Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES

  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regime complexes are arrays of institutions with partially overlapping mandates and memberships. As tensions frequently arise among these institutions, there is a growing interest geared to finding strategies to reduce them. Insights from regime theory, science and technology studies, and social network analysis support the claim that “boundary organizations”—a type of organization until now overlooked in International Relations—can reduce tensions within regime complexes by generating credible, legitimate, and salient knowledge, provided that their internal networks balance multiple knowledge dimensions. Building on this argument, this article offers an ex ante assessment of the recently created International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Results from our network analysis of IPBES point to clear improvements compared with similar organizations, although major deficiencies remain. The contribution of this article is threefold. Methodologically, it introduces new conceptual and technical tools to assess the “social representativeness” of international organizations. Theoretically, it supports the claim that international organizations are penetrated by transnational networks and, consequently, that the proliferation of institutions tends to reproduce structural imbalances. Normatively, it argues that a revision of nomination processes could improve the ability of boundary organizations to generate salient, credible, and legitimate knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
Graph 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, Kenneth W. (2012) ‘The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change’, Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy 30(4): 571–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, Kenneth W. and Duncan Snidal (2010) ‘International Regulation without International Government: Improving IO Performance through Orchestration’, Review of International Organizations 5(3): 315–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, Kenneth W., Jessica F. Green and Robert O. Keohane (2015) ‘Organizational Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance’, International Organization, forthcoming.

  • Alter, Karen J. and Sophie Meunier (2009) ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’, Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amano, Tatsuya and William J. Sutherland (2013) ‘Four Barriers to the Global Understanding of Biodiversity Conservation: Wealth, Language, Geographical Location and Security’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280(1756): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, Regine (2008) Governing Agrobiodiversity: Plant Genetics and Developing Countries, Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, Keith and Kennedy Luvai (2007) ‘Reclaiming Common Heritage Treatment in the International Plant Genetic Resources Regime Complex’, Michigan State Law Review 35: 35–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbault, Robert and Jean-Patrick Leduc (2005) Proceedings of the International Conference on Biodiversity, Science and Governance for Sustainable Development, 23–28 January. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Beck, Silke (2011) ‘Moving Beyond the Linear Model of Expertise? IPCC and the Test of Adaptation’, Regional Environmental Change 11(2): 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Silke, Maud Borie, Jason Chilvers, Alejandro Esguerra, Katja Heubach, Mike Hulme, Rolf Lidskog, Eva Lövbrand, Elisabeth Marquard, Clark Miller, Tahani Nadim, Carsten Neßhöver, Josef Settele, Esther Turnhout, Eleftheria Vasileiadou and Christoph Görg (2014) ‘Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise. The Cases of the IPCC and the IPBES’, GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23(2): 80–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti, Eval and George Downs (2007) ‘The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law’, Stanford Law Review 60(2): 595–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, Fikret (2009) ‘Evolution of Co-management: Role of Knowledge Generation, Bridging Organizations and Social Learning’, Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 1692–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, Frank, Philipp Pattberg, Harro Van Asselt (2009) ‘The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis’, Global Environmental Politics 9(4): 14–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurström, Andreas and Merritt Polk (2011) ‘Physical and Economic Bias in Climate Change Research: A Scientometric Study of IPCC Third Assessment Report’, Climatic Change 108(1–2): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borie, Maud and Mike Hulme (2015) ‘Framing Global Biodiversity: IPBES between Mother Earth and Ecosystem Services’, Environmental Science & Policy 54: 487–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhmelt, Tobias and Gabriele Spilker (2015) ‘The Interaction of International Institutions from a Social Network Perspective’, International Environmental Agreements, forthcoming.

  • Brand, Ulrich and Alice Vadrot (2013) ‘Epistemic Selectivities and the Valorisation of Nature: the Cases of the Nagoya Protocol and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’, Law, Environment and Development Journal 9(2): 202–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, Ulrich and Christoph Görg (2013) ‘Regimes in Global Environmental Governance and the Internationalization of the State: The Case of Biodiversity Politics’, International Journal of Social Science Studies 1(1): 110–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, Sue V. and Andrew T. Knight (2011) ‘Science-Policy Interface: Scientific Input Limited’, Science 333(6043): 696–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, David W., Niel W. Adger, Fikret Berkes, Po Garden, Louis Lebel, Per Olsson, Lowell Pritchard, and Oran Young (2006) ‘Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World’, Ecology & Society 11(2): 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, Ronald B. Mitchel (2003) ‘Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8086–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, William. Tomich Thomas, Meine Van Noordwijk, Nancy Dickson, Delia Catacutan, David Guston and Elizabeth McNie (2010) Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR’s Natural Resource Management Programs. Harvard Kennedy School.

