The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) recently published its first assessments at the fourth plenary meeting held in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). In this context, it would be useful to analyse how this first reports have been received by the scientific community working on biodiversity-related subjects.
The analysis distinguishes four different groups of scientists, based on their interaction with the IPBES and its work.
- The first group of researchers includes players that have been historically involved in and advocating the establishment of the IPBES: for this group, the meeting in Kuala Lumpur represented the satisfactory culmination of a long process.
- The second group is composed of researchers who are directly involved in IPBES work, and, as such, has a great desire to see things change as well as for its work to be productively used to support biodiversity policies.
- A third group of scientists seems to be adopting a bystander approach and waiting for the IPBES to produce new knowledge—which is not, strictly speaking, its purpose.
- Lastly, a fourth group can be identified, which seems indifferent and almost hostile to initiatives such as the IPBES, which they see as too directly linked to “social challenges”.
With regard to the humanities and social sciences, the first assessments of the IPBES do seem to confirm the platform’s attempts at interdisciplinarity, even though further efforts seem necessary. Indeed, a large share of scientific knowledge regarding the “indirect drivers” or “underlying causes” of biodiversity loss, which are usually rooted in the functioning of societies, is inadequately dealt with in these reports, be it in terms of identifying the factors of change or potential solutions. It is certainly important for all supporting players in the process such as the FRB, IDDRI and the concerned ministries to take stock of the diversity in expectations and perceptions of researchers so that they can guide their actions, proactively respond to concerns being raised and help shape the platform accordingly. This will help the platform be in a better position to respond to the expectations of the scientific community, both from the natural and social sciences, without whose work it could not exist.
