Presentation short abstract

Care reveals and unsettles power in science–policy knowledge. Drawing on BPBES interviews and assessments, I show how everyday practices of listening, translation, and more-than-human care expose and challenge technocratic hierarchies in biodiversity conservation.

Presentation long abstract

Science–policy platforms such as the Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES) are widely promoted as mechanisms for producing authoritative, policy-relevant knowledge for conservation. Yet these interfaces often reproduce technocratic assumptions grounded in a linear model of science–policy relations, which privileges standardization, measurability, and depoliticized ideals of neutrality. Such assumptions shape which knowledges are legitimised, how they must be formatted, and which practices are rendered invisible or “non-credible.”

Drawing on interviews with BPBES members and an analysis of Summaries for Decision-Makers, this research examines care as a situated, relational practice that can bring into view dynamics of power in the production of policy-relevant knowledge. We show that care—expressed in practices of listening, translation, managing epistemic tensions, and attending to diverse human and more-than-human concerns—plays a significant yet undervalued role in shaping the content, process, and impact of assessments.

At the same time, systemic pressures toward efficiency, consensus, and credibility limit the possibilities for care to transform knowledge hierarchies. I argue that through care we see, but more importantly, unsettle power in the everyday epistemic practices. More-than-human care here then makes the case for a relational epistemology as a starting point for policy-relevant knowledge in biodiversity conservation.