IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v68y2017icp20-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES

Author

Listed:
  • Montana, Jasper

Abstract

How can a diversity of perspectives be accommodated in scientific and political consensus on environmental issues? This paper adopts a science and technology studies (STS) approach to examine how the pursuit of consensus-based knowledge and diverse participation, as seemingly contradictory commitments, have been converted into practice in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Through a series of negotiations, these commitments have been translated into a set of situated practices that now dominate this expert panel. Consensus has been achieved through the pursuit of closure, in which meetings of expert and administrator groups produce texts, tables and images that stabilise ostensibly collective decisions. Within this framework, diverse perspectives have been accommodated through the production of typologies, such as lists of comparable options, which allow for the coexistence and commensurability of a range of knowledges and experts. However there is a politics to typologies, which requires specific attention to how decisions are made (deliberation), who participates in them (participation), and the extent to which these participants are representative of broader knowledge and policy communities (representation). While the potential of typologies to accommodate consensus and diversity offers the hope of realising ‘unity in diversity’ for both environmental knowledge and policy, recognising the politics of their production is important for more equitable processes of environmental governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Montana, Jasper, 2017. "Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 20-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:20-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111630555X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stevanov, Mirjana & Krott, Max, 2021. "Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Karl Dudman & Sara Wit, 2021. "An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-12, September.
    3. Matteo De Donà, 2022. "‘Getting the Science Right’? Epistemic Framings of Global Soil and Land Degradation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Adeyeye, Yemi & Hagerman, Shannon & Pelai, Ricardo, 2019. "Seeking procedural equity in global environmental governance: Indigenous participation and knowledge politics in forest and landscape restoration debates at the 2016 World Conservation Congress," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Simo Sarkki & Alice Ludvig & Maria Nijnik & Serhiy Kopiy, 2022. "Embracing policy paradoxes: EU’s Just Transition Fund and the aim “to leave no one behind”," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 761-792, December.
    7. Ria Dunkley & Susan Baker & Natasha Constant & Angelina Sanderson-Bellamy, 2018. "Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 779-799, December.
    8. Monika Berg & Rolf Lidskog, 2018. "Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 11-24, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:20-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.