Skip to main content
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The IPBES Conceptual Framework: Enhancing the Space for Plurality of Knowledge Systems and Paradigms

verfasst von : Lavínia Pereira, Olivia Bina

Erschienen in: Non-Human Nature in World Politics

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Wir argumentieren, dass Konzepte der Natur und des Platzes der Menschheit in ihr der beste Schauplatz sind, um endlich die grundlegende erkenntnistheoretische und ontologische Kluft zu überwinden und aufzulösen, die einem transformativen Wandel im Wege steht. Wir entwickeln diese Idee, wobei wir uns auf die Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) konzentrieren, deren Ziel die "Stärkung der wissenschaftspolitischen Schnittstelle für Biodiversität und Ökosystemleistungen" ist. Im Jahr 2015 schuf die IPBES einen konzeptionellen Rahmen, um politische Entscheidungsträger und verschiedene Stakeholder bei ihrer Bewertung komplexer Interaktionen zwischen der natürlichen Welt und den menschlichen Gesellschaften zu unterstützen. Eines der Hauptziele des Rahmens ist es, Pluralität zu ermöglichen, verschiedene Wissenssysteme zusammenzuführen und ihre besonderen Repräsentationen der Mensch-Natur-Beziehungen darzustellen. In diesem Kapitel untersuchen wir die epistemologischen und ontologischen Annahmen, die dem Rahmen zugrunde liegen, und die darauf abzielen, zur Stärkung seiner Fähigkeit beizutragen, ein solches Ziel zu erreichen.
Mit KI übersetzt

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel A Typology of Direct Action at Sea
Fußnoten
1
Prigogine was a pioneer of self-organizing systems theory. His work is fundamental to the theory of Regenerative Economics, and to the theory of change of the Regenerative Communities Network (cited in the Newsletter Capital Institute Summer Update 2019, https://​capitalinstitute​.​org/​about-us/​newsletter-archives/​).
 
3
Biodiversity conservation is understood here as a science that addresses ‘the dynamics of coupled human-natural systems’ (Kareiva and Marvier 2012, p. 962).
 
4
Through this chapter, we will refer to knowledge mainly in two different ways: its production and negotiation within the scope of environmental change, and the broader scope of mindsets and paradigms that characterizes the discourse of systems change for sustainability transformation. Other expressions such as knowledge systems, ideas and ways of knowing will also be used within the context of the IPBES Framework and the cross-cultural work that the Platform aims to build.
 
5
The updated version of the IPBES Conceptual Framework including the expression ‘Nature’s contributions to people’ was published in 2019 (see IPBES 2019b).
 
6
A knowledge system is ‘a body of propositions that are adhered to, whether formally or informally, and are routinely used to claim truth’ (Díaz et al. 2015, p. 13). A knowledge system is produced within a specific cultural context, translating its particular ways of knowing and representing reality.
 
7
Aichi Targets are part of the ‘Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020’ of the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://​www.​cbd.​int/​sp/​targets/​).
 
8
Without explicitly including in the IPBES Framework references to the co-existing alternative (though invisible) Western paradigms concerning Life, Biodiversity and humans relations to it, there is the risk of a reductionist reading of (Western) concept of ‘Nature’, for instance, in the assessment practices. As O’Brien (2019) states concerning Climate Change, the paradigm used to frame Policy Agendas is still deterministic, atomistic and mechanistic.
 
9
Our emphasis.
 
10
We believe that a teleological reading—understood according to the acknowledgement of an autopoietic dimension in all living organisms (Weber 2013) as intrinsically purposeful (van der Schyff 2010)—can help us understand the notion of intrinsic worth in a much richer and consequent way than the one offered by the IPBES Framework: ‘the values inherent to nature, independent of human judgment, and therefore beyond the scope of anthropocentric valuation approaches’ (Díaz et al. 2015, p. 14).
 
