Abstract
The Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) aims to bridge between science and policy by assessing and synthesizing diverse forms of knowledge about biodiversity. With its explicit ambition to include not just natural science, but also social science and humanities as well as indigenous and local knowledge systems, IPBES is operating as a pioneer in uncharted territory. This Review assesses the state of research on IPBES processes in order to identify the challenges and lessons to be drawn from its efforts to include different kinds of experts, stakeholders and knowledge systems. The Review discusses both procedural and substantive dimensions of inclusiveness and identifies a paradox between on the one hand IPBES’ demand for diversity and on the other hand its aim of achieving consensus. Specifically, it illustrates how IPBES’ orientation towards consensus in decision-making and in assessment work shapes and constrains diversity and inclusiveness. This finding has implications for environmental assessment processes within and beyond IPBES and suggests a need to open up procedures and practices of participation and inclusion in order to accommodate pluralism, contestation and incommensurable perspectives and knowledge systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Turnhout, E., Dewulf, A. & Hulme, M. What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18, 65–72 (2016).
Jasanoff, S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244 (2003).
Lemos, M. C. et al. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat. Sustain. 1, 722–724 (2018).
Bäckstrand, K. Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Eur. Environ. 16, 290–306 (2006).
Klenk, N. & Meehan, K. Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 160–167 (2015).
Stirling, A. Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23, 95–107 (2006).
Brondizio, E. S. & Tourneau, F.-M. L. Environmental governance for all. Science 352, 1272–1273 (2016).
Bäckstrand, K. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 3, 24–41 (2003).
Stirling, A. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031 (2010).
Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 9, 1–16 (2018).
Pearce, W., Mahony, M. & Raman, S. Science advice for global challenges: Learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environ. Sci. Policy 80, 125–131 (2018).
Stirling, A. ‘Opening Up’ or ‘Closing Down’: analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33, 262–294 (2008).
Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S. & Aarts, N. How participation creates citizens: Participatory governance as performative practice. Ecol. Soc. 15, 26 (2010).
Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A. & Lövbrand, E. in Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance (eds Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A. & Lövbrand, E.) 217–234 (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Esguerra, A., Beck, S. & Lidskog, R. Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES’ legitimitation politics. Glob. Environ. Polit. 17, 59–76 (2017).
Vadrot, A. B. M. The epistemic and strategic dimension of the establishment of the IPBES: “epistemic selectivities” at work. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 27, 361–378 (2014).
Report of the Third Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (UNEP, 2010).
Hulme, M. et al. Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. Science 333, 697–698 (2011).
Turnhout, E. Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488, 454–455 (2012).
Functions, Operating Principles and Institutional Arrangements of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 1–7 (IPBES, 2012).
Larigauderie, A. & Mooney, H. A. The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 9–14 (2010).
Larigauderie, A. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): A call to action. Gaia 24, 73 (2015).
Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A. & Mooney, H. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science-Policy. Interface Sci. 331, 1139–1140 (2011).
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. & Buizer, M. Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161 (2013).
Koetz, T., Farrell, K. N. & Bridgewater, P. Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 12, 1–21 (2012).
Stenseke, M. The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the challenge of integrating social sciences and humanities. Bull. Geogr. 33, 119–129 (2016).
Vadrot, A. B. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M. & Watson, R. T. The social sciences and the humanities in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S1–S9 (2018).
Vadrot, A. B. M., Rankovic, A., Lapeyre, R., Aubert, P.-M. & Laurans, Y. Why are social sciences and humanities needed in the works of IPBES? A systematic review of the literature. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S78–S100 (2018).
Vohland, K. & Nadim, T. Ensuring the success of IPBES: between interface, market place and parliament. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140012–20140012 (2015).
Decision IPBES-3/4: Communications, stakeholder engagement and strategic partnership. https://go.nature.com/2LdQ86K (IPBES, 2014).
Preliminary Guide Regarding Diverse Conceptualization of Multiple Values of Nature and its Benefits, Including Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Deliverable 3(d)) (IPBES, 2015).
Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16 (2015).
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).
Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1416–1419 (2017).
Montana, J. Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 20–27 (2017).
Borie, M. & Hulme, M. Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 487–496 (2015).
Beck, S. et al. Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise the cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. Gaia 23, 80–87 (2014).
Brooks, T. M., Lamoreux, J. F. & Soberón, J. Ipbes ≠ Ipcc. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 543–545 (2014).
