Pluralism, paralysis, practice: making environmental knowledge usable

In recent years, the global environmental science-policy interface has come to include a greater variety of knowledge. Social scientists have joined natural scientists at the policy table, and Indigenous and local knowledge is being taken ever more seriously. But this pluralisation raises political, normative, and epistemic challenges for environmental expert organisations, including with respect to how knowledge is managed, how it is judged to be valid, how it is made policy-relevant, and how it is presented to policy-makers and decision-takers. Based on an interview study of experts involved in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), we identify three broad approaches to these challenges: the integrationist logic, which seeks to combine all knowledge into a single ontology; the parallelist, which looks for similarities and connections between irreconcilable ontologies; and the pragmatist, which strives to apply knowledge when and where it will have the greatest positive impact. Rather than champion any one of these approaches, the paper explores their origins and how they negotiate paralyses to the timeliness of work. In avoiding ultimate formalisation of how value and knowledge pluralism are to be handled, IPBES allow more contextually sensitive practices to come to the fore. The paper concludes by discussing implications for environmental expertise more broadly.

Automated summary

In recent years, there has been an increased recognition of the importance of including a variety of knowledge in the global environmental science-policy interface. This has led to the inclusion of social scientists and Indigenous and local knowledge in policy discussions. However, this pluralisation presents challenges for environmental expert organisations in terms of knowledge management, validation, policy-relevance, and presentation. Based on interviews with experts involved in IPBES, three approaches to these challenges are identified: integrationist logic, parallelist, and pragmatist. The paper explores the origins of these approaches and their implications for environmental expertise.