Conclusion

As Guillaume Futhazar explains (chapter 5), the reconciliation of the desire of states to keep control of the nomination process with the need to broaden the participation of stakeholders “gave rise to a convoluted solution”, with MEP members, nominated by member states according to a geographical balance, in turn selecting experts in charge of drafting each work program report from a list of experts nominated by both governments and relevant institutions. However, the selection has to respect a very precise balance that calls for a quota of 80% of government-nominated experts and 20% of experts from relevant institutions. The need and willingness to include a variety of stakeholders raises a

number of thorny issues, some of which came up during the first assessment on pollinators (chapter 11). Beyond the scope of participation, one issue concerns the dilemmas and difficulties associated with selecting experts from among a diverse range of legitimate stakeholders whose unequal capacities and power may either facilitate or hinder attempts by the Secretariat to influence their role and contributions to the process (see chapter 8). Another challenge is how to manage the different visions and priorities of

academics (concerned with the advancement and use of knowledge), local and indigenous populations (whose positions reflect political claims), and NGOs (more concerned with the promotion of specific values). As the authors of chapter 8 remind us, one of the major challenges in global governance research is to gain further insight into the dynamics of power and influence among this diversity of stakeholders. As mentioned earlier, ILK representatives see their status as stakeholders as “a step backwards and a way of minimizing their ability to produce knowledge considered as legitimate.” More generally, “The idea of a group of stakeholders, promoted by IPBES, is accompanied by a leadership/participation model that tends to either enrol the stakeholders involved or conversely, lead them to exclude themselves from the stakeholders’ dynamic. The most contentious categories, as heterogeneous as they are, “might then prefer to rule themselves out” (chapter 8). Finally, participation can be instrumentalized. For example, Duperray and

colleagues (chapter 11) point out that, “the process used to select scientific experts was also particularly political insofar as the scientific and policy positions of the experts were taken into account in their recruitment”, thus minimizing the controversial aspects of the issue. Indeed, participation can be thought of as an end in itself (to legitimize outputs), or as a means to an end (to improve decision making and outcomes). It can be used to impose a particular viewpoint (through the selection of participants) and thus steer policy dynamics in a preferred direction. It is not participation that shapes politics but the other way around.