Bumping against the boundary : IPBES and the knowledge divide

(1)

http://www.diva-portal.org

This is the published version of a paper published in Environmental Science and Policy.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Löfmarck, E., Lidskog, R. (2017)

Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide.

Environmental Science and Policy, 69: 22-28

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.008

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:

(2)

Bumping

against

the

boundary:

IPBES

and

the

knowledge

divide

Erik

Löfmarck

*

,

Rolf

Lidskog

EnvironmentalSociologySection,ÖrebroUniversity,Sweden

ARTICLE INFO

Articlehistory: Received27April2016

Receivedinrevisedform20September2016 Accepted8December2016

Availableonlinexxx Keywords: Knowledgesystem Thirdknowledgespace Boundarywork Indigenousknowledge IPBES

Globalenvironmentalgovernance

ABSTRACT

Foundedin2012,theIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystemServices (IPBES)isoneofthemostambitiousattemptstodatetobridgethedividebetweenscientificknowledge andindigenousandlocalknowledge.Doingsorequiresovercomingparticipatory,epistemologicaland ontological challenges, including different communicative forms, divergingcriteria for knowledge validation, andconflictingviewsof nature.CentralIPBESdocuments are analyzedto seehowthe platform deals with thesechallenges. While IPBES constitutes an unprecedented, innovative and ambitiousinstitutionaldesignforthecross-fertilizationofknowledge,theresultsshowthatIPBES(i) strugglestoreconcileanopen,collaborativeatmospherewiththedemandsforstructuresetbythe scientificformat,(ii)tendstoshyawayfrompotentiallyconflict-ladenissuesanddisagreements,(iii) oftentreatsscientificknowledgeandindigenousorlocalknowledgeaseasilydistinguishableentities, and(iv)hasyettosolvetheepistemologicalchallengesofknowledgegenerationandvalidationwhen workingacrossknowledge-systems.Takentogether,thesefeaturesseemtohinderthecross-fertilization ofknowledge. ThecaseofIPBESthusholdsimportantlessons forfutureefforts totransformboth knowledgeproductionandtheoverallframingofchallengeswithinglobalenvironmentalgovernance. ©2016TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1.Introduction

TheIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversity andEcosystemServices(IPBES)isoneofthemostrecentattempts within global environmental governance to bridge the divide between the knowledge system of science and systems of indigenous local knowledge (ILK). This endeavor has several motifs,but therealizationthatvaluablebiodiversityknowledge restsoutside thescientificrealmalongwiththeneedtouphold legitimacyamongstakeholdersareparticularlyimportant. Work-ingacrossknowledge-systemsinvolvessigni_ficant practical and philosophicalchallenges,andIPBESthusholdsimportantlessons for future efforts to transform knowledge production and the overall framing of environmental challenges. It raises practical issuesrelatedtopower,participationandcommunication,butalso ontologicalandepistemologicalissues,suchasconflictingnotions ofnatureanddivergingcriteriaforknowledgevalidation(Cornell etal.,2013:61,Díazetal.,2015a).

IPBES constitutes a rich case for studying boundary work (Gieryn,1983),i.e.attemptsbyactorstocreate,shape,anddisrupt boundaries between knowledge systems. Drawing on central

documentsthispaperanalyzeshowboundariesbetween knowl-edge systems are constructed and handled. In particular it investigates to what extent and in what respects IPBES is an exampleof“athirdknowledgespace”asenvisionedbyTurnbull (2000,2007),seealsoTambiah(1990).Insuchaspace,different knowledgesystemswithcontrastingrationalitiesworktogether onanequalfooting,implyingthattheboundariesbetweenthem aremoreorlessfullydissolved.Evenifthisisneithertheaimnor therealityofIPBES,employingthenotionofathirdspacemakesit possibletoidentifyenduringdifﬁculties relatedtobridging the knowledge divide. In particular, three challenges are analyzed. These concern participatory forms, ontological claims and epistemologicalissues.1

Thepaperisstructuredinfourparts,includingthis introduc-tion,whichcontinuesbybrieﬂyintroducingtheworkandaimsof IPBES. The secondpart summarizesthe conceptsand methods used.Followingadescriptionoftheanalyzeddocuments,thethird

*Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:erik.lofmarck@oru.se(E.Löfmarck).

1

Obviously,powerandcommunicationarealsoimportantchallenges,butnot theprimaryfocusofthispaper.Ithadrequiredanotherresearchdesign(including interviewsandparticipantobservations).Also,atthetimeofwritingthis,itisnot ﬁnallydecidedhowILK-holdersshouldbeselectedforIPBESassessments(for currentprocedures,seeIPBES/4/INF/6,2016).Thisdoesnotmeanthatpowerand communicationare totallyexcludedfromouranalysis,onlythattheyarenot discussedasseparatechallengesbutaspartofthehereselectedchallenges.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.008

).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Environmental

Science

&

Policy

(3)

part presents the results under the headings of participation, ontologyandepistemology.Thefourthandﬁnalpartconcludesthe paper bydiscussing the implications of ourﬁndings for future attempts to transform knowledge production within global environmentalgovernance.

1.1.Theintergovernmentalscience-policyplatformforecosystem services

The overall aim of IPBES is to provide policy-makers with relevant knowledge on how to tackle biodiversity loss and degradingecosystemservices.IPBEShasfourprimary functions directedtowardfulﬁllingthisaim(IPBES-2/4):(i)tocatalyzethe generation of new knowledge, (ii) to produce assessments of existing knowledge, (iii) to support policy formulation and implementation,and(iv)tobuildcapacitiesrelevantforachieving itsgoals.Theseareallinterconnectedandinvariouswayshighlight the challenge of bridging the gap between ILK and scientiﬁc knowledge.

IPBESisoftendescribedasanIPCCforbiodiversity,butitdiffers fromIPCCinitsstressonstakeholderinvolvementandknowledge inclusion(Becketal.,2014;Vohlandetal.,2011).Itisapermanent, independent,intergovernmentalorganization,opentoallmember statesoftheUnitedNations,andorganizationallyconsistsofthe Plenary,theBureauandtheMultidisciplinaryExpertPanel(MEP). Asthedecision-makingbodyofIPBES,thePlenaryhasconvened fivetimessince 2012.TheBureauisinchargeofadministrative tasks.TheMEPconsistsof25expertsonbiodiversityfromvarious academic disciplines (five experts from each of the five UN regions).ItfunctionsasthescientificbackboneofIPBES,providing the Plenary with scientific and technical advice, most notably assessmentsofbiodiversityknowledgewithindifferentareas.The first substantial IPBES assessment concerned pollination and pollinatorsassociatedwithfoodproduction.It wasapprovedby thePlenaryinFebruary2016.2

How can we understand the IPBES stress on knowledge inclusion?Withincontemporaryenvironmentalgovernance,there hasbeenagrowing dissatisfactionwithhistoricalpracticesthat reinforcesadividebetweenscientiﬁcknowledgeandindigenous and localknowledge.For example, IPCChasbeencriticized for treating peer-reviewed science as the only valid form of knowledge, thus excluding potentially valuable contributions and opportunities for innovation that lie outside the scope of scientiﬁcvalidation(cf.Turnhoutetal.,2012).

Why,then, havethere beenrelativelyfewattempts towork acrossknowledge-systemsinthepast?Agrawal(1995)pointsto enduringideasaboutinherent differencesbetweenscienceand ILK.ILKisoften describedastiedtothedailypracticesoflocal communities;this resultsin richanddetailed knowledgeabout pressingaspectsofanissue.Science,ontheotherhand,produces more general representations of the world that are partly separated from people’sdaily lives. When methodological and epistemological differences between the two domains are highlighted,science is portrayed asopen and objective,clearly separatefromdogmatismandpopularbeliefs,whileILKismoreor less equatedwithpopularbeliefs and is consideredclosed and devoidofrigorousanalysis. Whencomparingthem in termsof theircontexts,ILKisconsideredtobecontextdependent,while scientiﬁcknowledgeisseenasvalidregardlessofthecontext.As

Agrawal points out, it is quite easy to ﬁnd exceptions or qualiﬁcations to any of these differences. The most important objectionishoweverthatallknowledgeiscontext-dependent;all knowledgeisinseparablefrom(butnotreducibleto)theparticular socialandmaterialcontextinwhichitevolves(Jasanoff,2004).The maindifferenceisthatscienceispresented–staged–asbeingof de-contextualized character (cf. Hilgartner, 2000). Contextual dependencyisthereforeasuitablestartingpointforunderstanding powerrelationsbetweenknowledgesystems.

2.Theoreticalframeworkandmaterial

2.1.Knowledgesystemsandspaces

Therearedifferentdefinitionsofaknowledgesystem.Forthe purposeofouranalysis wewillemploytheoneusedbyIPBES, namely “a body of propositions that are adhered to, whether formallyorinformally,andareroutinelyusedtoclaimtruth”(Díaz etal.,2015a:13).WithTurnbull(2000,2007)weprefertospeakof knowledgespaceswhendiscussingthematerialmanifestationsof suchasystem.Knowledgespacesareassemblagesoflinkedsites (e.g. scientific laboratories, training centers and ceremonial grounds), local knowledge, people, equipment, practices, etc. Constructing a knowledge space is a social process in which connections are made and equivalences created using social strategies and technical devices. Science has been extremely successful inwidening itsknowledgespace,mainly byshaping technoscientificinfrastructuresthatenablesciencetotravellong distances.Aprerequisiteforthismobilityisthatknowledgeisnot fundamentallychangedbytravelingfromoneplacetoanother,and

Latour (1986, 1987) has introduced the notion “immutable mobiles”tograsp objects– suchasfigures,diagrams,equation andmaps–thatarestableenoughtowithstandtravelingwithout changing their inherent characteristics. When knowledge is stabilizedandmobilizedinthiswayitcanbegatheredincenters of calculation (e.g. a university or an expert organization) and easilybecombinedwithpreviouslygatheredknowledge.Thisisa hugeadvantage,asitallowsforactionatadistance,foracenterto dominateplacesfaraway(e.g.cartographywasanimportantpart ofimperialrule).Theseimmutablemobilesconsistsofinscriptions, i.e.informationaboutanentitythatiscondensedandinscribedby scientific instruments. Inscriptions are two-dimensional and transformtheobjectofstudyintoaflat,simplifiedsurface(e.g. turnphysicalfaunaintoatablerepresentingpopulationdiversity and size).A flatsurface is always easiertodominate,than the multifariousandcomplexobjects“outthere.”Thus,theeffective creationandemploymentofimmutablemobilesand techoscien-tificnetworksfortheirtravelsisacentralcauseofthegreatdivide betweenscienceandotherknowledgesystem.

ForILKtofeedintotheIPBESassessmentsithastobemobilized andstabilized;itneedstobefound,gatheredandmadevisible.It hastobemovedintothecentersofcalculationtiedtoIPBES,3_and_it

hastobemadecompatible withscientiﬁcknowledge.However thistravelalsoinvolvesatranslation,andthereisagreatriskthat ILK (unintentionally) become scientized, i.e. transformed to somethingelsethanILK(cf.Latour,1999).Inastudyexamining thepracticeofgatheringILKintodatabases,Agrawal(2002)warns of a scientization of ILK. This typically occurs in three steps. ParticularizationtakesplacewhenbitsofILKdeemedusefulforthe issueat handare gathered,whilepiecesdeemed irrelevantare

2 _IPBES_deﬁnes_an_assessment_as_“a_critical_evaluation_of_the_state_of_knowledge_in

biodiversityandecosystemservices.Itisbasedonexistingpeer-reviewedliterature, grey literature and other knowledge systems such as indigenous and local knowledge.Itdoesnotinvolvetheundertakingoforiginalresearch”(IPBES-4/9,p. 11).

3

InthecaseofIPBES,suchcentersofcalculationincludeachangingmultitudeof researchcentersanduniversitiesaroundtheworld,e.g.allthevariousafﬁliationsof theMEP-membersandothersinvolved.TheIPBESsecretariatislocatedontheUN campusinBonn,Germany.

(4)

ignored.ThisisfollowedbyValidation,wherescientificcriteriaare employedtotestthegeneralizabilityoftheknowledge.Ifitpasses the test, the final step is Generalization, where knowledge is cataloged,archivedandcirculated.Thepracticalconsequenceof thisprocessisthatthediversityofILKisflattenedanditbecomes difficulttounderstandhowILKisrelatedtotheILKholdersand theirsocialandpoliticalcontext.Ifscientizationisoneendofa continuum,theotherendisromanticization.ThisoccurswhenILK isnaivelyseenasanunbiasedrepresentationofalltheknowledges andviewsheldbyaparticularcommunity.AsBriggs(2005)points out,external actorsengaging withILK tend toignoreissues of power,legitimacyandgenderwithinit.Inrelationtothis,Agrawal and Gibson (1999) calls for a stronger focus onthe divergent interestsofmultipleactorswithincommunities.They problem-atizethepreoccupationwith“themythiccommunity”inmuchof the conservation literature, i.e. the idea that there are small, integratedgroupswithdevelopednormsformanagingresources in a fair and sustainable way. Striking a balance between scientization and romanticization is a challenge for IPBES, one thatwillbereturnedtointhethirdsection.

Allformsofknowledgerestonassumptionsaboutwhototrust andwhatshouldcountasevidence.Theyalsoincluderules for knowledgeproduction,rules that also constantlyarebroken in practicedue tothat phenomenonare complexand diffuse and thereforerequirewhatLaw (2004) calls“methodassemblages”, thatis,broader,looserand moregenerouswaytoinvestigateit.

Turnbull (2000) maintains that celebrating and revealing this messiness is what will make collaboration possible between knowledge systems. Embracing the messiness means fully recognizing other people’s knowledge systems; indeed one of IPBES’s core principles states: “Recognize and respect the contributionofindigenousandlocalknowledgetothe conserva-tionandsustainableuseofbiodiversityandecosystems”(UNEP/ IPBES,2012:11).Thisiseasiersaidthandone,however.Turnbull (2000) equates the difficulty of stepping out of your own knowledge system with that of learning to speak a foreign languagefluently:itisaboutnotjustlearningthewords,butalso embracing cultural values and practices. This is why Turnbull arguesfor the need toestablish a third space, created through negotiationsbetweendifferentknowledgesystems.Hiddenpower assumptions about theobjects constituting a knowledgespace needtobemadevisibleinsuchnegotiations(e.g.bytalkingabout perceived power imbalances). It is particularly important to addressissues of trust and mistrust, not least becausescience hasa discouragingtrackrecordofdiscreditingILKholders.In a third space, the idea of a single transcendent rationality is abandonedand multiple rationalities are allowed to coexist in “agonisticpluralism”(Mouffe,1999),thatis,inastatewherethe powerandantagonismofdifferentrationalitiesareacknowledged (Turnbull,2000,2007).Theacknowledgmentofsuchmultiplicity isimportantbecausetheopposite_–attemptsatuniversalization_– implydenying,erasingorsuppressingotherwaysofknowing.The existenceofincommensurableformsofknowledgeposesasevere challenge,but tryingtoovercomeit byalludingtonotionsof a commonhumannatureora universalsystem oflogicorvalues oftenmeansdoingviolencetootherwaysofknowingandbeing. Inthispaper,thenotionofathirdknowledgespaceservesasan idealtype (Weber,2002).Ideal typesdo not existas empirical realities,butaredistillatesorpurificationsofanexistingor(inthis case) imagined reality. Analytically, an ideal type serves as a hypothesisagainstwhichrealitycanbetested.Theidealtypeofa thirdknowledgespaceleadsonetolookfor issuesofinclusion, power, trust, respect, differing world views and contrasting rationalitiesinthedocuments.Eveniftheyareintertwined,these issuescanbesubsumedunderthebroaderthemesofparticipation, ontologyandepistemology.

2.2.Materialandmethods

ThispaperanalyzesﬁvecentraldocumentsrelatedtoIBPES’s attemptstobridgethegapsbetweendifferentknowledgesystems. The selection of material is strategic, focusing on documents speciﬁcallyaddressingrelevantchallengesrelatedtoparticipation, ontology and epistemology, or identifying where they can be expectedtoemerge.Fromthedocumentsmatchingthiscriterion, those mostfrequently referred toin the vast textualoutputof IPBESwereselected.Thesewereasfollows:

ConceptualframeworkoftheIntergovernmentalScience-Policy Platformon Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Díaz et al., 2015a). The purpose of the conceptual framework (CF) is to provideacommonlanguage.4

Indigenous and Local Knowledge aboutPollination and Polli-nators associated withFood Production: Outcomes from the Global Dialog Workshop (Lyver et al., 2015). This document (hereafterPWR)isareportfromaworkshoporganizedbythe IPBEStaskforceonILKandheldinPanama,inDecember,2014. Thepurposewastosupportauthorsandothersinvolvedinthe pollinationassessmentbyfacilitatingaccesstoindigenousand localknowledgerelevanttotheassessment’stheme,aswellasto pilotapproaches and procedures for building ILK into IPBES assessments.

Connectingdiverse knowledge systemsfor enhanced ecosys-temsgovernance:themultipleevidencebaseapproach(Tengö et al., 2014). Thisdocument (hereafter MEB) is a theoretical scientiﬁcpaperthatdevelopsanapproachfor workingacross knowledgesystems.ItwasborndirectlyoutoftheIPBESprocess, andiscitedinthecommentedversionoftheCF.

Thecontributionofindigenousandlocalknowledgesystemsto IPBES:Buildingsynergieswithscience(Thamanetal.,2013).A reportfromthe 2013IPBESMultidisciplinary Expert Panelin Tokyo(hereafterTR).Theaimofthemeetingwastoexamineand identifyproceduresandapproachesforworkingwithILK,andto reviewexistingconceptualframeworksthatcouldaccommodate ILK.

Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the intergovernmentalscience-policyplatformonbiodiversityand ecosystemservicesonpollinators,pollinationandfood produc-tion(IPBES,2016a,b,c).Thiscontainsthekeymessagesfromthe first substantial IPBES assessment (hereafter SPM). The full technicalreportwasnotreleasedwithinthetimeframeofthis study,butthesummaryshowshowILKiscurrentlyrepresented inIPBESextra-scientificcommunication.Itisimportanttostress thattheproceduresandapproachesforworkingwithILKwere beingpilotedatthetimeofthisfirstIPBESassessment,soour analysisdoesnotreflecttheplatform’s“finalcapability”towork acrossdiverseknowledgesystems.

The documents were thematicallyanalyzed (Boyatzis,1998; Bryman,2012)usingNvivosoftware.Thematerialwasreadlineby line,sortingintothemeseverypassagethatexplicitlyaddressed challenges related to participation, ontology or epistemology. Thesethemeswerethenreturnedtofordetailedcoding,breaking them down into a number of sub-themes that differentiate betweenvariousaspectsoftheissues.5_In_the_next_and_ﬁnal_step

of t- h-e a- n-

a-4_We_have_used_a_version_that_also_includes_comments_and_explanations_by_the

authors,publishedinascientiﬁcjournal(Díazetal.,2015a).

5

“Participation”wasbrokendownintosub-themessuchas“trust”,“format”, “knowledgesharing”etc.“Ontology”into“understandingofpollination”,“spiritual view”,“scientiﬁcview”etc.“Epistemology”into“valueofknowledge”,“knowledge generation”,“validation”etc.

(5)

lysis,lessexplicitmanifestationsofthechallengesaddressedwere lookedfor.

There are clear limitations to using content analysis for studyingorganizationalpractices. Wecannotcapture thelatent powerrelations, the concrete negotiations or theoften hidden agendas etc. that can have substantial impact on the textual output.However, themethodappliedtakes this output atface value. It ﬁnds challenges that are persistent enough to shine through in public documents. The textual output of IPBES is performativeinthesensethatitwilllikelybeofkeyinﬂuencefor thecontinuedprocesses.Thus,itisinitselfworthstudying.

3.Results

3.1.Participation:howtorepresentandbalancedifferent perspectives?

TheambitiontocreatesynergiesbetweenscienceandILK–as opposed to just using ILK as a complement to science is repeatedly underlined in the documents. The MEP is urged to “addressILKinassessmentreports,technicalpapersand support-ingmaterial acrossall relevantchapters,and not in a separate sectionthatisisolatedfromthemainbodyofwork”(TR,p. 18).This ambitionmade it through totheSPM, where ILK is frequently addressedwithinthemaintext.(Wewillreturntothequalitative aspects of this integration below.) Mixing knowledges into synergies is indeed a “messy” practice. Also in tune with the notionofathirdspaceisthefactthatissuesofpowerandtrust betweenknowledgesystemsarefrequentlyaddressed:

Successful engagement with indigenous people and local communitiesrequiresmutualtrustandrespect.(TR,p.47) Therearegoodreasonsforsuchwordsofwarning,considering science’shistoryof engagementwithILKholders.Probablyasa consequenceofthis,fewpassagesproblematizeILKinanyway.The problemof genderproscriptionssurrounding knowledgewithin certainlocalcommunities(e.g.taboosthatrestrictspeechbetween menandwomen)isanexampleofthis.ShouldIPBESacceptsuch proscriptions?Theproblemisnoted,butscarcelyanythingissaid abouthowitshouldbehandled.

Theabovequotationsalsoshowthatitissciencethatengages with ILK, rather than their involvement being a reciprocal endeavor.Asnoted,IPBESisnotathirdspace;itwasnotcreated throughnegotiationsbetweendifferentknowledgesystems.The TR(p.13)infactunderlinesthattherearepreconditionsforthe process;thedifferentproceduresforworkingwithILKmust be adaptedtothemandateandfunctionsofIPBES.Other “disclaim-ers” are also found throughout the documents, indicating in variouswayshowdifﬁcultitistobridgescienceandILK.Boththe CF(p.4)andtheMEB(p.586)state–indifferentwordingsand withoutexamples–thatthereareelementswithinscienceandILK thatprobablywillremainincommensurable.

InsomepartsoftheSPM,theintegrationofILKcomesacrossas anunﬁnishedproject.Forinstance,keymessage#17reads:

Practices based on indigenous and local knowledge, in supportingan abundanceand diversityofpollinatorscan,in co-productionwithscience,beasourceofsolutionstocurrent challenges.(SPM,p.4)

Whilethisisanimportantmessageforpolicymakerstohear,it doesnotsound liketheresultofanendeavorstrivingtocreate knowledgesynergies.Rather,itisarepetitionoftherationalefor thewholeproject.Thereare,however,severalexampleofILKbeing presentedasofferingpossiblesolutionstoidentiﬁedproblems;e.g.

valuing weedsas supplementaryfood productscan reducethe needforherbicides(SPM,p.17).

ThereisatendencytobundleallofILKintoasingleentityinthe analyzed documents, most notably in the CF. There it is acknowledged thatthetermILKcomprises multipleknowledge systems,buttheCFoperateswiththetwocategoriesof“western science”and“otherknowledgesystems”(p.4).Scientiﬁcconcepts are given ILK counterparts in the CF (e.g. Biodiversity and Ecosystemsare“translated”intoMotherEarthandSystemsofLife). This use of multiple terminologies is probably preferable to imposingconceptsontheprocessthatmayhavelimitedmeaning outside thescienti_ﬁccommunity.Buteven ifaconceptsuchas MotherEarthisused“inanumberofcountriesandregions”(CF,p. 13),thereareotherwaysofconceptualizingitaroundtheworld. Theconcept’sinclusionintheCFwasstronglyadvocatedbythe Boliviandelegation(cf.BorieandHulme,2015).Surprisingly,the ILKconceptsfromtheCFarealmostentirelyabsentintheSPM.

Asstressedabove,mobilityisanimportantfactorinknowledge becoming influential. ILK is described in the documents as stationary, and it is suggested that IPBES should work directly withILKholdersintheirlocalcontext“ratherthanremovingthem from the places where their knowledge is situated and has meaning”(TR,p.47).Whilethismightbegoodpractice,theidea thatILKlosesitsmeaningoutsideofitslocalcontextisdifficultto maintain(Agrawal,1995).Tobecomepartoftheassessment,all knowledgeformshavetotravelawayfromitsoriginalcontextand thistravelimpliesatranslationwhichaffectsdifferentknowledge formsunevenly.ILKhasamorerestrictedknowledgespacethan scientificknowledge(duetofewerimmutablemobiles and less spread infrastructure for knowledge distribution) which means that the assessment makes something deeply contextual to become abstractconceptspossibletoinclude in anassessment model.

A related problem concerns how knowledge is transferred withinacommunity.ThePWRinparticularcoversseveralaspects of this: e.g. how knowledge is passed between generations, possible reluctance to share knowledge with outsiders, and concerns about property rights. The last two aspects were explicitlyaddressedatthebeginningofthePanamaworkshop:

Atthestartoftheworkshop,anin-depthdiscussionwasheldon prior and informed consent and intellectual property rights [...]ItwasagreedthatILKholdersandexpertsshouldonly share the knowledge that they felt to beappropriate to be sharedinthisspecificforum.Atanypointintheworkshop,an ILK holder or expert could specify that certain elements of knowledgewerenottobesharedordistributed.(PWR,p.96) Awarenessoftheseissuesisprobablynecessaryforestablishing trust,buttheconsequencesfortheassessmentsofILKsystemsas closed inthis sensearenot addressedanywhere.Theidea that someelementsofILKarewithheldisproblematicinrelationtoa thirdspace,sinceithinderstheflourishingofmultiple rationali-ties. Scientificlegitimacy restsin partontransparencyand the separation of the scientist from scientific results. This is not applicabletoILK, andIPBESfavorsknowledgevalidationwithin (ratherthanacross)knowledgesystems(seeSection3.3).Still,itis arguablyimportanttoensurethatwhatfeedsintotheassessments actuallyrepresentsILK.

A practicalchallengerelatedtoparticipationconcerns struc-turingtheformatofthevariousIPBESmeetingssothatILKholders feelathome:

Theﬁrstchallengefortheworkshopwastomoveawayfroma conventional“science-structuredformat”thatpastexperience hasshownhinderstheengagementofILKholders.Aparticular

(6)

efforthadtobemadetocreateanenvironmentinwhichILK holderswouldcontributefreelyandinconﬁdence.Atthesame time,themeetingwasboundbytimeframesanddeadlines... /(PWR,p.95)

Apartfromthediscussiononpropertyrights,thementioned effortsconsistedofallocatingampletime forintroductions and placingassessmentauthorsinalisteningrole.However,thereare limitations,suchastimeframesanddeadlines,whichillustratethe formsthat boundariesbetweenknowledgesystemscantakein practice.

3.2.Ontology:whatcountsasreal?

One of the first things actors need to agree upon in any collaborativeprojectiswhat theproject isabout.Thiscommon groundiswhattheconceptualframeworktriestocreate.Butwhen itcomesdowntothematicassessments,suchasaboutpollination, differentunderstandingsreemerge.TheIPBESwebpagedescribes animalpollinationas“aregulatingecosystemservicethat under-pinsfoodproduction”andthepollinationassessmentasintended to“addresstheroleofnativeandexoticpollinators”(IPBES.net). ThePWR(pp.42–45)makesitclearthat,atleastinSouthAmerica, ILKholdersdonotseepollinationasadistinctthemethatcanbe separatedfrombiologicalreproductionasawhole,allthedifferent processesrelatedtoit(e.g.seeddispersal),andallareaswhereit takesplace(e.g.includingmarineenvironments).Intheanalyzed material, there is no discussion on how to deal with such conflicting views of what the assessments are about. In the SPM,pollinationis definedin thenarrowsense,as“transfer of pollenbetweenthemale andfemaleparts offlowerstoenable fertilizationandreproduction”(SPM,p.5).

Another ontological challenge relates to the supernatural. Spiritsareaveryrealpartofthelifeworldinmanyindigenous communities, while science usually operates with a clear demarcationagainstsuchphenomena.Thisraisesthefundamental questionastowhatisandwhatisnot.TheTRaddressesthisinthe followingway:

Theseparationofthespiritualfromthematerialisattheorigins of scientiﬁc thought [...] As biodiversity knowledge in indigenous and localcommunities is framedat leastin part by the spiritual,and bynon-material relationships between human and non-human beings, IPBES must also develop proceduresandapproachesthatcanrespectfullyaccommodate bothscientiﬁcandindigenousworldviews.(TR,p.46). Whatit meanstorespectfullyaccommodatespiritual world-viewsremainsunclear.Toacknowledgeandreportthat biodiver-sitycanbedescribedinspiritualtermsseemsfairlyunproblematic. The crucial question is whether or not spiritual explanations shouldbeincludedandpresentedasknowledge.ThePWRpresents ILKabouthoneybeesfromdifferentpartsoftheworld,andspirits areoftentreatedasrealphenomenainthesetexts:

In SentarumLake,thesmalltreesinwhich honeyplanksare attached require no singing, neither mantra, to protect the beekeeper.InBelitung,however,wherespiritsareeverywhere, theuseofnaturalresources(terrestrialandaquatic)withina territoryissupportedbycustom(adat)andthevillageauthority (the dukunkampung)whoactsasanintermediary between villagersandthelocalspirits.(PWR,p.15)

Thisquotedescribeshownaturalresourcescanbeusedinthe twoareas, and theinformation is clearlymediated byspiritual beliefs.TheSPMmentionsthatpollinatorsareimportantspiritual symbols in many cultures (p. 2), and that ILK systems often

understand pollination processes in terms of spirituality (and other dimensions, p. 6), but it does not mention spirits or spiritualityinanyotherway.Itishardtoimagineanassessment statingthat“spiritsareeverywhere.”Still,thespiritsarerealtothe ILKholders;theyknowthatspiritsexist,whichonecannotsayofa scientificknowledgesystem.Perhapsthetextualabsenceofspirits intheSPMisaconsequenceofsuchconflictingontologies.Ideally, ina thirdspace,boththeseontologieswouldbeallowedto co-exist.Itisnotonlyrespectandtrustthatareatstake,butpiecesof knowledge.In somecases, scientific and spiritual practices are intertwined,asinthisquotefromthePWR:

Someyears ago, Tuawhenua [indigenousPolynesianpeople] werepartof agroupthatdidtrialslookingattheuptakeof pesticide “1080” (sodium ﬂuoroacetate) by forest rongoa (medicinalplants).Thestudyshowed that1080waspresent inanumberofrongoaspeciesfollowingtheuseof1080baitsin theforest.Wewantedtoknowwhatimpact1080hadonthe medicinalpropertiesofourplants.Alsoweenquiredaboutthe spiritualpurityoftheplantoncechemicalshadpassedthrough it.(PWR,p.33)

Theuptakeof1080wasinvestigatedalongwiththespiritual purity, and both aspects were probably of importance to the Tuawhenua.Bydisqualifyingordisregardingspiritualknowledge, IPBES risksmissing outonthe scientiﬁcknowledge residingin indigenous communities. There are also examples of how biodiversity is sustained through ideasof causalitythat would behardtovalidatescientiﬁcally.Arepresentativeoftheindigenous groupGunas(ofPanama)isquotedinthePWR:

Ourwisepeopleandourauthoritiestellusthatweshouldn’teat sharkbecausesharksareaggressiveandpeoplewhoeatsharks willbecomeaggressive,too.AndmaybeifIeatashark,Iwon’t becomeaggressive,butIcoulddrivesharkstoextinction.Thisis howIKforgesthebehaviorofourchildren.(PWR,p.40) Evenifitis impossibletoestablishascientiﬁclinkbetween shark consumption and aggressive behavior it is arguably importantthat theIPBESassessments areabletocapturewhat underpins both sustainableand unsustainablepractices. In the SPMitisstatedthatseveralILKpracticesarepollinator-friendly, butfewexamplesaregiven.

3.3.Epistemology:whatcountsasvalidknowledge?

The TR mainly addresses epistemology in relation to the geographicalsituatednessofILK,connectingittothespatialscales oftheassessments:

Eventhoughtheindigenousandlocalknowledgeofa group may be restricted to a small portion of a species’ range, this spatially-limited knowledge may nonetheless prove to be of regionalsigni_ﬁcanceforassessmentsandpolicy-makingwhenthe territory of the group is located at a strategic point along a migratorycorridor.Inthesecases,theirsite-speciﬁcobservations and knowledge may provide critical snapshots of population health,abundance,orcomposition,whilecreating opportunities forco-managementandconservation.(TR,p.12)

Gatheringdataisanimportantpartofknowledgegeneration, andonewherelaypeoplecanplayanimportantrole,asillustrated bythevariouscitizenscienceprojectsunderwayaroundtheworld (e.g.birdcounting,cf.Silvertown,2009).TheSPMalsosuggests thatwild“pollinatorscanbemonitoredtosomeextentthrough citizen scienceprojects”(p.21). However,gatheringdatais not knowledge generation per se – some analytical steps are also required.ILKholdersareascribedasomewhatmoreactiverolein

(7)

theMEB:thatofgeneratinghypothesis.WithreferencetoMoller etal.(2004),theMEBstates:

Local knowledge has a strength in identifying relevant hypothesesfor problem solving,which is complemented by powerful tools of science to address and evaluate the underlyingmechanismsinvolved.(MEB,p.20)

The MEB does not make it clear whether ILK holders can participateinapplyingthese“powerfultools,”orifsuchactivities only include scientists. While the assessments do not involve undertaking original research, they do include the scientiﬁc activityofevaluatingexistingknowledge.Wewillreturntothis point shortly.It is also notedin the TRthat scientists withan indigenousbackgroundmayhelpcreatelinksbetweenknowledge systems (Moller et al., 2004 p. 49). Such scientists serve as “boundaryspanners”(TushmanandScanlan,1981;Rosenkopfand Nerkar,2001),i.e.individualswiththeabilitytocommunicateboth within an organization (or knowledge system) and with other organizations and target groups. Boundary spanners can be important resources for overcoming distrust and can serve as interpreters.

A fundamental question that arises from the PWR and its variousdescriptionsofpollination-relatedILKis:Whatshouldbe donewiththecollectedknowledge?ThePWRisaworkinprogress. Nevertheless,itis verydescriptivein character.Knowledgeand practicesaredescribedindetail,butthesedescriptionsneverreally “getoff theground” bylinkingtheknowledge andpractices to overarchingquestionsorconfrontingthemwithotherknowledge claims,etc.Asalreadynoted,theSPMbringsILKpracticestothe fore.HowevertheyarealwaysdescribedasILKpractices,andare nothybridizedintogeneralbiodiversityknowledge.Thisissueis closelylinkedtotheproblemofknowledgevalidation.

TheMEBacknowledgesthatwhenvalidationmethodsfromone knowledgesystemareappliedtoanothersystem,thequalityand integrityofthelattermaybecompromised,andthereisariskof validknowledgebeingrejected(MEB,p.583).ThepointofaMEB approachispreciselythatsystem-specificcriteriaforvalidationare applied within the system, and that these internally validated knowledgescombinetoforman“enrichedpictureof understand-ing[ofaspecificsubject]”(TushmanandScanlan,1981;Rosenkopf andNerkar,2001).TheprocessesforvalidatingILKarestillunder developmentwithinIPBES(butincludecommunity-based valida-tion).Themainprinciple,however,isthatILKholdersthemselves areresponsibleforensuringthattheknowledgetheycontributeis valid and robust (cf. IPBES-4/9). The critical question then becomes: How can one tell if the picture is being enriched? And,howcanwetell ifwearerejecting validknowledge?It is argued in the MEB that more confidence can be placed in conclusionsbasedonknowledgethatconvergesacrossknowledge systems;buthowcanoneseeifknowledgesconverge?Theideaof an “enriched picture” seems to shy away from the core epistemologicalquestion:Howcanweknow?

Finally,letuslookathowthisplaysoutintheSPM.Becauseitis asynthesis,itisnotalwayspossibletojudgeifafindingintheSPM isbasedonscientificknowledge,ILKorboth. Wecan,however, makeafewobservationsregardinghowvalidityisexpressedinit. TheSPMcommunicatesa “degreeofconfidence”ineach major finding,usingfourclasses:

Wellestablished (highlevelofagreement,highquality/quantityofevidence) Establishedbutincomplete (highlevelofagreement,lowquality/quantityofevidence) Unresolved (lowlevelofagreement,highquality/quantityofevidence) Inconclusive (lowlevelofagreement,lowquality/quantityofevidence)

Theprocessofassigningdegreesofcertaintyinvolvedtheentire authorteam(includingILKholders,usingtheirownmeasures).As tobeexpectedinanassessment,thecategoryinconclusiveisnot used.Fewunresolved issuesarereported, and thosethatareall

seemtoberelatedtoscientificuncertainty(e.g.thatexposureto stressors, suchas chemicalsorinsufficient nutrition,can some-timesworsentheimpactofparasitesinhoneybees).Mostofthe findingsthatclearlyrelatetoILKareclassifiedasestablished,but incomplete,includingkeymessage#17citedabove(ILKasasource of solutions for the present challenges). The findings that are reportedaswellestablishedandthatclearlyrelatetoILKallhaveto do withthe great financial,culturalor symbolicimportance of pollinators for indigenous communities around the world. No examplesofhands-onILK(e.g.crop-rotation)areclassifiedaswell established. It seems reasonable that the highest degree of con_fidence would require validation within all the knowledge systemsencompassedbyanendeavorlikeIPBES.Still,thismeans thatvalidationultimatelytakesplaceacross,ratherthanwithin, knowledgesystems.

4.Conclusion

IPBESisanintergovernmentalexpertbodyaimedtostrengthen thescience-policyinterfacebyproducingpolicy-relevant assess-mentsofthestateofbiodiversityandecosystemservices,making sciencemoreusefulandusedindecision-making.Incontrastto existingexpertorganizations–of whichIPCCis themost well-known–itaimsnotonlytobridgethegapbetweenscienceand policy,butalsotoincludenon-scientificknowledgesystemsinthis bridging work. The reason for this is that biodiversity and ecosystem services differ from many other environmental challenges in that they explicitly include values, and therefore cannot readily bequantified(Kovácsand Pataki,2016).Thus, a fundamental characteristic of IPBES is that it aims tointegrate scientificknowledgewithalternativewaysofknowing,including indigenous, traditional or other practical forms of knowledge (Rodelaetal.,2015).Seenbysomeresearchersasa“RosettaStone,” theconceptualframework(CF)of IPBESstressescommonalities betweendiverseperspectives,therebyfacilitating cross-disciplin-aryandcross-culturalunderstanding(Díazetal.,2015b).However, as stressed in this paper, accommodating knowledge from differentknowledgesystemsposessubstantialchallenges.IPBES clearlyisstrugglingtoreconcileitsaimofcreatinganopenand collaborativeatmospherewiththedemandsforstructure setby thescientificformat.Inthissense,itremainswithinthescientific knowledgespaceimplyingthatitismainlyILKthathavetotravel fromitscontext,therebyalsohavetobetranslated.

Furthermore,whilethereisdeepawarenessofissuesliketrust andrespectwithinIPBES,theorganizationseemstoshyawayfrom addressingcontestedandconflict-ladenissues,fromrestrictionsof participationtoontologicaldisagreements.Relatedtothisisthe problem of treating both science and ILK as distinct entities, withoutmuch discussiononwho andwhat gets torepresenta particularknowledgesystem.Importanttonoteisthatthelocal andcontextualcharacterofknowledgeshouldnotonlybeattached toILK.Scienceisalsoaheterogeneouspracticeandincludesmany differentdisciplines and researchtraditions.As recentlyshown (Morin et al.,2016), thesteering bodies of IBPES that includes experts(theBureauandtheMultidisciplinaryExpertPanel,MEP) have biasedscientificrepresentation,withfew social scientists, andthoseincludedismainlyrepresentingthedisciplineseconomy andmanagement.Bynotincludinginterpretativesocialsciences (asanthropology, sociology, philosophy ofscience) which deals withculturalissues(includingculturalaspectsofscienceitself), thereislimitedopportunitiesformorereflexiveandself-critical processes aboutwhatshouldbecountedastruth (Morinet al., 2016) but also for understanding what takes place in the assessment.

When it comes to epistemology, the role of ILK holders in knowledgegenerationandinparticularthechallengeofﬁnding

(8)

functional criteria for knowledge validation both appear tobe unresolvedissues.However,thislastpointisalsonotintendedto beresolved ina thirdspace,where incommensurabilityis both expectedandaccepted.

Even if the aim is to dissolve rather than uphold certain boundaries,allkindsofboundarywork–alsothatwhichaimsto transcend borders – imply the strengthening of new (or old) boundaries. As shown above, ILK does not only serve to complementandenrichscientificknowledge;itoftencontradicts it.OuranalysisfindsthatIPBEShasnotyetfoundformsfordealing withcontrasting rationalities,diverging ontologicalclaims, and differentcriteriaforknowledgevalidation.Thereisagreatriskthat ILKwillbecomescientized,withonlythosepartsofitthatscience canhandlebeingused;i.e.thatintheendknowledgeintegration willbesubordinatedtoasingle(scientific)knowledgesystem.

Lastbutnotleast,theexperienceofIPBESisrelevantformany otherenvironmentalchallenges.Thereistodayanewlandscapeof internationalenvironmentalgovernance,onewhereexpert orga-nizationsare needed,notonly toassessand synthesizerapidly accumulating knowledge, but also to make knowledge policy-relevantinordertotackleenvironmentalchallenges.Atthesame time,thereisrecognitionthatscientiﬁcknowledgeisanecessary, but not sufﬁcient condition for developing relevantand viable policies.This hasled to a growing focus onstrengthening the interfacesnotonlybetweenscienceandpolicy,butalsobetween science,policyand society atlarge. If a third knowledgespace needstoharborincommensurability,thesameistrueforsuchan overarchinginterface.It isin fact questionablewhethera third knowledgespacecanberealizedaslongasthereisademandfor clearandunambiguousanswersatthepolicylevel.

Acknowledgement

Thisarticlewaswrittenaspartoftheproject“Sciencerolein international environmental governance” supported by the SwedishResearchCouncil.

References

Agrawal,A.,Gibson,C.C.,1999.Enchantmentanddisenchantment:theroleof communityinnaturalresourceconservation.WorldDev.27(4),629–649.

Agrawal,A.,1995.Dismantlingthedividebetweenindigenousandscientiﬁc knowledge.Dev.Change26413–413.

Agrawal,A.,2002.Indigenousknowledgeandthepoliticsofclassiﬁcation.Int.Soc. Sci.J.54(173),287–297.

Beck,S.,Borie,M.,Esguerra,A.,Chilvers,J.,Heubach,K.,Hulme,M.,Lidskog,R., Lövbrand,E.,Marquard,E.,Miller,C.,Nadim,T.,Nesshöver,C.,Settele,J., Turnhout,E.,Vasileiadou,E.,Görg,C.,2014.Towardsareﬂexiveturninthe governanceofglobalenvironmentalexpertise:thecasesoftheIPCCandthe IPBES.GAIA–Ecol.Perspect.Sci.Soc.23(2),80–87.

Borie,M.,Hulme,M.,2015.Framingglobalbiodiversity:IPBESbetweenmother earthandecosystemservices.Environ.Sci.Policy54,487–496.

Boyatzis,R.E.,1998.TransformingQualitativeInformation:ThematicAnalysisand CodeDevelopment.Sage,London.

Briggs,J.,2005.Theuseofindigenousknowledgeindevelopment:problemsand challenges.Prog.Dev.Stud.5(2),99–114.

