Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services


The Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) aims to bridge between science and policy by assessing and synthesizing diverse forms of knowledge about biodiversity. With its explicit ambition to include not just natural science, but also social science and humanities as well as indigenous and local knowledge systems, IPBES is operating as a pioneer in uncharted territory. This Review assesses the state of research on IPBES processes in order to identify the challenges and lessons to be drawn from its efforts to include different kinds of experts, stakeholders and knowledge systems. The Review discusses both procedural and substantive dimensions of inclusiveness and identifies a paradox between on the one hand IPBES’ demand for diversity and on the other hand its aim of achieving consensus. Specifically, it illustrates how IPBES’ orientation towards consensus in decision-making and in assessment work shapes and constrains diversity and inclusiveness. This finding has implications for environmental assessment processes within and beyond IPBES and suggests a need to open up procedures and practices of participation and inclusion in order to accommodate pluralism, contestation and incommensurable perspectives and knowledge systems.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: IPBES bodies and expert groups functions.
Fig. 2: Publications about IPBES published by year between 2010 and 2018.
Fig. 3: Main insights on IPBES challenges for inclusiveness.


  1. 1.

    Turnhout, E., Dewulf, A. & Hulme, M. What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18, 65–72 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Jasanoff, S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lemos, M. C. et al. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat. Sustain. 1, 722–724 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bäckstrand, K. Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Eur. Environ. 16, 290–306 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Klenk, N. & Meehan, K. Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 160–167 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Stirling, A. Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23, 95–107 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Brondizio, E. S. & Tourneau, F.-M. L. Environmental governance for all. Science 352, 1272–1273 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bäckstrand, K. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 3, 24–41 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stirling, A. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 9, 1–16 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pearce, W., Mahony, M. & Raman, S. Science advice for global challenges: Learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environ. Sci. Policy 80, 125–131 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Stirling, A. ‘Opening Up’ or ‘Closing Down’: analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33, 262–294 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S. & Aarts, N. How participation creates citizens: Participatory governance as performative practice. Ecol. Soc. 15, 26 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A. & Lövbrand, E. in Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance (eds Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A. & Lövbrand, E.) 217–234 (Edward Elgar, 2010).

  15. 15.

    Esguerra, A., Beck, S. & Lidskog, R. Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES’ legitimitation politics. Glob. Environ. Polit. 17, 59–76 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Vadrot, A. B. M. The epistemic and strategic dimension of the establishment of the IPBES: “epistemic selectivities” at work. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 27, 361–378 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Report of the Third Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (UNEP, 2010).

  18. 18.

    Hulme, M. et al. Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. Science 333, 697–698 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Turnhout, E. Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488, 454–455 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Functions, Operating Principles and Institutional Arrangements of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 1–7 (IPBES, 2012).

  21. 21.

    Larigauderie, A. & Mooney, H. A. The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 9–14 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Larigauderie, A. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): A call to action. Gaia 24, 73 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A. & Mooney, H. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science-Policy. Interface Sci. 331, 1139–1140 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. & Buizer, M. Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Koetz, T., Farrell, K. N. & Bridgewater, P. Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 12, 1–21 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Stenseke, M. The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the challenge of integrating social sciences and humanities. Bull. Geogr. 33, 119–129 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Vadrot, A. B. M., Akhtar-Schuster, M. & Watson, R. T. The social sciences and the humanities in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S1–S9 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Vadrot, A. B. M., Rankovic, A., Lapeyre, R., Aubert, P.-M. & Laurans, Y. Why are social sciences and humanities needed in the works of IPBES? A systematic review of the literature. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S78–S100 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Vohland, K. & Nadim, T. Ensuring the success of IPBES: between interface, market place and parliament. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140012–20140012 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Decision IPBES-3/4: Communications, stakeholder engagement and strategic partnership. (IPBES, 2014).

  31. 31.

    Preliminary Guide Regarding Diverse Conceptualization of Multiple Values of Nature and its Benefits, Including Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Deliverable 3(d)) (IPBES, 2015).

  32. 32.

    Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1416–1419 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Montana, J. Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 20–27 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Borie, M. & Hulme, M. Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 487–496 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Beck, S. et al. Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise the cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. Gaia 23, 80–87 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Brooks, T. M., Lamoreux, J. F. & Soberón, J. Ipbes ≠ Ipcc. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 543–545 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Dunkley, R., Baker, S., Constant, N. & Bellamy-Sanderson, A. Enabling the IPBES conceptual framework to work across knowledge boundaries. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 18, 779–799 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Granjou, C., Mauz, I., Louvel, S. & Tournay, V. Assessing nature? The genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Sci. Technol. Soc. 18, 9–27 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hotes, S. & Opgenoorth, L. Trust and control at the science-policy interface in IPBES. Bioscience 64, 277–278 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Beck, S., Esguerra, A. & Goerg, C. The co-production of scale and power: the case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 19, 534–549 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gustafsson, K. M., Lidskog, R. & Lidskog, R. Organizing international experts : IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environ. Sociol. 4, 445–456 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kok, M. T. J. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 12, 177–181 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Zisenis, M. The International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services gets profile. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 199–203 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Arpin, I., Barbier, M., Ollivier, G. & Granjou, C. Institutional entrepreneurship and techniques of inclusiveness in the creation of the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 21, 11 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Bridgewater, P. The intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES) — a role for heritage? Int. J. Herit. Stud. 23, 65–73 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Jetzkowitz, J. et al. The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S38–S60 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Duraiappah, A. K. & Rogers, D. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: opportunities for the social sciences. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 24, 217–224 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Opgenoorth, L., Hotes, S. & Mooney, H. IPBES: Biodiversity panel should play by rules. Nature 506, 159 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Vadrot, A. B. M., Jetzkowitz, J. & Stringer, L. C. IPBES disciplinary gaps still gaping. Nature 530, 160–160 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Stenseke, M. & Larigauderie, A. The role, importance and challenges of social sciences and humanities in the work of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S10–S14 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Larigauderie, A., Stenseke, M. & Watson, R. T. IPBES reaches out to social scientists. Nature 532, 313 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Montana, J. & Borie, M. IPBES and biodiversity expertise: regional, gender, and disciplinary balance in the composition of the interim and 2015 Multidisciplinary Expert Panel. Conserv. Lett. 9, 138–142 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Morin, J.-F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A. & Oubenal, M. Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES. J. Int. Relat. Dev. 20, 543–577 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Timpte, M., Montana, J., Reuter, K., Borie, M. & Apkes, J. Engaging diverse experts in a global environmental assessment: participation in the first work programme of IPBES and opportunities for improvement. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S15–S37 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Heubach, K. & Lambini, C. K. Distribution and selection of experts in the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): the case of the regional assessment for Africa. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S61–S77 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Gustafsson, K. M. Producing expertise: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 15, 21–39 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lim, M. et al. Early-career experts essential for planetary sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 151–157 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Kovács, E. K. & Pataki, G. The participation of experts and knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ. Sci. Policy 57, 131–139 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Reuter, K., Timpte, M. & Nesshöver, C. How to engage social scientists in IPBES. Nature 531, 173 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Pe’er, G. et al. IPBES: Opportunities and challenges for SCB and other learned societies. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1–3 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Inouye, D. W. IPBES : global collaboration on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 371 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Lundquist, C. J. et al. Engaging the conservation community in the IPBES process. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1493–1495 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Opgenoorth, L. & Hotes, S. IPBES is in the books: Pollination and scenario assessments are the first two steps to guiding policy makers in the global biodiversity crisis. Front. Biogeogr. 8, e30404 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Schmeller, D. S. & Bridgewater, P. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): progress and next steps. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 801–805 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Schmeller, D. S., Niemelä, J. & Bridgewater, P. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): getting involved. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2271–2275 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Hof, C., Winter, M., Hotes, S. & Opgenoorth, L. It’s not (all) about the money — supporting IPBES through challenging times.Front. Biogeogr. 9, e34700 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Bridgewater, P. & Schmeller, D. S. IPBES 6 : the best plenary yet ? Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 2777–2782 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M. & Larigauderie, A. A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002040 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Soberon, J. & Peterson, A. T. Biodiversity governance: A Tower of Babel of scales and cultures. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002108 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Maier, D. S. & Feest, A. The IPBES conceptual framework: An unhelpful start. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29, 327–347 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Tengö, M. et al. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond — lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 17–25 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Löfmarck, E. & Lidskog, R. Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide. Environ. Sci. Policy 69, 22–28 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Obermeister, N. Local knowledge, global ambitions: IPBES and the advent of multi-scale models and scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 14, 843–856 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Hoareau, L. & Arico, S. The Intergovernmental science-policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services:capacity-building related considerations from a UNESCO perspective. Asian Biotechnol. Dev. Rev. 12, 1–15 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Obermeister, N. From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 80–86 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Brand, U. & Vadrot, A. B. M. Epistemic selectivities and the valorisation of nature: the cases of the Nagoya Protocol and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES). Law Environ. Dev. J. 9, 202–220 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Duvic-Paoli, L.-A. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or the framing of scientific knowledge within the law of sustainable development. Int. Community Law Rev. 19, 231–269 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Braat, L. C. Five reasons why the Science publication “Assessing nature’s contributions to people” (Diaz. et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in Ecosystem Services. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, A1–A2 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Maes, J., Burkhard, B. & Geneletti, D. Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to people. One Ecosyst. 3, e24720 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Peterson, G. D. et al. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecol. Soc. 23, 39 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Faith, D. P. Avoiding paradigm drifts in IPBES: reconciling “nature’s contributions to people,” biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 23, 40 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Kenter, J. O. IPBES : Don’t throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater ; Put people’s values central, not nature’s contributions. Ecosyst. Serv. 33, 40–43 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Masood, E. The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature 560, 423–425 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Keller, R., Keune, H. & Maynard, S. Where do IPBES delegates in Europe see challenges, needs, gaps and opportunities in policy uptake of “Nature’s contributions to people”? Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 31, S116–S124 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Turnhout, E., Neves, K. & De Lijster, E. ‘Measurementality’ in biodiversity governance: Knowledge, transparency, and the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (ipbes). Environ. Plan. A 46, 581–597 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Work on Capacity-Building: Deliverables 1(a) and 1(b) (IPBES, 2016).

  91. 91.

    Procedures for the Preparation of Platform Deliverables (IPBES, 2015).

  92. 92.

    Haas, P. M. Preserving the Epistemic Authority of Science in World Politics Discussion Paper SP IV 2018–105 (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2018).

  93. 93.

    Klenk, N. L. et al. Stakeholders in climate science : Beyond lip service? Science 743, 743–744 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Klenk, N. L. & Meehan, K. Transdisciplinary sustainability research beyond engagement models: Toward adventures in relevance. Environ. Sci. Policy 78, 27–35 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Kaijser, A. & Kronsell, A. Who gets to know about nature ? Freibg. Z. Geschlecht. 22, 41–67 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Mouffe, C. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Soc. Res. 66, 745–758 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Miller, C. A. & Erickson, P. in Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessments (eds Reid, W. V. & Berkes, F.) 297–314 (Island Press, 2006).

  98. 98.

    Filer, C. in Virtualism, Governance and Practice: Vision and Execution in Environmental Conservation (eds Carrier, J. G. & West, P.) 84–111 (Berghahn Books, 2009).

  99. 99.

    Hochkirch, A., McGowan, P. J. K. & van der Sluijs, J. Biodiversity reports need author rules. Nature 516, 170 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Larigauderie, A. IPBES responds on conflict of interests. Nature 517, 271 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Montana, J. Biodiversity: ideas need time to mature. Nature 561, 309 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Turnhout, E., Tuinstra, W. & Halffman, W. Environmental Expertise (Cambridge University Press, 2019).

Download references


This work was supported by a Flexpool grant from the German Centre of Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG FZT 118/2-2016).

Author information




I.D.-R. performed the review of the literature, coded and analysed the articles and prepared the figures. All authors contributed to the design and writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Díaz-Reviriego.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Díaz-Reviriego, I., Turnhout, E. & Beck, S. Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain 2, 457–464 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing