consti-
tution and distribution of actors’ power within these settings and its relation to
social and political order beyond. It is here that Bourdieu’s approach is critical,
extending our analytical focus from the apparent object of struggle—the defini-
tion of a single object in a given international agreement or assessment report—
to the basis of authority: the forms of knowledge that imbue a particular actor
and definition with the symbolic power to name reality and shape social order.
As Bourdieu reminds us, it is ultimately this—the social order—that is at stake
in all social struggle and thus the core of global environmental politics. At pres-
ent, governments of the Global North can assert and remake their dominance
because global environmental activities reflect a political order that is built up-
on the authority endowed to scientific knowledge recognized and generated
within and by these societies, which gives delegates from the Global North
greater symbolic power to know and revise reality, as written in intergovern-
mental texts. Sin embargo, this dominance is always contested. And even if the def-
inition of a given problem or concept appears fixed—determined by the
dominant—it contains within and has the potential to reopen the struggle
and contestation that it generated and suppressed. It is this political struggle
and the distribution of symbolic power—or social order—that underpins it that
we want to explore through the notion of a weighted concept.
To further unpack the weighted concept, we need to return to the approval
of the PA at the Fourth Plenary Session of IPBES in February 2016. In the fol-
lowing sections, informed by the metaphor of theater, we describe the staging of
this intergovernmental meeting—the actors present, their forms of authority
and strategies during the proceedings, and the controversy that emerged over
the concept of biocultural diversity. Through this description, we aim to identify
how objects of knowledge come to be weighted and how this weight reflects (1)
the contestation over the definition and/or place in the text, (2) the potential
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 21
for particular terms to structure intergovernmental negotiations and political
acción, y (3) al final, the potential for those terms to reproduce or under-
mine the distribution of symbolic power that underpins global environmental
orden. En tono rimbombante, what we aim to demonstrate through the notion of a
weighted concept is that meaning does not lie simply in the definition of a given
concept but also in the historical, social, and political struggles that determine
the definition and its place within negotiated text. Our account of the struggle is
informed by three layers of data collection as indicated in Table A1 of the online
appendix: (1) participant observation and recordings of IPBES 4; (2) fifteen in-
terviews with the assessment co-chairs, autores, government delegates, y
members of the IPBES bureau and the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP);
y (3) documentary analysis of draft and final assessment text, IPBES docu-
mentation, and ENB reports.
IPBES and the Pollination Assessment
At its second plenary meeting, hosted in Antalya in December 2013, IPBES
member governments approved the undertaking of the first Thematic Assess-
ment of Pollinators, Pollination, and Food Production, or the PA (IPBES
2013, 2). The IPBES conceptual framework was also adopted during this plenary
(Borie and Hulme 2015; IPBES 2013). The conceptual framework is designed to
guide the work of the platform by providing “common ground” on the concep-
tual basis of IPBES and ensuring representation of the diversity of views on bio-
diversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in IPBES products (Díaz
et al. 2015, 4). It is through the conceptual framework that the concept of bio-
cultural diversity was first introduced into government-approved IPBES docu-
mentation and the PA (IPBES 2013). The concept of biocultural diversity was
used extensively in chapter 5, on biocultural diversity, pollinators, and their so-
ciocultural values, which assessed the noneconomic valuation of pollinators
and ensured that “the experience of indigenous and local communities” was
included in the assessment, particularly in relation to the impacts of pollinator
decline, and management and mitigation options (IPBES 2013, 29, Decisión
2_5). In the chapter, biocultural diversity was defined as
the total variety exhibited by the world’s natural and cultural systems, explic-
itly considers the idea that culture and nature are mutually constituting, y
denotes three concepts: primero, diversity of life includes human cultures and
idiomas; segundo, links exist between biodiversity and cultural diversity;
and last, these links have developed over time through mutual adaptation
and possibly co-evolution.
The assessment was developed over the course of three author meetings,
held from June 2014 a julio 2015.3 The authors were selected by the IPBES
3. For a list of PA events, see IPBES (n.d.).
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
22 (cid:129) Weighting the World
bureau and MEP members from government and stakeholder nominations, y
they were guided in their work by the PA co-chairs, the ILK Task Force, y el
conceptual framework.4 Workshops also informed and broadened authors’ per-
spectives. Por ejemplo, the Global Dialogue Workshop on ILK on Pollination
and Pollinators Associated with Food Production, hosted in Panama in Decem-
ber 2014, aimed to identify possible ILK case studies to include in the report.
Although chapter 5 was focused on noneconomic valuation and the experience
of ILK holders, only two members of the twelve-author team were social scien-
tistas (see Table A3). One of the social scientists, and the third convening lead
author (CLA), Rosemary Hill, joined the chapter at the second author meeting
in Brazil in March 2015, after it became apparent that further expertise on ILK
was needed.5 She also joined the drafting team for the SPM and, tal como, ser-
came the chapter member responsible for representing the chapter’s key findings
during the intergovernmental approval session. The key findings of the PA were
drafted into an SPM by eleven authors, including the co-chairs, the technical
support assistant, and seven other representatives of the report. In preparation
for the approval session, drafting authors attended a workshop at Cambridge
University in March 2015,6 where invited IPCC authors advised on the line-
by-line approval process.7 Skype sessions were also held for authors attending
the approval session, to ensure that all participants arrived at the meeting
prepared for the proceedings and equipped with the necessary background
knowledge and scientific references to defend the report’s key messages.8
The Approval Session
The fourth plenary session of the IPBES was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malasia,
from February 22 a 29, 2016. Había 373 recorded participants at the meet-
En g, including member governments, nongovernmental organizations, United
Nations bodies and agencies, universidades, research institutes, and scientific
redes (IPBES 2016b). Eighty of the 124 IPBES member countries attended,
and more than one-third (217) of listed participants were part of a national
4. The IPBES bureau is composed of fifteen government-nominated experts, two from each UN
región, including the chair and vice-chair of IPBES. The bureau oversees communication and
outreach activities, advises the plenary on coordination between IPBES and other institutions,
and reviews progress in the implementation of plenary decisions. The MEP advises the plat-
form on scientific and technical aspects; manages the peer-review process; and examines how
to bring different knowledge systems, including ILK, into IPBES processes and products (IPBES
2012). Several Task Forces were established with IPBES, including capacity building, knowl-
edge and data, and ILK. The ILK Task Force is composed of two bureau members and three
members of the MEP, plus up to twenty experts on indigenous and local knowledge systems.