  • Coleman, James (1988) ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal of Sociology 94: 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, Esteve, Laura Calvet-Mir, Hannah Hughes and Matthew Paterson (2015) ‘Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III Report’, Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crona, Beatrice I. and John N. Parker (2011) ‘Network Determinants of Knowledge Utilization Preliminary Lessons from a Boundary Organization’, Science Communication 33(4): 448–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daccache, Michel (2013) ‘Questioning Biodiversity Governance through Its Articulations’, Science Technology & Society, 18(1): 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Christina L. (2009) ‘Overlapping Institutions in Trade Policy’, Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, Sandra, Sebsebe Demissew, Carlos Joly, Mark Lonsdale and Anne Larigaudrie (2015) ‘A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s Benefit to People’, PLoS Biology 13(1): e1002040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Daniel W (2009) ‘The Power and Peril of International Regime Complexity’, Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, Andreas and Victor Galaz (2008) ‘Governance and Complexity—Emerging Issues for Governance Theory’, Governance 21(3): 311–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar and Deborah Rogers (2011) ‘The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Opportunities for the Social Sciences’, European Journal of Social Science 24(3): 217–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade, Marion, Etienne Ollion and Yann Algan (2015) ‘The Superiority of Economists’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(1): 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, Thomas and Benjamin Faude (2014) ‘A Theory of Emerging Order within Institutional Complexes’, Review of International Organizations 9(4): 471–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, Thomas and Sebastian Oberthür (2009) ‘The Causal Mechanisms of Interaction between International Institutions’, European Journal of International Relations 15(1): 125–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gepts, Paul 2006. ‘Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization’, Crop Science 46(5): 2278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. (1983) ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists’, American Sociological Review 48(6), 781–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg, Christoph, Carsten Neßhöver, and Axel Paulsch (2010) ‘A New Link between Biodiversity Science and Policy’, Perspectives for Science 19(3): 183–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granjou, Céline. Isabelle Mauz Séverine Louvel and Virginie Tournay (2013) ‘Assessing Nature? The Genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’, Science Technology & Society 18(1): 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, Jessica F (2013) ‘Order Out of Chaos: Public and Private Rules for Managing Carbon’, Global Environmental Politics 13(2): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Aarti, Till Pistorius and Marjanneke J. Vijge (2015) ‘Managing Fragmentation in Global Environmental Governance: the REDD + Partnership as Bridge Organization’, International Environmental Agreement, forthcoming.

  • Guston, David H (2001) ‘Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 21: 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, Ernst B (1980) ‘Why Collaborate’, World Politics 32(3): 357–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, Emilie Miles, Kahler M, and Alexander H. Montgomery (2009) ‘Network Analysis for International Relations’, International Organization 63(03): 559–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, George (2011) ‘Conservation’s Friends in High Places: Neoliberalism, Networks, and the Transnational Conservation Elite’, Global Environmental Politics 11(4): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, Mike, Martin Mahony, Silke Beck, Christoph Görg, Bernd Hansjürgens, Jennifer Hauck, Carsten Nesshöver, Axel Paulsch, Marie Vandewalle, Heidi Wittmer, Stefan Böschen, Peter Bridgewater, Mariteuw Chimère Diaw, Pierre Fabre, Aurelia Figueroa, Kong Luen Heong, Horst Korn, Rik Leemans, Eva Lövbrand, Mohd Norowi Hamid, Chad Monfreda, Roger Pielke Jr., Josef Settele, Marten Winter, Alice B. M. Vadrot, Sybille van den Hove, and Jeroen P. van der Sluijs (2011) ‘Science-Policy Interface: Beyond Assessments’, Science 333(6043): 697–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humair, Franziska, Peter Edwards, Michael Siegrist, and Christoph Kueffer (2014) ‘Understanding Misunderstandings in Invasion Science: Why Experts Don’t Agree on Common Concepts and Risk Assessments’, NeoBiota 20: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPBES interim bureau. n.d. a. Findings of the Global IPBES Assessment Survey.

  • IPBES interim bureau. n.d. b. IPBES Selection Process for the MEP – Review Draft.

  • Jasanoff, Sheila (1996) ‘Is Science Socially Constructed—And Can it still Inform Public Policy?’, Science and Engineering Ethics 2(3): 263–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Tana and Johannes Urpelainen (2012) ‘A Strategic Theory of Regime Integration and Separation’, International Organization 66(4): 645–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, Judith (2009) ‘The More the Merrier? The Effects of Having Multiple International Election Monitoring Organizations’, Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellow, Aynsley (2012) ‘Multi-Level and Multi-Arena Governance: the Limits of Integration and the Possibilities of Forum Shopping’, International Environmental Agreements 12(4): 327–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. and Victor, David G. (2011) ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’, Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Rakhyun E. and Brendan Mackey (2014) ‘International Environmental Law as a Complex Adaptive System’, International Environmental Agreements 14: 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetz, Thomas, Peter Bridgewater, Sybille Van Den Hove and Bernd Seibenhümer (2008) ‘The role of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity as science–policy interface’, Environmental Science & Policy 11(6): 505–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetz, Thomas, Katharine N. Farrell, and Peter Bridgewater (2012) ‘Building Better Science-Policy Interfaces for International Environmental Governance: Assessing Potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, International Environmental Agreements 12(1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovács, Eszter Krasznai and Gyögy Pataki (2016) ‘The Participation of Experts and Knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, Environmental Science & Policy 57: 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutting, Gabriela and Lipschutz, Ronnie (2009) Environmental Governance, Power and Knowledge in a Local Global World. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larigauderie, Anne and Harold A. Mooney (2010) ‘The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a Step Closer to an IPCC-Like Mechanism for Biodiversity’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, David (2011) ‘Networks in Political Science: Back to the Future’, PS: Political Science & Politics 44(1): 61–68.

  • Le Prestre, Philippe ed. (2002) Governing Global Biodiversity, The Evolution and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Brookfield: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebel, Louis, Torsten Grothmann and Bernd Siebenhüner (2010) ‘The Role of Social Learning in Adaptiveness: Insights from Water Management’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 10(4): 333–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, Maria Carmen, and Barbara J. Morehouse (2005) ‘The Co-Production of Science and Policy in Integrated Climate Assessments’, Global Environmental Change 15(1): 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog, Rolf and Göran Sundqvist (2015) ‘When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Sciences and Technology Studies’, Global Environmental Politics 15(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martello, Marybeth Long (2004) ‘Expert Advice and Desertification Policy: Past Experience and Current Challenges’, Global Environmental Politics 4(3): 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, Sarah (2009) ‘Matching Knowledge Brokering Strategies to Environmental Policy Problems and Settings’, Environmental Science and Policy 12: 994–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Clark (2001) ‘Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime’, Science, Technology & Human Values 26(4): 478–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Amandine Orsini (2014) ‘Policy Coherence and Regime Complexes: The Case of Genetic Resources’, Review of International Studies 40: 303–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, Julia C. and Keohane, Robert O. (2014) ‘Contested Multilateralism’, Review of International Organizations 9(4): 385–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muzaka, Valbona (2011) ‘Linkages, Contests and Overlaps in the Global Intellectual Property Rights Regime’, European Journal of International Relations 17(4): 755–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Mark E.J. (2004) ‘Coauthorship Networks and Patterns of Scientific Collaboration’, PNAS 101 (Suppl. 1): 5200–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian (2009) ‘Interplay Management: Enhancing Environmental Policy Integration among International Institutions’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 9(4): 371–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian and Justyna Pożarowska (2013) ‘Managing Institutional Complexity and Fragmentation: The Nagoya Protocol and the Global Governance of Genetic Resources’, Global Environmental Politics 13(3): 100–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian and Olav Schram Stokke eds. (2011) Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, Per, Carl Folke and Fikret Berkes (2004) ‘Adaptive Co-Management for Building Resilience in Social-ecological Systems’, Environmental Management 34: 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovodenko, Alexander and Keohane, Robert O. (2012) ‘Institutional Diffusion in International Environmental Affairs’, International Affairs 88(3): 523–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, Jouni, Andrew Gouldson, and Tatiana Kluvánková‐Oravská (2009) ‘Interplay of Actors, Scales, Frameworks and Regimes in the Governance of Biodiversity’, Environmental Policy and Governance 19(3): 148–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, Charles, Anantha Duraiappah, Anna Larigauderie and Harrold Mooney (2011) ‘The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science-Policy Interface’, Science 331(4): 1133–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey, Darrell Addison ed. (1999) Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: United Nations Environmental Programme & Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, Claudio (1995) ‘The Role of Knowledge in the Policy Process’, Journal of European Public Policy 2: 159–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammel, Christian, Sigrid Stagl and Harald Wilfing (2007) ‘Managing Complex Adaptive systems—A Co-evolutionary Perspective on Natural Resource Management’, Ecological Economics 63(1): 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, Kal, and David Victor (2004) ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’, International Organization 58: 277–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, Walter V. Fikret Berkes, Thomas J. Wilbanks and Doris Capistrano eds. (2006) Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems. Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosendal, Kristin G. (2001) ‘Impacts of Overlapping International Regimes: The Case of Biodiversity’, Global Governance 7: 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Karen N. (2011) ‘International Environmental Governance: Managing Fragmentation through Institutional Connection’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 12(1): 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabrooke, Leonard (2014) ‘Epistemic Arbitrage: Transnational Professional Knowledge in Action’, Journal of Professions and Organization 1(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, Olav Schram (2001) The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work. FNI report 14.

