Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise

The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation.

[1]  Michael Hulme.  Streitfall Klimawandel: warum es für die größte Herausforderung keine einfachen Lösungen gibt , 2014 .

[2]  H. Mooney,et al.  IPBES: Biodiversity panel should play by rules , 2014, Nature.

[3]  A. Machin.  Negotiating Climate Change: Radical Democracy and the Illusion of Consensus , 2013 .

[4]  Juliette Young,et al.  Improving the Science-Policy Interface of Biodiversity Research Projects , 2013 .

[5]  M. Hajer.  Living the Winter of Discontent: Reflections of a Deliberative Practitioner , 2012, Futures of Modernity.

[6]  T. Stocker.  Adapting the assessments , 2012, Nature Geoscience.

[7]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience , 2012, Nature.

[8]  S. Jasanoff.  Science and Public Reason , 2012 .

[9]  M. Spierenburg.  Getting the message across biodiversity science and policy interfaces: A review , 2012 .

[10]  S. Beck.  Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC Under the "Public Microscope" , 2012 .

[11]  A. Arabia.  Building better science policy , 2012 .

[12]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Governing the Air , 2012 .

[13]  Thomas Koetz,et al.  Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , 2012, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[14]  J. Ford,et al.  Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII , 2011, Climatic Change.

[15]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction , 2011 .

[16]  Kong Luen Heong,et al.  Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. , 2011, Science.

[17]  Arthur Petersen,et al.  Exploring the Impact of the IPCC Assessment Reports on Science , 2011 .

[18]  Andrew G. Reisinger.  Interdisciplinarity: are we there yet? , 2011 .

[19]  Anne Larigauderie,et al.  The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science-Policy Interface , 2011, Science.

[20]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Keep it complex , 2010, Nature.

[21]  A. Jamison.  Climate change knowledge and social movement theory , 2010 .

[22]  E. Ostrom.  Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change , 2010 .

[23]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. , 2010 .

[24]  S. Rayner,et al.  The Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009 , 2010 .

[25]  R. Pachauri.  Climate change 2007. Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report , 2008 .

[26]  S. Schneider,et al.  Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report , 2008 .

[27]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake , 2007 .

[28]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Diversity without representation , 2006, Nature.

[29]  W. Reid,et al.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2005 .

[30]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[31]  Michael Dalton,et al.  Knowledge and the environment , 1999 .