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)

Abstract

Qualified competences in social science and humanities are required across the various deliverables of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) in order to fully address the objectives of IPBES. Building integrative approaches has long been acknowledged as a scientific challenge. Hence, new paths have to be forged, including revisiting basic ontological and epistemological considerations, such as how we understand the world, what knowledge is, and the role of science. Constructive interdisciplinary dialogues in IPBES supports the development of innovative frames and terminologies. One example is the evolution from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ecosystem service framework to the Nature’s Contributions to People classification now applied in IPBES assessments. IPBES is still in a learning phase and critical examination of what is accomplished this far is useful when refining ongoing modes of work and in long-term strategic considerations.

Keywords:

• interdisciplinary
• nature's contributions to people
• epistemological diversity

Introduction

In order to accomplish its objective, “to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development”, and to fulfil its functions which includes performing regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages (UNEP 2012), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs a significant engagement of scholars from social sciences and humanities (SSH). Humans are part of the biological diversity of the planet. Their activities represent the dominant drivers of changes in biodiversity, with implications for the contributions of nature to humans and, ultimately, for human quality of life. Since nature and human culture form an inseparable unit, the only possible way to make meaningful assessments of the state of biodiversity, and potential policies, practices and technologies to conserve and sustainably use it, is to integrate knowledge on genes, species and ecosystems with knowledge on humans and societies. Moreover, an integrative approach is crucial when considering that IPBES is committed to produce policy relevant knowledge to support not only the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (UNEP 2010), but also the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2015).

Building such an integrative approach has long been acknowledged as a major scientific challenge. For example, the UK House of Commons in its environmental audit of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that the dialogue between ecologists, economists and social sciences needed to be improved (House of Commons Environmental Audit 2007). Recent publications regarding IPCC underline the existence of this long-standing challenge in the context of climate change as well (Denis and Moser 2015; Victor 2015).

What knowledge is needed from social sciences and humanities?

Qualified competences in SSH are required across the various deliverables of the IPBES work programme in order to fully address the objective of IPBES. In general terms, SSH approaches are critically important for placing biodiversity and ecosystem functions in broader societal contexts. Moreover, insights regarding how the discourse on biodiversity can be seen in various historical and societal settings and considering aspects such as power structures and knowledge acquisitions, help to reflect on and to critically assess measurement methods and analytical concepts used.

A major part of the work of IPBES focuses on the production of assessments. Following the IPBES conceptual framework, the assessments cover a number of issues and aspects where knowledge on humans and the human society is necessary, including contributions to people from biodiversity and ecosystems and links to good quality of life, anthropogenic assets and co-produced contributions, institutions, indirect and direct drivers of changes in biodiversity and ecosystems, scenarios (Díaz et al. 2015). Crucial topics include norms and value systems, human behaviour and societal change, knowledge and learning, economic benefits, health and welfare aspects associated with biological diversity. Furthermore, for assessing research on the management of biodiversity, it is vital to involve scholars with knowledge on societal strategies for conservation and sustainable use, i.e. on management structures and organization, democracy aspects, decision processes, legal, economic and communicative instruments, physical planning, actors and various forms of collaboration. This calls for a diversity of social science and humanities disciplines.

Forging new paths – the example of nature’s contributions to people

In order to reach the interdisciplinary ambitions and to integrate quite different disciplines, new paths have to be forged, including revisiting basic ontological and epistemological considerations, such as how we understand the world, what knowledge is, and the role of science (Head 2007). For that reason IPBES has strived to establish formal procedures leading to the selection of diverse sets of experts, as well as structures and an atmosphere that allows for epistemological diversity and scientific pluralism. On a related note, the commitment of IPBES to include indigenous and local knowledge forms part of these new paths, and has also facilitated a wider awareness of the variety of worldviews and ways of knowing about the human-environment relations.

With a substantial engagement from SSH constructive dialogues emerge. Those dialogues support the development of innovative and appropriate frames and terminologies that can increase the political and public awareness of the benefits of nature and also make them accountable in general terms. One example is the evolution from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ecosystem service framework to the Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) classification now applied in IPBES assessments. While the MA classification was comprised of four categories of ecosystem services: supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural, the NCP classification distinguishes three broad groups: regulating, material and non-material NCP. The changes reflect a conceptual evolution based on more than a decade of interdisciplinary thinking, with increasing involvement from the social sciences and humanities. The classification places a major emphasis on the fact that the cultural context influences the perception and experiences by people of NCP, and stresses the importance of socio-cultural relations between people and nature. Hence, “cultural ecosystem services” is no longer a separate category, and the role of culture has been elevated by including sub-categories in each of these three broad NCP groups (IPBES 2017b).

The story of how this evolution was processed in IPBES shows how the organization at large participates in and embraces such development. In late 2015, as five IPBES assessments, four regional ones, covering Africa, the Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia, and a thematic one on land degradation and restoration were in their initial stages, IPBES faced the challenge to develop a way to report consistently on one of the key elements in the conceptual framework, then labelled “Nature’s benefits to people” (NBP) (Díaz et al. 2015). This element refers to all the benefits that humanity obtains from nature, and is an inclusive concept across knowledge systems embracing “ecosystem services” as well as “nature’s gifts”. Due to the plethora of categorisations of “ecosystem services” in the scientific literature, there was a need to establish a common ground across on-going and future assessments, but significantly also to take into account the thinking developed by the IPBES’ expert group established for the development of the preliminary guide on the conceptualization of values of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people (Pascual et al. 2017).

First, A compilation of ecosystem services classifications as used by the five assessments in their first order drafts was put together by the coordinating lead authors of the chapters scoped to deal with NBP. Based on this compilation, the IPBES Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) then took the lead in developing an overarching system to be used by the assessments and assigned two of its experts, Unai Pascual and Sandra Diaz who also co-chaired the expert group on values, for the task. Pascual and Diaz, in consultation with MEP and other IPBES experts, produced a NBP system, which they shared in August 2016 with the experts of the four regional assessments, the land degradation and restoration assessment, and the global assessment before their respective second (for the former five assessments) and first author meetings (for the latter). The assessments experts were then given the opportunity to provide comments. These comments were used by Pascual and Diaz for updating the system, and the new version was approved by MEP at its October 2016 meeting. The system, or rather approach, then included a conceptual framing and 18 specific reporting categories. Importantly, at that stage, MEP decided to rename Nature’s Benefits to People to Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP), while retaining exactly the same meaning and conceptualization in accordance with the IPBES conceptual framework. The main reasons for the renaming were that: (a) the strong positive connotations of the word “benefits” is less appropriate since the concept also includes negative contributions from nature towards peoples’ quality of life; and that: (b) the different meanings of “benefits” is a potential source of confusion. The NCP approach was presented and discussed at the fifth session of the IPBES Plenary in March 2017 (IPBES 2016). The Plenary took note of the new concept, and of the further use of the 18 specific categories of NCP in IPBES current and future assessments (IPBES 2017a). A scientific publication presenting the NCP approach in more detail and providing further rationale for the classification is in preparation.

Although the difference of approaches and methods between natural sciences and SSH, especially those based on qualitative methods, could be described as potential hurdles, we rather regard them as stimulating scientific challenges for advancing new interdisciplinary ways forward. For scholars interested in interacting with different scientific perspectives, IPBES offers a potential to further develop and advance approaches that bridge quantitative and qualitative knowledge, for example in scenario building.

Challenges in engaging SSH scholars

IPBES is committed to disciplinary balance across its various deliverables (Larigauderie, Stenseke, and Watson 2016). The reasons for the observed shortage in SSH scholars in the first two years of IPBES are diverse and have not been yet been analysed in detail. The following can, however, be observed. One fundamental reason is the lack of nominations of authors from SSH by governments and scientific organizations for the various IPBES assessments. This is partly due to privileged ties between the natural science community and the governmental bodies that administrate the nominations. While in many countries the channels from the political and administrative spheres in charge of IPBES nominations to scholars in ecology are well established in the field of biodiversity, there are fewer relations to SSH scholars.

A second, related reason is that SSH scholars may not feel connected to the mission of IPBES (Environmental and ecological economists are to some degree exceptions). In other words, SSH scholars may not see IPBES as their “home”, like natural scientists do. A major part of biodiversity-relevant research in SSH does not draw on reference units or concepts used by natural sciences, such as species or ecosystems. Instead, it builds around other concepts, such as livelihoods, values, power, behaviour, discourses and conflicts. A strong collective effort is therefore necessary to make IPBES better known among scholars outside the natural science in order to attract excellent and respected researchers, representing a diversity of disciplines. To this end, IPBES is reaching out to learned SSH societies, to networks of scientists and to prominent interdisciplinary international programmes such as Future Earth (Larigauderie, Stenseke, and Watson 2016). A special procedure to fill gaps in expertise, including in SSH, was also adopted at the IPBES fourth plenary.

A third reason is that institutional barriers for entering IPBES may be more substantial for SSH researchers compared to researchers in natural sciences. A commitment to IPBES is less likely to be seen as rewarding for SSH scholars, working in a surrounding with colleagues engaged in very different research fields. Moreover, those scholars might find it more challenging to find support from their respective home institutions (e.g. permission to commit their time, support for travelling for developed country experts) as these may be less aware of IPBES. The obvious long-term solution to this problem is that IPBES become widely recognized in the global society.

At the moment, there are five on-going assessments, which are planned to be delivered in 2018: the four regional ones and the thematic assessment on land degradation and restoration. An overall global assessment started in August 2016, and is to be delivered in 2019. While a few more SSH scholars might be added through the gap filling process, important contributions to the assessments can mainly be made by engaging in the review of drafts coming up. Three more assessments are planned within the first work programme (Invasive alien species, Sustainable use of biodiversity and Methodological assessment of the diverse conceptualization of multiple values) (IPBES 2016). For these latter assessments, to which the experts are still to be nominated, we are dedicated to improve the proportion of researchers in SSH.

This special issue on IPBES and social sciences and humanities is valuable in many respects. On a basic level, it contributes by spreading the word about IPBES and its on-going work among SSH scholars, and by doing so, will attract more scholars from these fields of research to engage in IPBES. We also recognize the value of the critical examination of IPBES, presented in some of the articles. IPBES is still very much in a learning phase and the critique is useful for constructive purposes when refining on-going modes of work and even more so in long-term strategic considerations. On an overarching level, this issue contributes to a vital scientific discussion about IPBES and the work carried out, which helps to place the urgent mission to come to grips with the alarming loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functions on the public agenda.