Efforts to develop a global understanding of the functioning of the Earth as a system began in the mid-1980s. This effort necessitated linking knowledge from both the physical and biological realms. ...A motivation for this development was the growing impact of humans on the Earth system and need to provide solutions, but the study of the social drivers and their consequences for the changes that were occurring was not incorporated into the Earth System Science movement, despite early attempts to do so. The impediments to integration were many, but they are gradually being overcome, which can be seen in many trends for assessments, such as the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as well as both basic and applied science programs. In this development, particular people and events have shaped the trajectories that have occurred. The lessons learned should be considered in such emerging research programs as Future Earth , the new global program for sustainability research. The transitioning process to this new program will take time as scientists adjust to new colleagues with different ideologies, methods, and tools and a new way of doing science.
Assessments must provide conditional predictions of the consequences of specific policy options, at well-defined spatial and temporal scales.
In recognition of our inability to halt damaging ...ecosystem change (
1
–
4
), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was asked in December 2010 to convene a meeting “to determine modalities and institutional arrangements” of a new assessment body, akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to track causes and consequences of anthropogenic ecosystem change (
5
). The “blueprint” for this body, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), lies in recommendations of an intergovernmental conference held in the Republic of Korea in June 2010: the Busan outcome (
6
). But it is a blueprint for governance rather than science. Using the experience from past assessments of global biodiversity and ecosystem services change (
1
,
7
,
8
) and from the IPCC (
9
–
11
), we ask what the policy-oriented charges in the Busan outcome imply for the science of the assessment process.
Biodiversity enhances many of nature's benefits to people, including the regulation of climate and the production of wood in forests, livestock forage in grasslands and fish in aquatic ecosystems. ...Yet people are now driving the sixth mass extinction event in Earth's history. Human dependence and influence on biodiversity have mainly been studied separately and at contrasting scales of space and time, but new multiscale knowledge is beginning to link these relationships. Biodiversity loss substantially diminishes several ecosystem services by altering ecosystem functioning and stability, especially at the large temporal and spatial scales that are most relevant for policy and conservation.
After a long incubation period, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is now underway. Underpinning all its activities is the IPBES Conceptual Framework (CF), ...a simplified model of the interactions between nature and people. Drawing on the legacy of previous large-scale environmental assessments, the CF goes further in explicitly embracing different disciplines and knowledge systems (including indigenous and local knowledge) in the co-construction of assessments of the state of the world's biodiversity and the benefits it provides to humans. The CF can be thought of as a kind of "Rosetta Stone" that highlights commonalities between diverse value sets and seeks to facilitate crossdisciplinary and crosscultural understanding. We argue that the CF will contribute to the increasing trend towards interdisciplinarity in understanding and managing the environment. Rather than displacing disciplinary science, however, we believe that the CF will provide new contexts of discovery and policy applications for it.
Recently, some members of the conservation community have used ecosystem services as a strategy to conserve biodiversity. Others in the community have criticized this strategy as a distraction from ...the mission of biodiversity conservation. The debate continues, and it remains unclear whether the concerns expressed are significant enough to merit the opposition. Through an exploration of the science of biodiversity and ecosystem services, we find that narrow interpretations of metrics, values, and management drive much of the tension and make the common ground appear small. The size of this common ground depends on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services and how they respond to management interventions. We demonstrate how understanding this response can be used to delimit common ground but highlight the importance of differentiating between objectives and approaches to meeting those objectives in conservation projects.
Efforts to establish an ‘IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity’, or an IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), may culminate soon
—
as governments, ...the scientific community and other stakeholders are getting ready for a third round of negotiations on IPBES. This paper provides firstly, a brief history and broader context for the IPBES process; secondly, a description of the niche that IPBES would occupy in the science-policy landscape for biodiversity and ecosystem services; and thirdly, concludes with some views on the role of scientists in IPBES, and on the need to have strong and proper scientific structures to coordinate scientific efforts internationally, in order to produce the science needed for IPBES.
► There is an enormous amount of biodiversity information, but it is patchy and unconnected. ► GEO BON is a mechanism to help create a genuinely global biodiversity observation system. ► A framework ...and procedure for integration of complex biodiversity datasets is emerging.
The Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) has been in formal existence for three years, following several years of design and discussion. It is the realisation of the biodiversity societal benefit area envisaged in the GEO System of Systems (GEOSS). GEO BON links together existing networks, each covering particular aspects of biodiversity or parts of the world, and takes steps to help fill important gaps in the system. GEO BON focusses on coordination and harmonisation of the existing and emerging systems; advocacy and action to sustain the observing systems and to fill the identified gaps; and understanding and servicing user needs for biodiversity observations, particularly in the policy-making domain.
PDF