Bryman,A.,2012.SocialResearchMethods,4thed.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

Cornell,S.,Berkhout,F.,Tuinstra,W.,Tàbara,J.D.,Jäger,J.,Chabay,I.,vanKerkhoff,L., etal.,2013.Openingupknowledgesystemsforbetterresponsestoglobal environmentalchange.Environ.Sci.Policy28,60–70.

Díaz,S.,Demissew,S.,Carabias,J.,Joly,C.,Lonsdale,M.,Ash,N.,Driver,A.,etal., 2015a.TheIPBESconceptualframework—connectingnatureandpeople.Curr. Opin.Environ.Sustain.14,1–16.

Díaz,S.,Demissew,S.,Joly,C.,Lonsdale,W.M.,Larigauderie,A.,2015b.Arosetta stonefornature’sbeneﬁtstopeople.PLoSBiol.13(1),e1002040.doi:http://dx. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.100204.

Gieryn,T.F.,1983.Boundary-workandthedemarcationofsciencefrom non-science:strainsandinterestsinprofessionalideologiesofscientists.Am.Sociol. Rev.48(6),781–795.

Hilgartner,S.,2000.ScienceonStage:ExpertAdviceasPublicDrama.Stanford UniversityPress,Stanford.

IPBES/4/INF/6,2016a.Updateontheworkofthetaskforceonindigenousandlocal knowledgesystems

IIPBES-4/9,2016b.Guideontheproductionandintegrationofassessmentsfrom andacrossallscales.

IPBES,2016c.Summaryforpolicymakersoftheassessmentreportofthe IntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystem Servicesonpollinators,pollinationandfoodproduction.In:S.G.Potts,V.L. Imperatriz-Fonseca,H.T.Ngo,J.C.Biesmeijer,T.D.Breeze,L.V.Dicks,L.A. Garibaldi,R.Hill,J.Settele,A.J.Vanbergen,M.A.Aizen,S.A.Cunningham,C. Eardley,B.M.Freitas,N.Gallai,P.G.Kevan,A.Kovács-Hostyánszki,P.K.Kwapong, J.Li,X.Li,D.J.Martins,G.Nates-Parra,J.S.Pettis,R.Rader,B.F.Viana(eds.)

Jasanoff,S.,2004.Theidiomofco-production.In:Jasanoff,S.(Ed.),Statesof Knowledge:TheCo-ProductionofScienceandSocialOrder.Routledge,New York,pp.1–12.

Kovács,E.K.,Pataki,G.,2016.Theparticipationofexpertsandknowledgesinthe IntergovernmentalPlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystemServices(IPBES). Environ.Sci.Policy57,131–139.

Latour,B.,1986.Visualizationandcognition.Knowl.Soc.6,1–40.

Latour,B.,1987.ScienceinAction:HowtoFollowScientistsandEngineersThrough Society.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.

Latour,B.,1999.Pandora'sHope.EssaysontheRealityofScienceStudies.Harvard UniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.

Law,J.,2004.AfterMethod:MessinSocialScienceResearch.Routledge,Abingdon.

Lyver,P.,Perez,E.,CarneirodaCunha,M.,Roue,M.(Eds.),2015.IndigenousandLocal KnowledgeAboutPollinationandPollinatorsAssociatedwithFoodProduction: OutcomesfromtheGlobalDialogueWorkshop(Panama1–5December2014). UNESCO,Paris.

Moller,H.,Berkes,F.,Lyver,P.O.B.,Kislalioglu,M.,2004.Combiningscienceand traditionalecologicalknowledge:monitoringpopulationsforco-management. Ecol.Soc.9(3),2.

Morin,J.-F.,Louafi,S.,Orsini,A.,Oubenal,M.,2016.Boundaryorganizationsin regimecomplexes:asocialnetworkprofileofIPBES.J.Int.Relat.Dev.doi:http:// dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41268-016-0006-8(onlinefirstarticle).

Mouffe,C., 1999.Deliberativedemocracyoragonisticpluralism?Soc.Res.6(3),745– 758.

Rodela,R.,Reinecke,S.,Bregt,A.K.,Kilham,E.,Lapeyre,R.,2015.Editorial:challenges toandopportunitiesforbiodiversityscience–policyinterfaces.Environ.Sci. Policy54,483–486.

Rosenkopf,L.,Nerkar,A.,2001.Beyondlocalsearch:boundary-spanning, exploration,andimpactintheopticaldiskindustry.Strateg.Manage.J.22(4), 287–306.

Silvertown,J.,2009.Anewdawnforcitizenscience.TrendsEcol.Evol.24(9),467– 471.

Tambiah,S.J.,1990.Magic,ScienceandReligionandtheScopeofRationality. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Tengö,M.,Brondizio,E.S.,Elmqvist,T.,Malmer,P.,Spierenburg,M.,2014.Connecting diverseknowledgesystemsforenhancedecosystemgovernance:themultiple evidencebaseapproach.Ambio43(5),579–591.

Thaman,R.,Lyver,P.,Mpande,R.,Perez,E.,Cariño,J.,Takeuchi,K.,2013.The ContributionofIndigenousandLocalKnowledgeSystemstoIPBES:Building SynergieswithScience.IPBESExpertMeetingReport.

Turnbull,D.,2007.Mapsnarrativesandtrails:performativity,hodologyand distributedknowledgesincomplexadaptivesystems-anapproachtoemergent mapping.Geogr.Res.45(2),140–149.

Turnbull,D.,2000.Masons,TrickstersandCartographers:ComparativeStudiesin theSociologyofScientiﬁcandIndigenousKnowledge.Routledge,NewYork.

Turnhout,E.,Bloomﬁeld,B.,Hulme,M.,Vogel,J.,Wynne,B.,2012.Conservation policy:listentothevoicesofexperience.Nature488(7412),454–455.

Tushman,M.L.,Scanlan,T.J.,1981.Boundaryspanningindividuals:theirrolein informationtransferandtheirantecedents.Acad.Manage.J.24(2),289–305.

UNEP/IPBES,2012.ReportoftheSecondSessionofthePlenaryMeetingto DetermineModalitiesandInstitutionalArrangementsforanIntergovernmental Science-policyPlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystemServices..

Vohland,K.,Mlambo,M.C.,Horta,L.D.,Jonsson,B.,Paulsch,A.,Martinez,S.I.,2011. HowtoensureacredibleandefﬁcientIPBES?Environ.Sci.Policy14(8),1188– 1194.

Weber,M.,2002.TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism:andOther Writings.Penguin,NewYork.