Nature | Column: World View

Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert

Major biodiversity initiative needs support

Article tools

There was something different about Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when he rose to address a major conference on bio­diversity in Bonn, Germany, late last month. His signature green tie was absent; a red alternative hung in its place.

Red for danger, Pachauri said, to acknowledge the peril facing ecosystems and much of the natural world. Danger, he added — pausing for effect — was not a word he could use in the highly politicized context of climate change. Researchers who investigate and log Earth’s diminishing biodiversity, he was hinting, have yet to encounter the kind of distortions and politicization that are a regular feature for those who work on global warming. But for how long will that continue?

The Bonn conference was the third plenary meeting for a major initiative that explicitly aims to mimic the workings and impact of the IPCC, including eventually drawing up laws that would put a scientific brake on rampant development. As such, it is likely to make powerful enemies. One of its first reports will assess the state of pollinating insects. Others will explore the highly charged question of how to value ecology. The red tie is a sign of things to come.

The initiative — the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) — was set up three years ago, although the idea was first mooted in the 1990s. The mood in Bonn was upbeat as delegates agreed its annual US$9-million budget and put the seal on a busy programme of work for the next five years.

Recent controversies over the IPCC — claimed errors in its reports and debate about whether the panel should even continue in its present form — might seem to make the organization a dubious role model. Does the world really need another lumbering process that involves hundreds of scientists, who anyway need to have their final work signed off by representatives of politicians?

Such a view underestimates the IPCC’s impact in one crucial area: to provide political impetus and an evidence-backed mandate for international legislation. The agency’s second assessment report, the one confirming a human fingerprint on climate, overcame political dissent at the time and led directly to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which remains the only agreement that legally binds states to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions. The protocol is unfashionable in some climate-policy circles now, but the IPCC remains the model to drive a majority of the world’s governments to change laws in response to scientific findings.

“By definition, most of the planet’s remaining biodiversity is in developing nations.”

The founders of the IPBES want something equivalent to protect biodiversity. The need is urgent. The existing United Nations biodiversity convention, an international agreement in which member countries promise to protect, sustainably use and share the benefits of bio­diversity, lacks teeth and has made little impact on slowing biodiversity loss. One-eighth of birds, one-quarter of mammals and one-third of amphibians are understood to be facing the threat of extinction, IPBES chair Zakri Abdul Hamid told the conference. The present consensus is that the rate of extinction is somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times the pre-industrial background rate.

The first global report from the new biodiversity panel — similar to the periodic landmark assessment reports from the IPCC — is due in 2019. The initial shots in the conflict that could follow have already been fired. The United States so far finds itself unable to pay for its scientists to contribute; most of the money for the exercise, moreover, is coming from European countries. Not coincidentally, the United States has still to ratify the biodiversity convention, which many lawmakers, Republicans in particular, regard as anti-growth.

Still, insiders expect the US government and its national institutions to play a bigger part in the coming months. One of its tasks, along with Europe and Latin America, will be to protect the role that conservation and industry groups have in the IPBES as observers. Some countries, notably China, seem to want to restrict this.

There is one major difference from the IPCC. Each IPBES assessment must include reference citations to indigenous knowledge, and every review panel must include experts in this. That is partly a concession to some developing countries that, for many years, resisted the idea of the IPBES, fearing that it would be based, like most IPCC reports, on studies in peer-reviewed European-language journals. It also reflects the fact that, by definition, most of the planet’s remaining biodiversity is in developing nations.

In the science ministries of powerhouse nations, the study of indigenous knowledge is viewed as soft, flaky even. Compared with fields such as plant genetics, it is also less likely to be recognized by many leading science academies. Already, some representatives from Europe have complained that they cannot find suitably qualified individuals to conduct or review assessments.

Anticipating this, the IPBES has set aside funding to train and identify suitable experts, especially from developing countries. IPBES leaders should cast the net further, and draw in more experts from the social sciences and others — through learned societies of humanities scholars, for example. Biodiversity needs all the help it can get.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
518,
Pages:
7
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/518007a

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Ehsan Masood is editor of Research Fortnight and a co-author with Daniel Schaffer of Dry: Life Without Water.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

1 comment Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for Erich Knight
    Erich Knight
    Ecosystems and ALL of the natural world are Carbon based. Ten thousand years of civilizations spending their soils, burning forests and mining soil carbon made for a warm and stable Holocene, but now contributing half again as much fossil carbon is destabilizing our Ecosystems & future. All that carbon is needed back in the soil. The true gold standard of a sustainable civilization is soil carbon, measurable soon by earth sensing satellites, available for all to see their good (or bad) works with present and future Google maps like the Soil Carbon Coalition's Atlas of Biological Work: http://soilcarboncoalition.org/atlas The clarity and simplicity of this perspective has focused my efforts to this goal, my Holy Grail, political and financial recognition of soil carbon content. Penalties for CO2's externalized cost and rewards for soil carbon’s climate values. Every gram of additional soil carbon holds and returns eight grams of water. The old Chinese proverb comes to mind: “Despite our artistic pretensions, sophistication, and many accomplishments, humans owe our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.” CO2 must become a fungible commodity. Like oil. Oil cost more here or cost less there but the world oil price is controlled by a market. Adding the Externalized cost of oil, fossil carbons, to this market is what is needed. CO2 is that mechanism. Cap & Trade worked for NOX & SOX, no public outcry, no financial pain, the best solutions guided by the proverbial "invisible hand" sweeping away acid rain. Conventional policy is closing the Ozone Hole. The invisible hand of CO2e needs to be made manifest by policy, the same for NPK, nutrients in the wrong place have social/ecological cost, in the right places high values. Carbon in the right place tremendous values. These now mostly "Externalized Values" for society, hydrology, ecology, soils etc. must be placed on the balance sheet. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars", But in our policy. A Hansen Fee & Dividend, back to the people, will power said invisible hands. Soil-C Farming of Oz "The Cat's Cradle" Improving Agricultural Productivity and Economic Viability through Improved Understanding of Natural Systems http://biochar.us.com/584/cats-cradle
sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.