Science-policy interface: beyond Assessments

Abstract

IN THEIR POLICY FORUM “THE BIODIVERsity and ecosystem services science-policy interface” (4 March, p. 1139), C. Perrings et al. frame the new Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as a body responsible primarily for assessment. They consistently base their elaboration of the work of IPBES on the experiences of past assessments (such as the Millennium Assessment, the Global Biodiversity Outlook, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and interpret the Busan outcome [recommendations made by a 2010 intergovernmental conference (1)] solely through the lens of how scientifi c knowledge is assessed. We believe that the blueprint suitability of previous assessments for the IPBES process is very limited. Strengthening the (mainly global-scale) scientific knowledge base behind assessments is important, but the goals of IPBES should be expanded. First, we should move beyond conventional scientifi c knowledge assessments that legitimize, almost exclusively, only peerreviewed material. Knowledge established across all scales (especially the knowledge of local and indigenous peoples) and validated in multiple ways must be eligible for inclusion in IPBES processes. Changes in biodiversity are fi rst experienced locally and thus many forms of local expertise have particular relevance for biodiversity issues (2). Second, we should link IPBES assessment results to decision-making at multiple spatial scales (including tackling biodiversity loss at the grassroots level).