Sandra Díaz^1*, Sebsebe Demissew², Carlos Joly³, W. Mark Lonsdale⁴, Anne Larigauderie⁵, Brigitte L. G. Baptiste⁶, Marie Roué⁷, Unai Pascua^l8,9,10^

1 Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV- CONICET) and FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina, 2 National Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 3 Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, 4 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia, 5 Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat, UN Campus, Bonn, Germany, 6 Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos "Alexander von Humboldt", Bogotá, Colombia, 7 8 Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Bilbao, Spain, 9 Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain, 10 Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: sdiaz@efn.uncor.edu


In their recent Perspective, Soberón & Peterson [1] criticize IPBES and its Conceptual Framework (CF) for shifting its focus to the local scale, express doubts about the intent of IPBES to incorporate indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems in its assessments, and urge IPBES to recognize the key role of local institutions. In response, we argue here that the authors fail to appreciate the distinction between the scope of IPBES and its scale of resolution and, secondly, that they have confused the CF with the Work Programme of IPBES.


The Scope of IPBES assessments is not the same as their scale of resolution

As we spelt out, not only in the graphical expression of the CF and its accompanying legend (Fig. 1 in [2] and [3]) but also in the main text of the full description [3], the scale of resolution of IPBES - for example the material on which its assessments will be based - goes all the way from the global to the local in scale. The scope of the IPBES assessments, on the other hand - the questions they address and the conclusions they will draw – stops above the national scale. Certainly, the IPBES CF is flexible and general enough to be applicable at most scales from global to local. In addition, IPBES will doubtless be enriched by learning from the wealth of information produced at local scales. It may even inspire governmental or non-governmental organizations to carry out assessments at national or even finer scales. This does not, however, mean that IPBES itself will operate at such scales – its mandate will not allow that. The scope of the IPBES Work Programme remains resolutely global to subregional (e.g. South America, Central Asia, Eastern Africa) and there is no risk of it being “dragged into local scopes”.


The IPBES Conceptual Framework is not the IPBES Work Programme

As for the integration of different knowledge systems, including ILK, IPBES has a clear mandate and commitment to do this, as is reflected in both the CF and the Work Programme, which appear to be conflated in Soberón & Peterson’s piece. To be clear, the CF is about the links between humans and nature, but it is just a model. Implementation is the function of the IPBES Work Programme, not the CF.

No-one directly involved in IPBES underestimates the difficulties entailed in integrating diverse disciplines and knowledge systems, the need for respect and inclusiveness, or the need to manage the risks of lack of representativeness and asymmetry of power (which almost certainly apply to all international assessment initiatives, not just IPBES, and not just those involving ILK). For example, we wrote:

"The intellectual and practical challenges involved in the implementation of the IPBES model will be formidable. A conceptual scaffolding such as the CF may not be sufficient for fulfilling the IPBES vision of bringing on board stakeholders across disciplines, cultures, and knowledge systems in the search of solutions. We argue, however, that an inclusive CF is a necessary condition towards the success of such a vision." [2]

The CF is simply an attempt to facilitate thinking across the boundaries of disciplines and knowledge systems, but it is not the Work Programme. The CF resulted from careful consideration of the diverse values that people place on nature, the diverse views of what a good quality of life entails, and of the need to incorporate the insights from people other than natural scientists. Furthermore, contrary to the authors’ claim, the role of institutions could hardly be more central, as is reflected by their place at the heart of the CF diagram, and by the description and examples in Ref. [3]. As for process, the CF, with all its limitations, is the result of an inclusive, multi-sectoral consultation process, unprecedented for wide-scope international assessments (Box 1.in [3]).


Of towers, stones, risks and myths

Use of the Tower of Babel in the title of Soberón & Peterson’s piece evokes the chaos due to the lack of mutual understanding among peoples with an intricate array of languages, with the inference that chaos will follow from the efforts of IPBES. The analogy is false. When the builders of the Babel Tower started their project, they “had one language and a common speech”. Their arrogance was punished by the fracturing of their common language into many. By contrast, we are starting with a situation where the communication gaps and interoperability problems between different knowledge systems and the different disciplines within western science could hardly be worse. We are, in a small way, attempting to address that fragmentation.

The CF does not claim to be a finished picture of the links between people and nature according to diverse world-views. Rather, it is meant to be an intellectual meeting place, with broad categories that people from different walks of life can relate to. As all schemas do, it simplifies the world as an aid to understanding. Similarly, the Rosetta Stone did not do full justice to the richness of Ancient Egyptian, Demotic or Ancient Greek scripts, or the languages and world-views they represented. Yet it represents a landmark contribution to our understanding of the ancient world, and continues to enrich the human experience many centuries later. Faced with the difficulty of dealing with the full richness of different knowledge systems on the one hand, and giving up on the inclusion of views other than mainstream natural sciences on the other, the choice for IPBES is clear. Indeed, recognizing the enormity of this challenge, IPBES has created a Task Force on Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems whose specific mandate is to develop appropriate approaches and procedures to carry out assessments that bring together ILK and science.
Soberón & Peterson mention the many risks faced by IPBES. Most of them are real. However, they fail to address what is probably the highest risk in tackling the problems facing biodiversity – the risk of leaving diverse knowledge-holders of the world uninvited to the quest, invisible and voiceless. We have chosen not to take that risk.
In summary, IPBES clearly defines its scope as global to subregional. It intends to incorporate different knowledge systems in its assessments. As the first large-scale intergovernmental initiative to do so, IPBES is fully aware of the difficulties it faces, but we believe it is an attempt worth making.


References

1. Soberón J, Peterson AT (2015) Biodiversity Governance: A Tower of Babel of Scales and Cultures. PLoS Biol 13(3): e1002108. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002108.

2. Díaz S, Demissew S, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A (2015) A Rosetta Stone for Nature's Benefits to People. PLoS Biol 13: e1002040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040 PMID: 25585296.

3. Díaz S, Demissew S, Joly C, Lonsdale W, Ash N, et al. (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework - Connecting Nature and People. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1-16.