5. A researcher at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) en
Australia and a member of the IPBES expert panel on ILK.
6. The Confidence (Incertidumbre) Framework Workshop, held at Cambridge University from
Marzo 23 a 24, 2015.
Interview with bureau member, Noviembre 14, 2016; interview with author, Julio 26, 2016.
Interview with author, Julio 10, 2016.
7.
8.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 23
delegation. The size of delegations varied, ranging from eleven in the French, ten
in the German, seven US delegates, five UK delegates, and one delegate repre-
senting Brazil (IPBES 2016b). The PA was not the only approval process; dele-
gations were divided between the simultaneous approval of the methodological
evaluación. This makes the size of the delegation significant; small delegations
do not have the capacity to attend parallel sessions. The larger delegations were
typically composed of civil servants representing different government depart-
mentos, Por ejemplo, agricultura, ambiente, and foreign affairs, with observ-
able overlap between delegates in attendance at CBD COP and Subsidiary Body
on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) meetings. Many
delegations had not significantly changed in composition since the first multi-
stakeholder meeting to establish IPBES ( Vadrot 2014b). This continuity be-
tween delegations and crossover with CBD is important. These delegates are
long-term participants in the key issue areas and political struggles within the
field of biodiversity politics, which informs their position taking on the emer-
gence of new objects in IPBES.
Approval of the PA started on Monday, Febrero 22, with the introduction
of the technical report by the executive secretary of IPBES Anne Larigauderie
(IPBES 2016a) and a presentation on the assessment’s key findings by the co-
chairs, Simon Potts (Reino Unido) and Vera Lucia Imperatriz Fonseca (Brasil). El
overall setting and arrangement of the meeting resembled other multilateral
negotiation settings. Government delegates sat in alphabetical order with the
text projected on three large screens at the front (ver figura 1). Facing the del-
egates, on the stage, sat the PA co-chairs accompanied by the authors whose
chapter was under discussion, MEP and bureau representatives, and secretariat
staff (Cifra 1). The approval session was chaired by the newly elected chair to
IPBES, Sir Robert Watson, or MEP member (and long-standing representative of
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Cifra 1
View of the Staging of the Pollination Assessment Approval Session
Photograph courtesy of ENB Reporting Services.
24 (cid:129) Weighting the World
Ghana to CBD) Alfred Oteng Yeboah. This organization of the room reflects the
purpose of the session. De este modo, when governments sought clarity or proposed
revisions, the authors on the stage could present the scientific background
and ensure that any proposed revisions remained true to the science in the
underlying assessment.
In the evening of the second day, roughly twenty minutes before transla-
tion ended, and after many delegates had left the room, attention came back to
biocultural diversity. Earlier in the day, discussions around text on food sover-
eignty, biocultural diversity, and free prior and informed consent—language
that related to party obligations and past political struggles in the CBD over in-
digenous knowledge and access and benefit sharing (Bavakatte and Robinson
2011; Nijar 2013)—were “delegated to an informal group to discuss divergent
views among delegates” (Antonich et al. 2016, 1). Informal groups, or “friends
of the chair” meetings, are a method available to the chair to move protracted
discussions out of the plenary. These smaller group sessions are attended by the
delegates raising objection and the authors responsible for the text, and they are
chaired by a bureau or MEP member. The idea behind these smaller groups is to
enable delegates to have more intricate discussion with authors, clarify confu-
sión, and produce an acceptable compromise. Any text agreed is taken back to
plenary for approval. As soon as a concept or term is identified and objected to,
the potential for struggle is initiated, particularly if disagreement results in fur-
ther discussion outside of plenary. Suddenly, other delegations—who may not
have considered the text previously—start to pay attention. Thus objecting can
be a gamble, drawing attention and in the process initiating struggle and
contestation, which weights the term and its usage.
When the notion of biocultural diversity appeared for the second time that
día, and this time in relation to the value of ILK in supporting pollination
(IPBES 2016c, 19), the US delegate intervened:
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
My government is in the position where we cannot accept the use of the
term biocultural diversity, and certainly we cannot accept a definition that
has not been discussed and negotiated among governments. The best that I
can do at this point is to send this entire paragraph to Capital for consulta-
ción. But I will flag that I think it is very difficult for us to have a repeated use
in a way of a concept that is unclear in the policy, people and governmental
realm and is now being in addition valued. We are in a difficult position as
governments to deal with the concept that is very unclear from a govern-
mental point of view and does not have an agreed definition, en general.