11
See section ‘Enhancing Plurality: Four Concepts’ for definitions of these concepts.
 
12
The need for such collection and processing of data is, of course, itself, the product of a worldview and practice of governance intrinsically linked to sectorial and techno-managerial approaches within the Western scientific paradigm, its link to the dominant socio-economic systems, and the typical way of global production of knowledge to inform science-policy platforms.
 
13
The recent viral dissemination of Bendell’s (2018) work in relation to deep adaptation to climate change is an indicator of the prescience of such debates. Göpel M. (2016) The Great Mindshift. How a New Economic Paradigm and Sustainability Transformations go Hand in Hand: Springer International Publishing.
 
Literatur
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., et al. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio,46, 30–39.CrossRef
Baldwin, J., & Peck, R. (2016). I am not your negro. (Film) Magnolia Pictures.
Bennett, E. M., Solan, M., Biggs, R., McPhearson, T., Norström, A. V., Olsson, P., et al. (2016). Bright spots: Seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(8), 441–448.
Borie, M., & Hulme, M. (2015). Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy,54, 487–496.CrossRef
Brooks, T. M., Lamoreux, J. F., & Soberón, J. (2014). Ipbes ≠ ipcc. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,29(10), 543–545.CrossRef
Castree, N., Adams, W. M., Barry, J., Brockington, D., Büscher, B., Corbera, E., et al. (2014). Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change,4(9), 763.CrossRef
Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., et al. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,113, 1462–1465.CrossRef
Costanza, R., Fioramonti, L., & Kubiszewski, I. (2016). The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,14, 59.CrossRef
Dalby, S. (2016). Framing the Anthropocene: The good, the bad and the ugly. The Anthropocene Review,3(1), 33–51.CrossRef
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., et al. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,14, 1–16.CrossRef
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., et al. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science,359, 270–272.CrossRef
Dibley, B. (2012). ‘The shape of things to come’: Seven theses on the Anthropocene and attachment. Australian Humanities Review,52, 139–153.
Dunkley, R., Baker, S., Constant, N., et al. (2018). Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,18, 779–799.CrossRef
EEA (2016). Sustainability transitions: Now for the long term. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA), European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET).
Ellis, E. (2011). The planet of no return: Human resilience on an artificial earth. The Breakthrough Journal,2, 37–44.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Göpel, M. (2016). The great mindshift. How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand. Springer International Publishing.
Gunton, R. M., van Asperen, E. N., Basden, A., Bookless, D., Araya, Y., Hanson, D. R., et al. (2017). Beyond ecosystem services: Valuing the invaluable. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,32(4), 249–257.CrossRef
Hahn, T., McDermott, C., Ituarte-Lima, C., Schultz, M., Green, T., & Tuvendal, M. (2015). Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation. Ecosystem Services,16, 74–82.CrossRef
Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities,6(1), 159–165.CrossRef
Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,27, 1–3.CrossRef
Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change,20, 558–564.CrossRef
IPBES (2019a). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E. S., et al. (Eds.), IPBES secretariat. Bonn, Germany. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​3553579.
IPBES (2019b). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo (Eds.), IPBES secretariat. Bonn, Germany.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society,27, 233–253.CrossRef
Jetzkowitz, J., Van Koppen, C. S. A., Lidskog, R., Ott, K., Voget-Kleschin, L., & Wong, C. M. L. (2018). The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(1), S38–S60.
Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? BioScience,62(11), 962–969.CrossRef
Kenter, J. O. (2018). IPBES: Don’t throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater. Put people’s values central, not nature’s contributions. Ecosystem Services,33, 40–43.CrossRef
Lahsen, M. (2016). Toward a sustainable future earth: Challenges for a research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values,41(5), 876–898.CrossRef
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature, how to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press.
Leichenko, R., & O’Brien, K. (2019). Climate and society: Transforming the future. Cambridge, Medford, MA: Polity Press.
Löfmarck, E., & Lidskog, R. (2017). Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide. Environmental Science & Policy,69, 22–28.CrossRef
