Isabelle Mauz

Assessing Nature? The Genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

On the basis of an analysis of the creation of an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), our contribution addresses the progressive stabilisation of an institutional design for assessing Nature. Social science literature has widely promoted norms of transparency, openness and participation regarding the implementation of new forms of environmental governance. But so far, few researchers have focused on the way this disclosure model now concretely weighs down on real institutions and institutionalisation processes. Moreover, little attention has been paid to the way this requirement can combine with other requirements or older models of action. In the case of IPBES, our goal is to question how the requirements of participation and transparency are put into practice. We will highlight the role of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) in the institutionalisation process of IPBES and see how the disclosure model is combined with other requirements that simultaneously involve the re-creation of ‘enclosure’ (that is, the need for academic sound–science, or the usual way in which things are done at UNEP—that is, bureaucratic practices). Our work is based on an empirical study including documentation analysis (official reports available on websites) and interviews.

Fostering Research into Coupled Long-Term Dynamics of Climate, Land Use, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in the Central French Alps

The Central French Alps long-term socio-ecological research Platform (Central French Alps LTSER) focuses on the coupled dynamics of alpine ecosystems, their uses and climate. The creation of the Platform has provided a unique opportunity to initiate and strengthen collaborative transdisciplinary research involving a range of natural and social scientists (ecologists, agronomists, climatologists, sociologists) and key regional stakeholders from the agriculture, tourism and nature conservation sectors. The main research questions were built on existing long-term research projects at two sites. They include climate change effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and coupled dynamics of grassland management, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning through ecosystem services, using not only observations of natural and human systems, but also manipulative experiments of climate, management and plant and soil diversity to feed models. The LTSER Platform has fostered three important types of advances: (1) Long-term data consolidation and sharing. (2) Invigorating interdisciplinary projects (e.g. coupled transformations of economic functioning of farming systems and mountain summer pastures dynamics; mutations of alpine tourism in the face of climate change). (3) New transdisciplinary projects, including climate change adaptation of mountain territories, integrated carbon cycle modelling in response to historical land-use change and climate; a sociological study of the process of construction of the LTSER Platform.

A New Border Zone in Science

Modelling ecologists have entered ecology labs. They need large quantities of data to improve their models and are eager to collaborate with field naturalists. This modifies existing relationships between these two groups of natural scientists who have different ways of knowing. We observed how a new border zone was being opened up between modelling ecologists and field naturalists working in a National Botanical Conservatory in France. After an arduous start, due to the initial reluctance of the field naturalists, the modelling ecologists and the field naturalists performed several activities together: they transformed existing data, produced new data, interpreted all these data, articulated research questions and hypotheses. They also created a hybrid database, mixing data from different sources, and they co-authored papers. This clearly changed the professional status of the field naturalists, who felt they were finally treated as genuine research partners. Yet, the modelling ecologists and the field naturalists remained as two distinct groups, with their specific practices, aims, skills and identities. Although collaboration was considered a clear success from both sides, there were some lingering tensions. The field naturalists were still somewhat wary of being downgraded to the status of mere data providers. They were therefore determined to see to it that their work and way of knowing would receive due recognition in the long run.