Listening and relating to nature differently

The IPBES relational values framework embarks on a different way of understanding human-nature relationships. It argues that the destruction of the natural world and the climate crisis are the result of a narrow set of values, often instrumental, thereby excluding deeper, non-utilitarian connections with nature [1]. In doing so, it extends beyond the Rights of Nature, offering an alternative approach to nature conservation altogether (see Table 1 below).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Rights of nature vs. nature’s contribution to people.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000654.t001

Muradian and Pascual [8] explain that the dichotomy between instrumental and intrinsic valuation fails to account for how people resonate with nature. In reality, people form meaningful relationships with and responsibilities towards nature based on their virtues, principles, and preferences, as essential to achieving a ‘good life’. How, then, can we tune into the ways people live in harmony with nature—and meaningfully translate those experiences into policy?

The IPBES relational framework argues that plural values of nature coexist. It is not an either-or dilemma; rather, nature can be valued both for its contribution to human well-being and for its intrinsic value, which is linked to a sense of responsibility and care for the environment [4]. This meaningful engagement is meant to restore our ‘broken relationships’ with nature, which Milgin et al. [9] argue are the foundation of ecological crises. Thus, a relational values framework allows us not only to think more about how nature contributes to people, but it also allows us to think more about our obligations towards nature. The case of Ecuador demonstrated that, despite the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge into the constitutional Rights of Nature, the Ecuadorian government would redefine the legal personhood of nature and their contribution to the ‘good living’ to promote or justify its extractivist agenda [6]. This way, the legal personhood model may provide a pragmatic compromise between the perspectives of the government and Ecuador’s Indigenous Peoples, but it might end up becoming a ‘meaningless phrase’ for nature itself [4]. At its core, this reflects a deeper conflict over competing values attached to nature that are often incommensurable, meaning that they cannot be compared or measured by a common standard [10]. How can such conflicts be resolved?

Can deliberation cross the divide?

O’Neill [11] reminds us that when values can not be neatly compared against one another, the only path to rational action is through thoughtful deliberation, anchored in shared norms of reason. Following this logic, IPBES tries weaving together a tapestry of voices, values, and ways of knowing through a collaborative, policy-driven process. By bringing multiple stakeholders to the table, it seeks not a one-size-fits-all solution, but an approach to environmental governance that listens, adapts, and responds to context, repositioning nature as a co-actor. Contrary to conventional knowledge generation based on technomanagerial, top-down, scientific elite practice, which Borie et al. [12] observe in the IPCC process, the IPBES conceptual framework proposes an alternative way to reimagine nature as an active subject within legal and political systems.

However, even within this inclusive framework, IPBES acknowledges the necessity of weighing and bridging values to develop comprehensive and situated policy outcomes [3]. Given that the implementation of the IPBES conceptual framework is still evolving and its long-term impact remains uncertain, it raises important questions. How effectively can such a framework reconcile fundamentally opposing values, such as the preservation versus the instrumental use of nature, as seen in the Ecuadorian case? Can deliberation truly bridge such deep value divides?

At present, a deliberative process facilitates articulating, hearing, and reflecting upon diverse values while also enabling discussion on the normative criteria that should guide the comparison and integration of these values in decision-making.

Navigating the challenges

Such processes are not devoid of challenges, however. While successful deliberation necessitates the inclusion of all stakeholders, this in turn requires addressing power imbalances and fostering trust, both processes that require time. Moreover, an emphasis on the deliberative process may divert attention from the substantive content of policy outcomes [13].

It is on this point that some fundamental critiques of the IPBES framework are built. While the emphasis on deliberation seeks to ensure socially and culturally just decision-making, this does not necessarily equate to ecological justice. The IPBES operates within the conceptual lens of ‘nature’s contributions to people’ and the notion of a ‘good life’, implicitly framing nature’s value in terms of human relationships and well-being [7]. Furthermore, relational values—though more inclusive—remain anthropocentric insofar as they tie the value of nature to human experiences and meanings [14]. From an ecological justice perspective, Ghijselinck [4] critiques the IPBES process for assembling plural values without offering substantive moral guidance on what constitutes just relationships with nature.

The long-term impact of the IPBES remains uncertain, especially when it comes to crafting policies that genuinely protect nature across diverse cultures and contexts, without the pitfalls of tokenism or being co-opted by extractivist agendas.

This circles us back to the heart of the matter: how do we protect nature when its meaning is constantly reshaped by clashing values and interests? The IPBES, like the Rights of Nature movement, marks a bold shift, opening space for new ways of valuing and relating to the natural world. Both represent significant symbolic advances in transformative change for just futures. Yet, it remains to be seen whether these innovative approaches can deliver tangible protection for nature in highly contested and politicized contexts.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Julia Neidig, Andressa Mansur, and Violeta Cabello for their insights contributing to this piece.