  • Stone, Diane (2013) ‘Shades of Grey: The World Bank, Knowledge Networks and Linked Ecologies of Academic Engagement’, Global Network 13(2): 241–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, William, J. Toby A. Gardner L. Jamila Haider and Lynn V. Dicks (2013) ‘How can Local and Traditional Knowledge Be Effectively Incorporated into International Assessments?’, Oryx 48(1): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, Timothy (1999) ‘Why Is There a Biodiversity Convention? The International Interest in Centralized Development Planning’, International Affairs 75(2): 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, Timothy and Ben Groom (2012) ‘Regulating Global Biodiversity: What is the Problem?’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28(1): 114–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Kate, Kerry and Sarah Laird (2000) ‘Biodiversity and Business: Coming to Terms with the Grand Bargain’, International Affairs 76(2): 241–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, Esther, Art Dewulf and Mike Hulme (2016) ‘What Does Policy-Relevance Global Environmental Knowledge Do? The Cases of Climate and Biodiversity’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 18: 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2010) Report of the Third ad hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Busan, 7–11 June 2010, UNEP/IPBES/3/3.

  • UNEP (2012) Report of the Second Session of the Plenary Meeting to Determine Modalities and Institutional Arrangements for an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Panama City, 16–21 April 2012, UNEP/IPBES.MI/2/9.

  • Vadrot, Alice (2014) The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J., Bas Arts, and Pieter, Glasbergen (2011) ‘Interaction Management by Partnerships: The Case of Biodiversity and Climate Change. Global Environmental Politics 11(4): 89–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. (1996) ‘Institutional Linkages in International Society: Polar Perspectives. Global Governance 2(1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. (2006) Vertical Interplay among Scale Dependent Resource Regimes. Ecology and Society 11(1): 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. (2010) ‘Institutional Dynamics: Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation in Environmental and Resource Regimes. Global Environmental Change 20: 378–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research benefited from the support of the Agence nationale pour la recherche française in the framework of the Project <ANR-12-GLOB-0001-03 CIRCULEX>. The authors would like to thank Nina Hall, Radoslav Dimitrov, Tobias Böhmelt, and other participants of the WIRE workshop, the AGORA V Workshop, the ECSN session, and the ISA panel where earlier versions of this article have been presented for their comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science Department, Université Laval, Pavillon Charles-De-Koninck, bur. 4445, 1030 avenue des Sciences Humaines, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Jean-Frédéric Morin, Sélim Louafi, Amandine Orsini & Mohamed Oubenal

Authors
  1. Jean-Frédéric Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sélim Louafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amandine Orsini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohamed Oubenal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Frédéric Morin.

Annex 1: Attributes of the ten most connected individuals

Annex 1: Attributes of the ten most connected individuals

IPBES criteria

Issue-areas

Scales

Epistemologies

Other criteria

Gender

UN Regions

Expertise

IOs

Governance scale

Ecological scale

Knowledge systems

Profession

Functions

Country

Ecosystem

Man

Africa

Environment Development Agriculture

Environment Development

National International

Species Ecosystem

Natural

Scientist Policymaker

MEP

Developing

Marine

Man

West E.

Environment Agriculture

Environment Development Culture

National International

Ecosystems

Natural

Scientist Policymaker

Bureau

Developed

Terrestrial

Man

Latin A.

Development Trade

Environment Development Agriculture

National International

Ecosystems

Social

Policymaker

Bureau

Developing

_

Woman

Latin A.

Environment Development

Environment

National Transnational International

Ecosystems

Natural

Policymaker

MEP

Developing

Terrestrial Marine

Woman

West E.

Environment Development

Environment

National International

_

Natural

Policymaker

Bureau

Developed

_

Man

Latin A.

Environment Development

Environment Development Agriculture Culture

Local National Transnational

Ecosystems

Natural Social

Policymaker

MEP

Developing

Terrestrial Marine Interactions

Man

West E.

Environment

Environment

National International

Species Ecosystems

Natural

Scientist

MEP

Developed

Terrestrial

Man

Asia

Environment Development Agriculture Culture

Environment

Local National Transnational

Species Ecosystems

Natural Traditional

Scientist

MEP

Developing

Terrestrial Marine

Man

Asia

Environment

Environment Development Culture

National International

Ecosystems

Natural

Policymaker

Bureau

Developing

Terrestrial Inland waters Interactions

Man

Asia

Environment Development Agriculture Culture

Environment Development Agriculture

Local National International

Ecosystems

Natural Social Traditional

Policymaker

Bureau

Developing

Terrestrial Inland waters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morin, JF., Louafi, S., Orsini, A. et al. Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES. J Int Relat Dev 20, 543–577 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-016-0006-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-016-0006-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation