IPBES is in the books: Pollination and scenario assessments are <i> the first </i> two steps to guiding policy makers in the global biodiversity crisis

Abstract

editorial frontiers of biogeography 8.1, e30404, 2016 IPBES is in the books: Pollination and scenario assessments are the first two steps to guiding policy makers in the global biodi- versity crisis During their 4th plenary session in Kuala Lumpur, the 124 member states of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Eco- system Services (IPBES) adopted their first assess- ment on the global state of pollination, pollinators and food production (IPBES 2016a) and a second one on scenarios and models (IPBES 2016b). With these first assessments, meant to provide an ‘early win’ for the work program 2014–2018 (Opgenoorth and Faith 2013), IPBES establishes itself as a vital source of information for policy makers to counter the global biodiversity crisis just like IPCC has done regarding global climate change. Bob Watson, the new IPBES chair and for- mer chair of the IPCC, stated (somewhat tongue- in-cheek) that the pollination assessment is “clearly better than anything the IPCC has ever produced.” Enthusiasm is more than justified re- garding the impressive amount of work the two teams of experts have put into the assessments over the last two years. It is now timely to have a closer look at what they set out to do and how it was carried out as well as to check how the 124 governments have dealt with the summaries for policy makers that were discussed in plenary. The pollination and food production assess- ment The pollination assessment—as will be the rule for IPBES assessments in general—is made up of a technical report and the summary for policy mak- ers (SPM). As IPBES is a science-policy interface controlled by member states, the SPM is a docu- ment that needs to be adopted line by line by gov- ernment representatives. This requires consensus and government delegations can hold up the pro- cess indefinitely if they don’t agree with any as- pect of the text. Requests for changes to the text could well be politically motivated; however, the co-chairs of the report as well as the coordinating lead authors of the respective chapters are pre- sent during this procedure to make sure that the content of the technical report is not distorted in the SPM. The technical report on the other hand stands as presented to the governments by the experts. Here, only the executive summaries of each chapter get approved individually by govern- ments’ representatives. The technical report The technical report in its draft version includes some 830 pages of text divided into 6 chapters covering (i) background, (ii) drivers of change, (iii) status and trends, (iv) economic valuation, (v) bi- ocultural diversity and socio-cultural values, and (vi) response to risks and opportunities associated [sic], all in relation to pollinators and pollination. The aim of the assessment, as originally set out in the scoping document, was to “assess animal pol- lination as a regulating ecosystem service under- pinning food production in the context of its con- tribution to nature’s gift to people and supporting a good quality of life”. Its scope is global with the exception of Antarctica where no pollinators are known. As in all IPBES products, it is informed by natural, social and economic sciences as well as “knowledge of indigenous and local community stakeholders and practitioners”. Especially this latter aspect is considered to be one of the central innovations of the IPBES process. This first report clearly documents that IPBES takes this innovative challenge serious. Numerous examples from indig- enous and local knowledge (ILK) holders are pre- sented in the assessment. At the same time it also documents that there is still some distance to cov- er until ILK will leave example boxes and become a more equal part of the assessment. Nevertheless, in Kuala Lumpur it was evident, that all bodies of IPBES will work hard to develop this integration further. A second overarching perspective of IPBES is that this body and its assessments intend to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. To that end, each chapter presents factual statements frontiers of biogeography, ISSN 1948-6596 — © 2016 the authors; journal compilation © 2016 The International Biogeography Society