Finnish experts’ perceptions of IPBES operating principles – Synergies and tensions between the multiple evidence base and credibility, policy relevance and legitimacy

Abstract

Intergovernmental science policy organizations assess and mediate knowledge for decision makers, especially their member governments. IPBES is known as a trailblazer in acknowledging plural knowledge systems because of the multiple evidence base approach it has adopted, which has challenged the older operating principles of credibility, policy relevance, and legitimacy. In this paper, I juxtapose those principles and the multiple evidence base to study their context-sensitive synergies and tensions, based on experts’ perceptions of IPBES operations. I qualitatively analyze interviews with the Finnish delegation to the IPBES-7 Plenary and Finland-affiliated assessment authors in 2019. Both synergies and tensions emerged between all the examined principles. While major synergies were found in the knowledge synthesis processes, especially relating to the added value of more plural knowledge sources, several tensions were also present relating to the superior position of natural science, to undeveloped processes of using other knowledge types, to languages, and to country- and sector-specific interests, with many of these tensions illustrated by the case of nature's contributions to people. Finnish experts valued credibility highly. Policy relevance and political interests interacted, revealing the need to elaborate the principle of policy relevance. Multiple evidence base and legitimacy were largely overlapping, but that was not so in the case of the nature's contributions to people. The results show the complexity of balancing different operating principles that can be interpreted differently in different contexts. I further discuss why and how IPBES should elaborate on policy relevance and its relation to societal actors.