(transcribed from recording)
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
The member of the US delegation taking the floor for this intervention was
Christine Dawson. Dawson is deputy assistant secretary of state for environ-
ment and head of the US delegation to CBD COP 13 in Mexico in 2016. Cada
national delegation is a complex object of study composed of distinct, incluso
competing, individual and institutional interests and investments in IPBES.
This is readily observed in the US delegation, where actors may have a role in
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 25
proceedings both as a member of the national delegation and as a task holder
within the organization. Ann Bartuska, Por ejemplo, is under secretary for
investigación, education, and economics in the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and was a member of the IPBES MEP from 2013 a 2015. Bartuska is recognized
as a leading member in the establishment of the IPBES (Inouye 2014). As a MEP
member, Bartuska was involved in establishing the processes and procedures for
realizing IPBES and the conceptual framework (Díaz et al. 2015). The workshop
in Panama, mentioned above, which identified ILK case studies for inclusion in
capítulo 5, was supported by the USDA (Lyver et al. 2015). On the US delega-
ción, Bartuska represented her department alongside other department represen-
tatives, including the US Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection
Agencia, and USAID.
The State Department coordinated the delegation, with relevant positions
and required expertise identified prior to arrival and updated daily during pro-
ceedings.9 While some technical issues may be covered by the relevant expert,
the controversy over biocultural diversity was identified as high-level negotiat-
ing policy related to the CBD and thus led by the State Department.10 Dawson’s
intervention centered on how the term biocultural diversity was assessed on page
15 of the draft SPM (see Table A2). The section highlighted the role that cultural
practices have in supporting “pollinators, and maintaining valued biocultural di-
versity.” It further linked these supporting practices to the recognition of rights, sug-
gesting that “many communities are losing land they have occupied for centuries
because of limited recognition of their rights” (Table A2). Australia followed the US
intervención. Supporting the US position, Australia indicated surprise at an elabo-
rated paragraph on biocultural diversity after the earlier discussion. Canada also
intervened in support and suggested that the earlier agreement on replacing bio-
cultural diversity with biological and cultural diversity could be a suitable way forward.
The content and order of government interventions offer insight into key
motivations that animate the approval of intergovernmental text. These include
government interests and concerns over the potential risk of new concepts and
their implications for political action, one’s perceived role and the accrual of
symbolic power in the organization (es decir., through supporting allies, being a
friend to the chair, and a broker of solutions), and the aesthetic of the text. Allá
may also be personal interests or stakes intertwined with the above, and these
too can become inscribed on the weight of the concept. Delegate motivations,
estrategias, and sources of symbolic power are distinct from the authors and the
chairs of the session. This can be illustrated through the position of chair, cuyo
own authority depends on the capacity to balance and channel social and po-
litical forces in the approval of the text. Bob Watson was chairing this session.
Watson played a leading role in the establishment of IPBES and was a central
actor in the IPCC, including chair of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001).
9.
10.
Interviews with delegates, Septiembre 16, 2016, and August 14, 2017.
Interview with delegate, Septiembre 16, 2016.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
26 (cid:129) Weighting the World
He was elected as IPBES chair preceding the approval session. Watson has ex-
tensive experience of these situations and a well-developed way of channeling
plenary forces (see Fogel 2005).
Watson requested the previously agreed paragraph be projected on the
screen and asked delegates whether they could accept the replacement of biocul-
tural diversity with “terms … used in the other accepted language.” The Austra-
lian delegate, Peter Bridgewater—a member of the ILK Task Force to IPBES—
again intervened, this time as “a friend” to the chair (from recording). Bridge-
water recalled the previous solution that he helped broker, which was to replace
biocultural diversity with “biological diversity and cultural diversity and the
links between them.” Bridgewater could be identified as having a personal stake
in this solution, first because he was central to brokering it,11 second because he
was an expert member of the ILK Task Force, and most significantly because he
had previously published literature on biological and cultural diversity (Bridge-
water et al. 2007; see also Bridgewater 2016). Sin embargo, in this instance, Bridge-
water suggested that using the substitution in this paragraph could make it “a
very elaborated thing.” Watson acknowledged this but recommended delegates
accept the proposal. He voiced his concern over time and the loss of translation
and appealed to delegates to overlook the appearance “from an editorial stand-
point” when in a situation of “political difficulty.” Watson’s suggestion and
readiness to bend to the requirement of powerful platform members, sin embargo,
were not acceptable to the authors.12
The key role of authors during plenary approval is to ensure that suggested
revisions are true to the science of the underlying report. The symbolic power of
authors in this setting is their scientific authority and knowledge of the subject.
Authors present the scientific background to the assessment’s key messages and
respond to comments and questions from government delegates. Divergence from
this role may be challenged by member governments, and delegates have been
known to offer sharp reminders on the distinction between “a scientist” and “a rep-
resentative of a sovereign nation” (Schneider 2009, 140). The first chapter 5 author
to speak was a female biologist from Indonesia, Damiyanti Buchori. Buchori offered
background on the chapter and explained the challenge that authors had assessing
noneconomic valuation of biodiversity as biologists. Her intervention turned to a
moral argument, tying biocultural diversity to traditional knowledge and wisdom.
She suggested that the term’s usage “is about how we used to interact with nature
and trying to capture that wisdom back into this document that is very scientific”
(transcribed from a recording). Watson followed Buchori’s intervention, haciendo
what he identified as “a totally different point,” by turning to procedure.
Knowledge and deployment of “correct” procedure for producing and
agreeing text can be a valuable resource for chairs and authors when attempting
to limit government revision of the text. Speaking “specifically to the US,"
11.
12.
