Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Unknown authorUnknown author · Public domain · source
Name	Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Formation	2012
Headquarters	Bonn
Leader title	Chair

Contents

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is an international science-policy body created to assess the state of biological diversity and ecosystem services, synthesize scientific knowledge, and provide policy-relevant advice. It was established through negotiations involving United Nations Environment Programme, Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations, European Union and numerous national agencies to respond to concerns raised by reports from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World Wildlife Fund, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Global Environment Facility and other organizations.

History and Establishment

The platform emerged after high-level discussions among representatives from United Nations Environment Programme, Group of 20, Convention on Biological Diversity, World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization and civil society actors including Greenpeace, Conservation International and World Resources Institute; these negotiations followed findings in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report debates, and advocacy by scientists from institutions such as Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences (United States), Max Planck Society and Chinese Academy of Sciences. Formal founding occurred at a plenary supported by member parties including Germany, Brazil, India, United Kingdom, United States and China, with operational arrangements influenced by precedents from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Biodiversity Outlook processes, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Early leadership and secretariat functions were shaped by host agreements with Federal Republic of Germany and collaborations with research networks such as International Union for Conservation of Nature and Centre for International Forestry Research.

Major assessment reports synthesize data and analyses contributed by scientists affiliated with University of Cambridge, Harvard University, University of São Paulo, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Stanford University and research centres such as CIFOR and IPBES-linked networks; these outputs include global assessments, regional assessments for continents like Africa, Asia, South America and thematic reports on pollination, invasive species, land degradation and scenario modelling drawing on work by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment authors, and databases maintained by GBIF, IUCN Red List and PANGAEA. The platform also issues methodological guidelines, policy briefs for parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, technical support for Aichi Biodiversity Targets, contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals review, and assessments that inform negotiations at conferences such as Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The platform employs systematic review methods adapted from standards used by Cochrane Collaboration, applies scenario analysis techniques developed in collaboration with IPCC modelers at IIASA and integrates diverse knowledge systems including indigenous and local knowledge from partnerships with organizations like UNESCO and Convention on Biological Diversity indigenous forums. It convenes multidisciplinary expert groups spanning ecology, economics and social sciences with contributors from World Resources Institute, Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Natural History Museum, London, CSIRO and universities such as Yale University and ETH Zurich; methods include meta-analysis, spatial mapping using data from NASA, European Space Agency, and harmonization protocols referencing IPCC Good Practice Guidance and standards from Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

Platform assessments have been cited in policy processes at institutions including the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, European Union, African Union, and national policy reviews in countries such as Brazil, China, India, United States and Germany. Outputs have influenced funding priorities at Global Environment Facility and Green Climate Fund deliberations, informed corporate risk frameworks used by firms listed on New York Stock Exchange and London Stock Exchange, and supported advocacy by NGOs including WWF, The Nature Conservancy and BirdLife International during negotiations leading to targets under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Critics from academic centres including University of Cape Town, University of Auckland, University of Nairobi and policy think tanks such as Chatham House and Brookings Institution have argued that the platform faces challenges in balancing scientific rigour with policy relevance, ensuring equitable geographic representation, and integrating indigenous and local knowledge equitably as highlighted by debates involving UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and scholars from University of Otago. Additional concerns have addressed funding constraints linked to donors like Global Environment Facility and European Commission, the pace of assessment cycles compared with urgent policy timelines set at meetings like Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and methodological debates resonating with critiques of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change processes regarding uncertainty communication and treatment of values.

Category:International environmental organizations