(http://www. ipbes.net/images/decisions/Decision 20IPBES_2_4.pdf). It defines key terms (e.g. biodiversity, ecosystem, human wellbeing), sets the relationships between them and delineates its sphere of action. In doing so, the conceptual framework determines how the problem (loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function) is understood and, in turn, how to ameliorate it. In relation to assessments for example, it will guide scaling (from national to regional to global) and comparison of impacts. Developed in a series of expert workshops and approved at the 2nd plenary (Antalya, Turkey, December 2013), the framework’s central element is a diagram that displays concepts and their relations. Described as a `a tool for the achievement of a shared working understanding across different disciplines, knowledge systems and stakeholders’ (?), it `includes six interlinked elements constituting a social-ecological system that operates at various scales in time and space: nature; nature’s benefits to people; anthropogenic assets; institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers of change; direct drivers of change; and good quality of life’ (?).Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:2. What is success?How can we figure success within the framework of IPBES? Given the lack of scales and units against which `strengthening the SCIO-469 site science policy interface [. . .] for [. . .] human well-being’ can be measured, it is difficult to ascertain to what extent IPBES will succeed. Yet, we can direct questions about success (and failures) at the performative aspects of IPBES, that is, the manner in which it has so far carried itself. Here, the notion of success encompasses both what is achieved and how this is done [8]. As noted earlier, the key success factors; relevance (or salience), credibility and legitimacy are difficult analytical categories which have migrated from political science [9] into the discussion of science olicy interfaces (SPI), where they have become firmly installed as independent a priori criteria. While this is certainly convenient and rhetorically powerful, it also runs the danger of being vacuous. IPBES encompasses many complex issues, different actors and disparate sites and we would like to ask how, concretely, credibility, relevance and legitimacy can look like, or rather, how they can be achieved within the convoluted and messy arenas of political representation, decision-making and scientific assessments. Principally, we suggest that credibility, relevance and legitimacy are contingent achievements of collective dynamics that involve different stakeholders, affected groups and publics: they are not universal, they are not fixed and they cannot be summoned at will. In order to recover some of their concrete qualities, we suggest that questions should be directed at very specific instances of the extensive and heterogeneous processes and interactions between scientists, stakeholders, policymakers, publics and other actors that are currently engaged in `making’ IPBES [10]. In other words, any RRx-001 msds evaluation needs to specify the relevance, credibility and legitimacy of what and for whom [11]. Doing so, not only links these categories to concrete practices, but also expands and multiplies them: given the collective dynamics shaping IPBES there are different versions of relevance, credibility and legitimacy that might not be commensurate with each other but that might still lead to successful outcomes.(b) The work programmeThe work programme as.(http://www. ipbes.net/images/decisions/Decision 20IPBES_2_4.pdf). It defines key terms (e.g. biodiversity, ecosystem, human wellbeing), sets the relationships between them and delineates its sphere of action. In doing so, the conceptual framework determines how the problem (loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function) is understood and, in turn, how to ameliorate it. In relation to assessments for example, it will guide scaling (from national to regional to global) and comparison of impacts. Developed in a series of expert workshops and approved at the 2nd plenary (Antalya, Turkey, December 2013), the framework’s central element is a diagram that displays concepts and their relations. Described as a `a tool for the achievement of a shared working understanding across different disciplines, knowledge systems and stakeholders’ (?), it `includes six interlinked elements constituting a social-ecological system that operates at various scales in time and space: nature; nature’s benefits to people; anthropogenic assets; institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers of change; direct drivers of change; and good quality of life’ (?).Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:2. What is success?How can we figure success within the framework of IPBES? Given the lack of scales and units against which `strengthening the science policy interface [. . .] for [. . .] human well-being’ can be measured, it is difficult to ascertain to what extent IPBES will succeed. Yet, we can direct questions about success (and failures) at the performative aspects of IPBES, that is, the manner in which it has so far carried itself. Here, the notion of success encompasses both what is achieved and how this is done [8]. As noted earlier, the key success factors; relevance (or salience), credibility and legitimacy are difficult analytical categories which have migrated from political science [9] into the discussion of science olicy interfaces (SPI), where they have become firmly installed as independent a priori criteria. While this is certainly convenient and rhetorically powerful, it also runs the danger of being vacuous. IPBES encompasses many complex issues, different actors and disparate sites and we would like to ask how, concretely, credibility, relevance and legitimacy can look like, or rather, how they can be achieved within the convoluted and messy arenas of political representation, decision-making and scientific assessments. Principally, we suggest that credibility, relevance and legitimacy are contingent achievements of collective dynamics that involve different stakeholders, affected groups and publics: they are not universal, they are not fixed and they cannot be summoned at will. In order to recover some of their concrete qualities, we suggest that questions should be directed at very specific instances of the extensive and heterogeneous processes and interactions between scientists, stakeholders, policymakers, publics and other actors that are currently engaged in `making’ IPBES [10]. In other words, any evaluation needs to specify the relevance, credibility and legitimacy of what and for whom [11]. Doing so, not only links these categories to concrete practices, but also expands and multiplies them: given the collective dynamics shaping IPBES there are different versions of relevance, credibility and legitimacy that might not be commensurate with each other but that might still lead to successful outcomes.(b) The work programmeThe work programme as.
Posted inUncategorized