Maier, D., & Feest, A. (2016). The IPBES conceptual framework: An unhelpful start. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,29, 327–347.CrossRef
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute, 3, 19 pp.
Miller, C. A. (2008). Civic epistemologies: Constituting knowledge and order in political communities. Sociology Compass,2(6), 1896–1919.CrossRef
Montana, J. (2017). Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES. Environmental Science & Policy,68, 20–27.CrossRef
Moore, J. W. (Ed.). (2016). Anthropocene or capitalocene?: Nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism. Oakland: PM Press.
Moore, J. W. (2017). The capitalocene, part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies,44(3), 594–630.CrossRef
Morin, J.-F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A., & Oubenal, M. (2017). Boundary organizations in regime complexes: A social network profile of IPBES. Journal of International Relations and Development,20(3), 543–577.CrossRef
Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity-levels of reality, logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19–38.
O’Riordan, T., & Jordan, A. (1999). Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: Towards a common analytical framework. Global Environmental Change,9, 81–93.CrossRef
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,26, 7–16.CrossRef
Peterson, G., Harmáčková, Z., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Kuiper, J., et al. (2018). Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecology and Society, 23(1).
Radcliffe, S. A., Watson, E. E., Simmons, I., et al. (2010). Environmentalist thinking and/in geography. Progress in Human Geography,34, 98–116.CrossRef
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Reid, W. V., Mooney, H. A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S. R., Chopra, K., et al. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
Sandel, M. J. (2013). Market reasoning as moral reasoning: Why economists should re-engage with political philosophy. Journal of Economic Perspectives,27(4), 121–140.CrossRef
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,14, 94–101.CrossRef
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614–621.
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., et al. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,26, 17–25.CrossRef
Timpte, M., Montana, J., Reuter, K., Borie, M., & Apkes, J. (2018). Engaging diverse experts in a global environmental assessment: Participation in the first work programme of IPBES and opportunities for improvement. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(1), S15–S37.
Turnbull, D. (2003). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Taylor & Francis.
Turnhout, E. (2018). The politics of environmental knowledge. Conservation and Society,16, 363–371.CrossRef
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., & Buizer, M. (2013). Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters,6(3), 154–161.CrossRef
Turnhout, E., Dewulf, A., & Hulme, M. (2016). What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,18, 65–72.CrossRef
Vadrot, A., Akhtar-Schuster, M., & Watson, T. (2018). The social sciences and the humanities in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(1), S1–S9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13511610.​2018.​1424622.
Vadrot, A., Jetzkowitz, J., & Stringer, C. (2016). Social sciences: IPBES disciplinary gaps still gaping. Nature,530(7589), 160.CrossRef
van der Schyff, D. B. (2010). The ethical experience of nature: Aristotle and the roots of ecological phenomenology. Phenomenology & Practice, 4(1).
Weber, A. (2013). Enlivenment: Towards a fundamental shift in the concepts of nature (Vol. 31). Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Weber, A., & Kurt, H. (2015). Towards cultures of aliveness. Politics and poetics in a postdualistic age—an anthropocene manifesto. Solutions,5, 58–65.
Wilber, K. (2007). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Shambhala Publications.
Woiwode, C. (2016). Off the beaten tracks: The neglected significance of interiority for sustainable urban development. Futures,84, 82–97.CrossRef
Yusoff, K. (2010). Biopolitical economies and the political aesthetics of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society,27(2–3), 73–99.CrossRef
Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., et al. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews,2, 119–143.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The IPBES Conceptual Framework: Enhancing the Space for Plurality of Knowledge Systems and Paradigms
verfasst von
Lavínia Pereira
Olivia Bina
Copyright-Jahr
2020
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Buch
Non-Human Nature in World Politics

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49495-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-49496-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49496-4_15

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise