ABSTRACT
The challenge of assessing knowledge for policy-making decisions is a large part of any attempt to reduce the numerous uncertainties in global environmental governance. Global environmental assessments have multiplied at the international level since the 1980s. Climate change has been a pioneering element of this trend since the 1988 implementation of a permanent assessment process, i.e. IPCC,1 several years before the adoption of a an intergovernmental convention, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) (Rio, 1992). Contrary to the work on climate change, no permanent process for the assessment of knowledge on biodiversity questions was available. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) (1993-1995) was conducted
soon after the signing of CBD. However, in line with its qualification as an independent scientific exercise without any particular political mandate, GBA was not included in the intergovernmental process that started with CBD. The failure of GBA to gain recognition contributed to the motives underlying the launch of a second global biodiversity assessment initiative – the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2001-2005) – but this time care was taken to associate several international organizations in its design and implementation (Pesche et al., 2013), while ensuring that it would remain an “independent” exercise. From 2005, MA and its follow-up were accompanied by a series of activities and initiatives building on the MA findings, such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB), the Ecosystem Management Programme (EMP), led by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society coordinated by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) (UNEP, 2010). MA and its results have influenced research agendas (Carpenter et al.,
2009) and prompted the expectation “that there would then be an exploration of the possibility of creating an ongoing IPCC-like process, which should take into account policy makers and stakeholders”. MA thus represents an essential milestone in the genesis of IPBES. Meanwhile, in 2005, the French government launched a three-year consultation process in the framework of the International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB), and the most important IMoSEB deliverable was the recommendation that a new “intergovernmental [body] with scientific credibility, political legitimacy and relevance” was needed (Babin et al., 2008). In this context, the debate within CBD on establishing a framework for
ensuring the regular production of global assessments of the state of biodiversity worldwide remained focused on how to do so and under what conditions. COP Decision IX/152 (2008) was the beginning of a five-year negotiation processes under the auspices of UNEP – involving stakeholders from more than 100 countries, scientific communities and NGOs – with the aim of deciding whether and potentially how to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity. Negotiations leading to the decision that a new body should be established included three Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Meetings, which took place in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and two Plenary sessions in 2011 and 2012. It officially led to the creation of IPBES in 2012: “The Platform’s objective is to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human wellbeing and sustainable development” (UNEP, 2012a), “Focusing on government needs and based on priorities established by the Plenary, the Platform responds to requests from governments, including
those conveyed to it by multilateral environmental agreements related to biodiversity and ecosystem services as determined by their respective governing bodies”. Four main functions were therefore identified for IPBES. First, “the Platform
identifies and prioritizes key scientific information needed for policy makers at appropriate scales and catalyzes efforts to generate new knowledge by engaging in dialogue with key scientific organizations, policymakers and funding organizations, but should not directly undertake new research”. Second, “the Platform performs regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages, which should include comprehensive global, regional and, as necessary, subregional assessments and thematic issues at appropriate scales and new topics identified by science and as decided upon by the Plenary”. Third, “the Platform supports policy formulation and implementation by identifying policy relevant tools and methodologies (…) for decision makers”. Fourth, “the Platform prioritizes key capacity-building needs to improve the science-policy interface at appropriate levels and then provides and calls for financial and other support for the highest-priority needs related directly to its activities” (UNEP, 2012a). Discussions during the first years of the slow IPBES emergence process
were centered on the question of whether and how the science-policy interface should be strengthened. In a complex and sometimes hostile context, IPBES advocates put forward convincing arguments about the relevance of the new Platform. Then, in the two Plenary meetings (2011-2012), the issue of the modalities and institutionalization of the future intergovernmental platform was addressed, highlighting the plurality of visions and interests on the way of governing IPBES. The openness ambition of the Platform was enacted and concerned both the openness to stakeholders (indigenous people, NGOs, private sector, etc.) and to social sciences (economics, anthropology, etc.). The first question addressed in this book concerns the difficulties and controversial context of the IPBES emergence: How can the emergence of IPBES be explained in a context of fragmentation and complexity of global biodiversity governance? The second question explores the impact of the openness strategy on the functioning of the Platform: How does IPBES manage tensions between the openness ambition, the knowledge selection process and the production of global assessments by experts? Two main scientific-inspired approaches are used to answer these questions.
The first approach is derived from the international relations field and deals with IPBES interactions with other Conventions and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The IPBES objective to produce assessments on the biodiversity issue is in a context of growing institutional complexity at the international level. The second approach mobilizes both science and political science studies to explore interactions between science and policy in global environmental governance. Part of this literature focuses on the procedural aspects rather than the substance of the results of so-called
science-policy interfaces and suggests that attention should be paid to the social conditions necessary for science to become relevant for policy making. The following section provides further detail on those two approaches.
