Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES

Abstract

Regime complexes are arrays of institutions with partially overlapping mandates and memberships. As tensions frequently arise among these institutions, there is a growing interest geared to finding strategies to reduce them. Insights from regime theory, science and technology studies, and social network analysis support the claim that "boundary organizations"—a type of organization until now overlooked in International Relations—can reduce tensions within regime complexes by generating credible, legitimate, and salient knowledge, provided that their internal networks balance multiple knowledge dimensions. Building on this argument, this article offers an ex ante assessment of the recently created International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Results from our network analysis of IPBES point to clear improvements compared with similar organizations, although major deficiencies remain. The contribution of this article is threefold. Methodologically, it introduces new conceptual and technical tools to assess the '"social representativeness" of international organizations. Theoretically, it supports the claim that international organizations are penetrated by transnational networks and, consequently, that the proliferation of institutions tends to reproduce structural imbalances. Normatively, it argues that a revision of nomination processes could improve the ability of boundary organizations to generate salient, credible, and legitimate knowledge. (Résumé d'auteur

Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority

“…traditional and local knowledge.' However, as previous studies have shown, this directive on knowledge diversity has hitherto had little impact, there being instead a great bias in favor of not only scientific expertise but also expertise based in the natural sciences (Heubach and Lambini 2017;Montana 2017;Montana and Borie 2016;Morin et al 2017;Stenseke 2016;Timpte et al 2017). The definition of who is able to become an IPBES expert, and what kind of expertise is expected of such an actor, are thus regulated in the organizational structure (UNEP 2012) and rules of procedure (IPBES 2013c).…”

“…Not only social science, but also indigenous and local knowledge should be part of the assessment work; IPBES aims to 'bring different knowledge systems, including indigenous systems, into the sciencepolicy interface ' (UNEP 2012, 13). This ambitious goal, however, has been easier to declare than to achieve; IPBES experts are still disproportionally dominated by natural scientists (Heubach and Lambini 2017;Montana 2017;Montana and Borie 2016;Morin et al 2017;Timpte et al 2017). It is important to note that the first cohort of IPBES fellows reflects a somewhat broader range of expertise; even if its composition is far from balanced, it nevertheless includes more social scientists, more women, and better regional spread than are found among the IPBES experts.…”

“…This is in contrast to the selection of IPBES experts, which to a large extent is based on external meta-expertise and social criteria rather than internal meta-expertise and peer-review quality control. Thus, the current way of constructing IPBES expertise has hitherto resulted in biased expertise, with rather few social scientists and extremely few representatives of indigenous and local knowledge systems (see Heubach and Lambini 2017;Montana 2017;Montana and Borie 2016;Morin et al 2017;Timpte et al 2017 for an analysis of the composition of IPBES's expertise). One reason why many expert organizations have failed to develop their trustworthiness is that their assessments are seen as too restricted; the technical framing of an environmental issue restricts its relevance and meaning, excluding important knowledge coming from outside the scientific community (Jasanoff 2012;Wynne 2005).…”

IPBES, an inclusive institution? Challenging the integration of stakeholders in a science-policy interface

“…The production of this new knowledge needs involvement and collaboration between IPBES's participants, including stakeholders. Although Morin et al (2016) studied interdependencies between experts of the multidisciplinary expert panel (MEP) and bureau members of IPBES, we suggest focusing on IPBES's stakeholders. The inclusiveness of IPBES can thus be analyzed by studying the exchange of knowledge and expertise through advice-seeking and advice-giving.…”

“…It is thus not possible to generalize our results to the whole institution. Further research may deal with other segments of IPBES such as MEP and bureau members (Morin et al 2016), task forces, or country delegations. We show that the leadership http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss1/art11/ dynamics managed by the IPBES secretariat convey a precise participation model, which tends either to enrol the stakeholders involved or leads them to self-exclude themselves from the group.…”