Dunkley, R., Baker, S., Constant, N. & Bellamy-Sanderson, A. Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 18, 779–799 (2018).
Granjou, C., Mauz, I., Louvel, S. & Tournay, V. Assessing nature? The genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Sci. Technol. Soc. 18, 9–27 (2013).
Hotes, S. & Opgenoorth, L. Trust and control at the science-policy interface in IPBES. Bioscience 64, 277–278 (2014).
Beck, S., Esguerra, A. & Goerg, C. The co-production of scale and power: the case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 19, 534–549 (2017).
Gustafsson, K. M., Lidskog, R. & Lidskog, R. Organizing international experts : IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environ. Sociol. 4, 445–456 (2018).
Kok, M. T. J. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 12, 177–181 (2017).
Zisenis, M. The International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services gets profile. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 199–203 (2014).
Arpin, I., Barbier, M., Ollivier, G. & Granjou, C. Institutional entrepreneurship and techniques of inclusiveness in the creation of the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 21, 11 (2016).
Bridgewater, P. The intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) — a role for heritage? Int. J. Herit. Stud. 23, 65–73 (2016).
Jetzkowitz, J. et al. The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S38–S60 (2018).
Duraiappah, A. K. & Rogers, D. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: opportunities for the social sciences. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 24, 217–224 (2011).
Opgenoorth, L., Hotes, S. & Mooney, H. IPBES: Biodiversity panel should play by rules. Nature 506, 159 (2014).
Vadrot, A. B. M., Jetzkowitz, J. & Stringer, L. C. IPBES disciplinary gaps still gaping. Nature 530, 160–160 (2016).
Stenseke, M. & Larigauderie, A. The role, importance and challenges of social sciences and humanities in the work of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S10–S14 (2018).
Larigauderie, A., Stenseke, M. & Watson, R. T. IPBES reaches out to social scientists. Nature 532, 313 (2016).
Montana, J. & Borie, M. IPBES and biodiversity expertise: regional, gender, and disciplinary balance in the composition of the interim and 2015 Multidisciplinary Expert Panel. Conserv. Lett. 9, 138–142 (2016).
Morin, J.-F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A. & Oubenal, M. Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES. J. Int. Relat. Dev. 20, 543–577 (2016).
Timpte, M., Montana, J., Reuter, K., Borie, M. & Apkes, J. Engaging diverse experts in a global environmental assessment: participation in the first work programme of IPBES and opportunities for improvement. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S15–S37 (2018).
Heubach, K. & Lambini, C. K. Distribution and selection of experts in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): the case of the regional assessment for Africa. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S61–S77 (2018).
Gustafsson, K. M. Producing expertise: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 15, 21–39 (2018).
Lim, M. et al. Early-career experts essential for planetary sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 151–157 (2018).
Kovács, E. K. & Pataki, G. The participation of experts and knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ. Sci. Policy 57, 131–139 (2016).
Reuter, K., Timpte, M. & Nesshöver, C. How to engage social scientists in IPBES. Nature 531, 173 (2016).
Pe’er, G. et al. IPBES: Opportunities and challenges for SCB and other learned societies. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1–3 (2013).
Inouye, D. W. IPBES : global collaboration on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 371 (2010).
Lundquist, C. J. et al. Engaging the conservation community in the IPBES process. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1493–1495 (2015).
Opgenoorth, L. & Hotes, S. IPBES is in the books: Pollination and scenario assessments are the first two steps to guiding policy makers in the global biodiversity crisis. Front. Biogeogr. 8, e30404 (2016).
Schmeller, D. S. & Bridgewater, P. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): progress and next steps. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 801–805 (2016).
Schmeller, D. S., Niemelä, J. & Bridgewater, P. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): getting involved. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2271–2275 (2017).
Hof, C., Winter, M., Hotes, S. & Opgenoorth, L. It’s not (all) about the money — supporting IPBES through challenging times.Front. Biogeogr. 9, e34700 (2017).
Bridgewater, P. & Schmeller, D. S. IPBES 6 : the best plenary yet ? Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 2777–2782 (2018).
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M. & Larigauderie, A. A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002040 (2015).
Soberon, J. & Peterson, A. T. Biodiversity governance: A Tower of Babel of scales and cultures. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002108 (2015).
Maier, D. S. & Feest, A. The IPBES conceptual framework: An unhelpful start. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29, 327–347 (2015).
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014).
Tengö, M. et al. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond — lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 17–25 (2017).
Löfmarck, E. & Lidskog, R. Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide. Environ. Sci. Policy 69, 22–28 (2017).
Obermeister, N. Local knowledge, global ambitions: IPBES and the advent of multi-scale models and scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 14, 843–856 (2019).
Hoareau, L. & Arico, S. The Intergovernmental science-policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services:capacity-building related considerations from a UNESCO perspective. Asian Biotechnol. Dev. Rev. 12, 1–15 (2010).
Obermeister, N. From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 80–86 (2017).
Brand, U. & Vadrot, A. B. M. 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 Environ. Dev. J. 9, 202–220 (2013).
Duvic-Paoli, L.-A. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or the framing of scientific knowledge within the law of sustainable development. Int. Community Law Rev. 19, 231–269 (2017).
Braat, L. C. Five reasons why the Science publication “Assessing nature’s contributions to people” (Diaz. et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in Ecosystem Services. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, A1–A2 (2018).
Maes, J., Burkhard, B. & Geneletti, D. Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to people. One Ecosyst. 3, e24720 (2018).
Peterson, G. D. et al. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecol. Soc. 23, 39 (2018).
Faith, D. P. Avoiding paradigm drifts in IPBES: reconciling “nature’s contributions to people,” biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 23, 40 (2018).
Kenter, J. O. IPBES : Don’t throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater ; Put people’s values central, not nature’s contributions. Ecosyst. Serv. 33, 40–43 (2018).
Masood, E. The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature 560, 423–425 (2018).
Keller, R., Keune, H. & Maynard, S. Where do IPBES delegates in Europe see challenges, needs, gaps and opportunities in policy uptake of “Nature’s contributions to people”? Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S116–S124 (2018).
Turnhout, E., Neves, K. & De Lijster, E. ‘Measurementality’ in biodiversity governance: Knowledge, transparency, and the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (ipbes). Environ. Plan. A 46, 581–597 (2014).
Work on Capacity-Building: Deliverables 1(a) and 1(b) https://go.nature.com/2J48KTP (IPBES, 2016).
Procedures for the Preparation of Platform Deliverables https://go.nature.com/2GSV78v (IPBES, 2015).
Haas, P. M. Preserving the Epistemic Authority of Science in World Politics Discussion Paper SP IV 2018–105 https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2018/iv18-105.pdf (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2018).
Klenk, N. L. et al. Stakeholders in climate science : Beyond lip service? Science 743, 743–744 (2015).
Klenk, N. L. & Meehan, K. Transdisciplinary sustainability research beyond engagement models: Toward adventures in relevance. Environ. Sci. Policy 78, 27–35 (2017).
Kaijser, A. & Kronsell, A. Who gets to know about nature ? Freibg. Z. Geschlecht. 22, 41–67 (2016).
Mouffe, C. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Soc. Res. 66, 745–758 (1999).
Miller, C. A. & Erickson, P. in Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessments (eds Reid, W. V. & Berkes, F.) 297–314 (Island Press, 2006).
Filer, C. in Virtualism, Governance and Practice: Vision and Execution in Environmental Conservation (eds Carrier, J. G. & West, P.) 84–111 (Berghahn Books, 2009).
Hochkirch, A., McGowan, P. J. K. & van der Sluijs, J. Biodiversity reports need author rules. Nature 516, 170 (2014).
Larigauderie, A. IPBES responds on conflict of interests. Nature 517, 271 (2015).
Montana, J. Biodiversity: ideas need time to mature. Nature 561, 309 (2018).
Turnhout, E., Tuinstra, W. & Halffman, W. Environmental Expertise (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Flexpool grant from the German Centre of Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG FZT 118/2-2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
I.D.-R. performed the review of the literature, coded and analysed the articles and prepared the figures. All authors contributed to the design and writing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Díaz-Reviriego, I., Turnhout, E. & Beck, S. Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain 2, 457–464 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6
This article is cited by
-
Shallow fixes and deep reasonings: framing sustainability at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)
Agriculture and Human Values (2024)
-
Historical redlining is associated with increasing geographical disparities in bird biodiversity sampling in the United States
Nature Human Behaviour (2023)
-
An international panel for ocean sustainability needs to proactively address challenges facing existing science–policy platforms
npj Ocean Sustainability (2023)
-
Transformative potential of conservation actions
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023)
-
Indigenous Participation and the Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Global Environmental Governance Forums: a Systematic Review
Environmental Management (2023)