Interview with author, Julio 26, 2016.
Interview with authors, Julio 10 y 26, 2016.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 27
Watson reminded the delegation that “the whole chapter is entitled ‘biocultur-
al’ and that the word appears throughout the underlying report. Watson then
asked whether the US government had requested the elimination of biocultural
during the government review. He further added that the term biocultural had
already been adopted by the plenary, through the plenary approval of the
conceptual framework. This turn to procedure, sin embargo, inadvertently draws
the conceptual framework into the contestation.13 The US delegate acknowl-
edged the appearance of biocultural diversity in the conceptual framework but
highlighted that “there is absolutely no definition with it” and stated that it ap-
peared alongside “a number of other concepts that are undefined, ill-defined,
unclear.” Dawson’s challenge extends beyond the approval of the PA attacking
and potentially undermining the conceptual basis of the platform and thereby
the platform itself.
Watson appealed to the US delegation and the authors: could the United
States accept the appearance of biocultural diversity without a definition, as it
appears in the conceptual framework? And could the authors accept the fix of
the earlier friends of the chair group? While the US delegate indicated that the
section would have to remain bracketed until consultation with the Capital, el
CLA of chapter 5, Rosemary Hill, took the floor. Acknowledging the inter-
governmental character of the platform and its dependence on government
Toma de decisiones, Hill brought the “work” of the authors and time of indigenous
and local people into play:
I have to be honest with you and say that I do think if this concept cannot be
quoted in the SPM then really chapter 5 should not be accepted, as this is the
key underpinning scientific basis of our ability to link between indigenous
and local communities, knowledge systems and the science of culture and
naturaleza, which we know has been separated. Biocultural diversity is the sci-
entific concept that links those things and therefore as a team of scientists
that has been the key organising concept of our chapter.
Through this intervention, Hill raised the stakes of the US objection, which now
potentially jeopardized both the approval of the SPM and the underlying report. En
respuesta, Dawson suggested that “no one is disputing that this may be a valid,
useful scientific approach” and reminded the floor that she comes “with
instructions.” It is not, as she had suggested earlier, the scientificity of the term
that the US government is disputing but the processes followed: “to move a
scientific concept that is not well defined into a political arena, there are processes
for doing that. From my government’s perspective this was not the appropriate
one.” Dawson’s intervention reminds us that governments too can deploy and
contest “appropriate” procedure. Watson responded here by acknowledging the
delegate’s instructions and drawing the proceedings to a close.
13. On the intergovernmental approval of the conceptual framework, see Borie and Hulme
(2015).
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
28 (cid:129) Weighting the World
By morning, the United States had arrived with a proposal that (1) re-
moved biocultural diversity from the key messages and accompanying footnote
on page 7 (see Table A2), (2) placed all appearances of biocultural diversity in
quotation marks, y (3) added the bracketed phrase “for the purposes of this
evaluación, biological and cultural diversity and the links between them are re-
ferred to as ‘biocultural diversity.’” This proposal initiated a string of interven-
tions from Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, and Bolivia, each identifying
biocultural diversity as central to cultural understandings of nature. This indi-
cates how the struggle over a term can increasingly attract and draw in energy
with each appearance, especially when it becomes linked to past contestation
and there is time to confer overnight.14 Bolivia’s intervention is an example
of this; the delegate acknowledges “vivir bien” in harmony with Mother Earth
and identifies the national position on recognizing diverse conceptions of na-
tura. Bolivia strongly advocated for this plurality during the establishment of
IPBES and the conceptual framework (Borie and Hulme 2015; Vadrot 2014a)
and attaches the content of these earlier struggles to biocultural diversity
through this intervention. Sin embargo, perhaps what is most noteworthy about
Bolivia’s intervention is that it was not made by Diego Pacheco, who usually
heads the Bolivian delegation to IPBES and CBD, but who was unable to attend
this plenary.15 Had Pacheco been present, he—like the United States—may have
also seen the potential for biocultural diversity in the CBD and defended it as an
essential element of the existing plurality of perspectives on nature.16
Pacheco’s absence highlights the significant role that resources, organiza-
ción, and continuity within delegations play for realizing national concerns and
shaping intergovernmental text. En cambio, sin embargo, Watson was able to address
the delegates, “what degree of flexibility is there and is there a pragmatic solu-
tion forward?” He reiterated US unwillingness to accept the term biocultural di-
versity without a clause, despite it being “a very common term” in the “scientific
literature” as well as among “many cultures and some governments.” He de-
scribed how biocultural diversity would appear in the SPM and chapter 5 y
then “pleads … in the spirit of flexibility,” asking “once more” whether there
were any objections to the proposal. The Australian delegate intervened in sup-
puerto, suggesting that he did not hear anything in the interventions that “is not
catered for” in the chair’s suggestion. Watson thanked Australia, and when no
country flag was raised, signaled the approval of the SPM with his gavel.
The Final Outcome
Identifying the changes to the approved text reveals the United States’ success in
shaping the place and content of biocultural diversity in the PA (ver figura 2).
While the United States did not manage to remove reference to biocultural
14.
15.
16.
Interview with author, Julio 10, 2016.
Interview with delegate, Abril 26, 2017.
Interview with delegate, Abril 26, 2017.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 29
Cifra 2
How Biocultural Diversity Appears and Is Defined in the Final SPM Text (excerpt
shown here)
Nota: Highlighting has been added for emphasis.
diversity completely, they did manage to move it further back in the SPM, estafa-
fine its definition, y, at the same time, reduce reference to the recognition of
rights to a table and remove any reference to the loss of land (see Table A1). El
question then becomes, why did the United States seek to remove, or at the very
least contain, the definition and usage of biocultural diversity? According to US
intervenciones, the government objected to a term that linked biodiversity to cul-
tural diversity because (1) its definition had not been discussed and negotiated
by governments and (2) this was not the appropriate procedure for bringing a
scientific term into the political arena, identified in interviews, as the CBD.
Sin embargo, this is what international environmental assessment bodies like the
IPCC and IPBES—through the government approval of the SPM—are designed
to do. It is a process that carries risks for governments, introducing new concepts
into global biodiversity negotiating processes with potential effects—the “fear”
ser, as one “seasoned observer” noted, that these words “may take on a life of
their own and pre-empt discussions in more policy-oriented fora” (Antonich
et al. 2016, 2). We suggest that the IPBES is a particularly important site for
the United States to control the knowledge inputs into the CBD because they
have not ratified this convention (Blomquist 2002) and thus cannot officially
participate in determining meaning once these objects reach CBD COP negoti-
ations. IPBES offers the United States a site to influence the terminology that
travels to the CBD and the actors and forms of knowledge these authorize. Como
is clear from its usage in the PA (see Table A2), biocultural diversity is a concept
that recognizes, acknowledges, and values diverse indigenous knowledges and
practices that protect and maintain abundant biodiversity.
Looking beyond US motivations for contesting biocultural diversity, el
weighted concept suggests that this struggle has the potential to transpose on
the object of focus, weighting it within both organizational proceedings and
the minds of those present. The effect is that the next time this object
reappears in the production of an IPBES assessment or plenary proceedings,
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
30 (cid:129) Weighting the World
or even when it travels outside of this context, through a reference in CBD or
SBSTTA text, the struggles outlined above have the potential to impact actors’
reception of and position toward it in their next encounter. There is evidence
of this weighting process within IPBES over its conceptual apparatus, and schol-
arly accounts take these back to the bodies’ establishment and the controversy
over ecosystem services. During the establishment of IPBES, the United States
advocated for a science-driven process focused on ecosystem services ( Vadrot
2014a, 181), while Bolivia contested the ecosystem framing and sought greater
plurality of worldviews represented (Borie and Hulme 2015). In our account of
biocultural diversity, this position taking is transposed upon and becomes the
weight of the concept. This weighting process may help us to explain why
negotiating fora appear repetitive, scripted, and staged—both to observing re-
searchers and to participants. This is well illustrated by the comments of the
former president to the Maldives and head delegate to the UNFCCC at COP
24 Mohamed Nasheed:
Almost 10 years since I was last at these climate negotiations, I must say,
nothing much seems to have changed. We are still using the same old,
dinosaur language. Still saying the same old words. Still making the same
tedious points.17
Conclusions
We set out to use the notion of a weighted concept to illuminate how social and
political struggles take place over new terminology in approval sessions and to
identify how these struggles become transposed on the objects of knowledge. Por
doing this, we wanted to extend our analysis of agreement making to the sites
where the knowledge that underpins global environmental action is assessed by
expert authors and approved by member governments. This enabled us to
explore three different aspects of these settings:
Repetition. When you observe plenary approval proceedings as a researcher,
and as authors have commented during interviews, government dele-
gates appear to be conducting a performance, offering seemingly pre-
pared and scripted interventions. Even more striking is when you
attend several plenary sessions and delegates make the same point re-
peatedly within a session, across sessions, and between fora. By docu-
menting the struggle over biocultural diversity, we aimed to explore this
repetition and continuation between position taking by governments.
In IPBES, and in relation to the negotiation over biocultural diversity,
this repetition was observable in the United States’ attempt to narrow
the recognition and inclusion of ILK, and in Bolivia’s attempt to expand
17. BBC online news, December 16, 2018.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 31
the conceptual basis of the platform beyond a focus on ecosystem
services.
Transposition. The main innovation that we aim to introduce to the study
of objects of knowledge in negotiating processes is how this position
taking becomes transposed on the object of focus, literally becoming
its weight, so that when it next appears, it has the potential to reignite
struggle. En tono rimbombante, through documenting the contestation over bio-
cultural diversity, we aimed to make clear that meaning is not just in
the text or how the text identifies or defines a given concept. The weight
that producing an acceptable meaning generates is also a component of
the meaning, because the next time that concept resurfaces in the same
or perhaps a new setting with either the same actors present or actors
aware of what has gone before, those struggles to constitute the con-
cepts’ meaning have the potential to structure how it is received. El
weighted concepts indicate, entonces, that it is not just terms that are carried
between texts or between fora; it is also the historical journey and social
and political struggles that finalize the terminology and its position in
the text.
Political order. The explanation that we offer for this repetition and trans-
position is that the basis of the struggle over biocultural diversity, y
all struggles over terminology, is the authority or symbolic power to
determine reality and, al final, one’s location in the global political
order through that reality. By promoting the primacy of science and sci-
entific knowledge, the United States seeks to retain the basis of its own
primacy in this order. Widening the forms of knowledge that are valued
and authorized to know and define how environmental degradation is
represented and acted on is a significant threat, and one best diffused by
removing ill-defined terms, and their potential, from the text.
By introducing the notion of a weighted concept, we aim to direct our an-
alytical gaze to where terms and concepts in negotiating processes are often in-
troduced, and to sensitize our study to how the definition and reception of these
objects of knowledge become structured by existing forces and struggles within
the field of political action. By providing this account, we aim to render these
processes more transparent, perhaps even enabling actors that cannot be present
in every informal and parallel session to follow proceedings and identify their
significance to their own negotiating interests or scholarly research. Este, de
curso, is not likely to lessen struggle but may enable more diverse representa-
tions in the weight of the concept.
Hannah Hughes is a lecturer in international relations at Cardiff University. Su
central concern is the relationship between knowledge and power in the global
response to environmental degradation and developing the methodological
tools to interrogate this. She has explored this relationship extensively in the
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
32 (cid:129) Weighting the World
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including with her most
recent publication, with Matthew Paterson, “Narrowing the Climate Field: El
Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC’s Assessment of Mitigation,” in Review of
Policy Research 34 (6), 2017.
Alice B. METRO. Vadrot is assistant professor in international politics at the Univer-
sity of Vienna. Her research addresses the role of knowledge and science in
global environmental politics and policies. She has conducted extensive re-
search on the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES), is author of The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity
(2014), and is editor of a special volume on the social sciences and humanities
in IPBES (Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 31 [Suplemento. 1],
2018). Vadrot holds an ERC Starting Grant to develop and apply a new meth-
odology for grounding the analysis of science–policy interrelations in interna-
tional marine biodiversity politics in empirical research.
Referencias
Antonich, B., S. Jungcurt, k. Louw, y D. W.. Nyingi. 2016. IPBES 4. Earth Negotiation
Boletín 31: 25.
Barkemeyer, r., S. Dessai, B. Monge-Sanz, B. GRAMO. Renzi, y G. Napolitano. 2016. Linguis-
tic Analysis of IPCC Summaries for Policymakers and Associated Coverage. Naturaleza
Cambio Climático 6: 311–316.
Bavakatte, K., y D. F. robinson. 2011. Toward a People’s History of the Law: Bio-
cultural Jurisprudence and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.
Law, Environment, and Development Journal 7 (1): 35–51.
Blomquist, Robert F. 2002. Ratification Resisted: Understanding America’s Response to
the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1989–2002. Golden Gate University Law
Revisar 32: 493–586.
Borie, METRO., y M. Hulme. 2015. Framing Global Biodiversity: IPBES between Mother
Earth and Ecosystem Services. Environmental Science and Policy 54: 487–496.
Bourdieu, PAG. 1986. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Londres, Reino Unido: Routledge.
Bourdieu, PAG. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Polity.
Brand, Ud., y un. B. METRO. Vadrot. 2013. Epistemic Selectivities and the Valorisation of Na-
tura: The Cases of the Nagoya Protocol and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy
Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Law, Environment, y
Development Journal 9: 202–220.
Brenton, t. 1994. The Greening of Machiavelli: The Evolution of International Environmental
Política. Londres, Reino Unido: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Energy and Environ-
mental Programme/Earthscan.
Bridgewater, PAG. 2016. The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES)—A Role for Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies
23 (1): 65–73.
Bridgewater, PAG., A. Salvatore, y j. Scott. 2007. Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity—
The Heritage of Nature and Culture through the Looking Glass of Multilateral Agree-
mentos. International Journal of Heritage Studies 13 (4–5): 405–419.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 33
Campbell, Lisa M., C. Corson, norte. j. Gray, k. I. macdonald, y j. PAG. Brosius. 2014a.
Studying Global Environmental Meetings to Understand Global Environmental
Gobernancia: Collaborative Event Ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics
14 (3): 1–20.
Campbell, l. METRO., S. Hagerman, y N. j. Gray. 2014b. Producing Targets for Conserva-
ción: Science and Politics at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 14: 41–63.
Charvolin, F., y G. Ollivier. 2017. La biodiversité entre science et politique: La formation
d’une institution internationale. París, Francia: Editions PETRA.
Chennells, R. 2013. Traditional Knowledge and Benefit Sharing After the Nagoya
Protocol: Three Cases from South Africa. Law, Environment and Development Journal
9 (2): 163–184.
Compagnon, D., y P. LePrestre. 2016. IPBES and Governance of the International Bio-
diversity Regime Complex. In The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Eco-
system Services (IPBES): Meeting the Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation and
Gobernancia, edited by Marie Hrabanski and Denis Pesche, 18–40. Londres, Reino Unido:
Routledge.
Corbera, MI., l. Calvet-Mir, h. abrazos, y M. Paterson. 2016. Patterns of Authorship in
the IPCC Working Group III Report. Nature Climate Change 6 (1): 94–99.
Corson, C., l. METRO. Campbell, and K. I. macdonald. 2014. Capturing the Personal in
Política: Ethnographies of Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental
Política 14: 21–40.
Craggs, r., y M. Mahony. 2014. The Geographies of the Conference: Knowledge,
Performance and Protest. Geography Compass 8 (6): 414–430.
Death, Carl. 2011. Summit Theatre: Exemplary Governmentality and Environmental
Diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics 20 (1): 1–19.
Díaz, S., S. Demissew, j. Carabias et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework:
Connecting Nature and People. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
14: 1-dieciséis.
Díaz, S., Ud.. Pascual, METRO. Stenseke et al. 2018. Assessing Nature’s Contributions to People.
Ciencia 359: 270–272.
Duperray, F., METRO. Hrabanski, y M. Oubenal. 2016. First Thematic Assessment on Pol-
lination: Between the Legitimization of IPBES and Tensions Regarding the Selec-
tion of Knowledge and Experts. In The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Meeting the Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation and
Gobernancia, edited by Marie Hrabanski and Denis Pesche, 211–227. Londres,
Reino Unido: Routledge.
Epstein, C. 2008. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-whaling
Discurso. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Esguerra, A., S. Arroyo, y r. Lidskog. 2017. Participación de las partes interesadas en la creación:
IPBES Legitimization Politics. Global Environmental Politics 17 (1): 59–76.
Fogel, C. 2005. Biotic Carbon Sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol: The Construction of
Global Knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. interna-
tional Environmental Agreements 5: 191–210.
Granjou, C., I. Mauz, S. Louvel, and V. Tournay. 2013. Assessing Nature? The Genesis of
the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
Ciencia, Tecnología, and Society 18 (1): 9–27.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
34 (cid:129) Weighting the World
Gray, norte. J., R. l. Gruby, y yo. METRO. Campbell. 2014. Boundary Objects and Global
Consensus: Scalar Narratives of Marine Conservation in the Convention on Biolog-
ical Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 14: 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1162/
GLEP_a_00239.
Gustafsson, k. METRO., y r. Lidskog. 2018. Organizing International Experts: IPBES’s
Efforts to Gain Epistemic Authority. Environmental Sociology 4 (4): 445–456.
Haas, Peter M. 1990. Obtaining International Environmental-Protection through Episte-
mic Consensus. Millennium Journal of International Studies 19: 347–363.
Haas, Peter M. 2004. When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the
Policy Process. Journal of European Public Policy 11: 569–592.
Haas, Peter M., and C. stevens. 2011. Organized Science, Usable Knowledge, y
Multilateral Environmental Governance. In Governing the Air: The Dynamics of
Ciencia, Política, and Citizen Interaction, edited by Rolf Lidskog and Göran Sundqvist,
125–162. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Hajer, METRO. A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the
Policy Process. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
Hajer, Maarten A. 2005. Setting the Stage: A Dramaturgy of Policy Deliberation. Admin-
istration and Society 36 (6): 624–647.
Hoppe, r., A. Wesselink, y r. Cairns. 2013. Lost in the Problem: The Role of Boundary
Organisations in the Governance of Climate Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Cambio Climático 4 (4): 283–300.
Houghton, j. 2008. Madrid 1995: Diagnosing Climate Change. Naturaleza 455: 737–738.
Hrabanski, METRO., y D. Pesche. 2016. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Meeting the Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation and
Gobernancia. Londres, Reino Unido: Routledge.
abrazos, h. 2012. Practices of Power and Knowledge in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Cambio Climático. PhD dissertation, Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth
Universidad.
abrazos, h. 2015. Bourdieu and the IPCC’s Symbolic Power. Global Environmental Politics
15 (4): 85–104.
abrazos, h., and Matthew Paterson. 2017. Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic
Power of Authors in the IPCC’s Assessment of Mitigation. Review of Policy Research
34 (6): 744–766.
Inouye, D. W.. 2014. IPBES: Global Collaboration on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 371–371.
IPBES. 2012. Report of the Second Session of the Plenary Meeting to Determine Modal-
ities and Institutional Arrangements for an Intergovernmental Science–Policy Plat-
form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available at https://www.ipbes.net/
sites/default/files/downloads/ UNEP_IPBES_MI_2_9_EN_0.pdf, last accessed
Marzo 19, 2019.
IPBES. 2013. Decision IPBES-2/4: Conceptual Framework for the Intergovernmental
Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Disponible en
http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/Decision%20IPBES_2_4.pdf,
last accessed March 19, 2019.
IPBES. 2016a. Deliverable 3a: Technical Report of the Assessment on Pollinators, Polli-
nation and Food Production. Available at https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/
downloads/IPBES-4-INF-1.pdf?file=1, last accessed March 19, 2019.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 35
IPBES. 2016b. Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services, 4th session. Kuala Lumpur, Malasia, February 22–28,
Draft List of Participants.
IPBES. 2016C. Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report of the Intergovern-
mental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on
Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production. Available at https://www.ipbes.
net/system/tdf/downloads/pdf/ipbes_4_19_annex_ii_spm_pollination_en.pdf?
file=1, last accessed March 19, 2019.
IPBES. n.d. Pollination Assessment Dates. Available at https://www.ipbes.net/pollination-
assessment-events, last accessed March 19, 2019.
Kovács, MI., y G. Pataki. 2016. The Participation of Experts and Knowledges in the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
Environmental Science and Policy 57: 131–139.
Leander, A. 2011. The Promises, Problems, and Potentials of a Bourdieu-Inspired Staging
of International Relations. International Political Sociology 5: 294–313.
Leggett, j. k. 1999. The Carbon War: Dispatches from the End of the Oil Century. Londres,
Reino Unido: Allen Lane.
Lidskog, r., y G. Sundqvist. 2015. When Does Science Matter? Internacional
Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies. Global Environmental Politics
15: 1–20.
Litfin, k. 1994. Ozone Discourse: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation—
New Directions in World Politics. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
Lyver, PAG., mi. Pérez, METRO. Carneiro da Cunha, y M. Roué, eds. 2015. Indigenous and
Local Knowledge about Pollination and Pollinators Associated with Food Production:
Outcomes from the Global Dialogue Workshop (Panama 1–5 December 2014). París:
UNESCO. Available at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/ MULTIMEDIA/
HQ/SC/pdf/ IPBES_Pollination-Pollinators_Workshop.pdf, last accessed March
19, 2019.
Mach, Katharine J., PAG. t. Hombre libre, METRO. D. Mastrandrea, and C. B. Field. 2016. A Multistage
Crucible of Revision and Approval Shapes IPCC Policymaker Summaries. Ciencia
Avances 2: e1600421.
Molinero, Clark A. 2004. Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order. En
States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, edited by Sheila
Jasanoff, 46–66. Londres, Reino Unido: Routledge.
Montana, j. 2017. Accommodating Consensus and Diversity in Environmental Knowl-
edge Production: Achieving Closure through Typologies in IPBES. Ambiental
Science and Policy 68: 20–27.
Montana, J., y M. Borie. 2016. IPBES and Biodiversity Expertise: Regional, Gender and
Disciplinary Balance in the Composition of the Interim and 2015 Multidisciplin-
ary Expert Panel. Conservation Letters 9 (2): 138–142.
Morin, j. F., S. Louafi, A. Orsini, y M. Oubenal. 2017. Boundary Organizations in
Regime Complexes: A Social Network Profile of IPBES. Journal of International
Relations and Development 20 (3): 543–577.
Nijar, GRAMO. S. 2013. Traditional Knowledge Systems, International Law and National
Challenges: Marginalization or Emancipation. European Journal of International
Law 24 (4): 1205–1221.
Obermeister, norte. 2018. Local Knowledge, Global Ambitions: IPBES and the Advent of
Multi-scale Models and Scenarios. Sustainability Science 1–14.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
36 (cid:129) Weighting the World
Oubenal, METRO., METRO. Hrabanski, y D. Pesche. 2017. IPBES, an Inclusive Institution? Chal-
lenging the Integration of Stakeholders in a Science–Policy Interface. Ecology and
Sociedad 22 (1): 11.
Pascual, Ud., PAG. Balvanera, S. Díaz, GRAMO. Pataki, mi. Roth, METRO. Stenseke, R. t. Watson et al.
2017. Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. Actual
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27: 7-dieciséis.
Petersen, Arthur C. 2006. Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation
Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and Policy. Apeldoorn, Países Bajos:
Het Spinhuis.
Rosendal, Kristin G. 2011. Biodiversity Protection in International Negotiations: Coop-
eration and Conflict. In Beyond Resource Wars: Scarcity, Environmental Degradation,
and International Cooperation, edited by Shlomi Dinar, 59–86. Cambridge, MAMÁ:
La prensa del MIT.
Schneider, S. 2009. Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate.
Washington, corriente continua: National Geographic.
Scott, S., mi. METRO. Hitchner, j. l. Maclin, y B. Dammert. 2014. Fuel for the Fire: Biofuels
and the Problem of Translation at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Con-
vention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 84–101.
Shackley, S., y B. Wynne. 1996. Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change
Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority. Science Technology
and Human Values 21: 275–302.
Skodvin, t. 2000. Structure and Agent in the Scientific Diplomacy of Climate Change: Un
Empirical Case Study of Science–Policy Interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Cambio Climático. Advances in Global Change Research 5. Dordrecht, Países Bajos:
Desorden.
Suiseeya, k. METRO. 2014. Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous Demands for Justice.
Global Environmental Politics 14: 102–124.
Tengö, METRO., R. Colina, PAG. Malmer, C. METRO. raimon, METRO. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, t. Elmqvist,
and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving Knowledge Systems in IPBES, CBD and Beyond—
Lessons Learned for Sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
26–27: 17–25.
Timpte, METRO., j. Montana, k. Reuter, METRO. Borie, y j. Apkes. 2018. Engaging Diverse Experts
in a Global Environmental Assessment: Participation in the First Work Programme
of IPBES and Opportunities for Improvement. Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research 31 (Suplemento. 1): 15–37.
Turnhout, MI., k. Neves, and E. de Lijster. 2014. “Measurementality” in Biodiversity Gov-
ernance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environment and Planning
A 46 (3): 581–597.
Turnhout, MI., A. Dewulf, y M. Hulme. 2016. What Does Policy-Relevant Global Envi-
ronmental Knowledge Do? The Cases of Climate and Biodiversity. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability 18: 65–72.
Vadrot, A. B. METRO., METRO. Akhtar-Schuster, y r. t. watson. 2018a. The Social Sciences and
the Humanities in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science
Investigación 31 (Suplemento. 1): 1–9.
Vadrot, Alice B. METRO., A. Rankovic, R. Lapeyre, PAG. METRO. Aubert, and Y. Laurans. 2018b. Por qué
Are Social Sciences and Humanities Needed in the Works of IPBES? A Systematic
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Hannah Hughes and Alice B. METRO. Vadrot
(cid:129) 37
Review of the Literature. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research
31 (Suplemento. 1): 78–100.
Vadrot, A. B. METRO. 2014a. The Epistemic and Strategic Dimension of the Establishment of
the IPBES: “Epistemic Selectivities” at Work. Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research 27 (4): 361–378.
Vadrot, A. B. METRO. 2014b. The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity. Londres, Reino Unido:
Routledge.
Wacquant, Loic J. D. 1989. Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre
Bourdieu. Sociological Theory 7 (1): 26–63.
Weisser, F. 2014. Practices, Política, Performativities: Documents in the International
Negotiations on Climate Change. Political Geography 40: 46–55.
Witter, r., k. R. METRO. Suiseeya, R. l. Gruby, S. Hitchner, mi. METRO. Maclin, METRO. Bourque, y j. PAG.
Brosius. 2015. Moments of Influence in Global Environmental Governance.
Environmental Politics 24: 894–912.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
9
2
1
4
1
8
1
8
3
8
5
gramo
mi
pag
_
a
_
0
0
5
0
3
pag
d
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
