The IPBES Global Assessment: Pathways to Action

Abstract

The first Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found widespread, accelerating declines in Earth's biodiversity and associated benefits to people from nature. Addressing these trends will require science-based policy responses to reduce impacts, especially at national to local scales. Effective scaling of sciencepolicy efforts, driven by global and national assessments, is a major challenge for turning assessment into action and will require unprecedented commitment by scientists to engage with communities of policy and practice. Fulfillment of science's social contract with society, and with nature, will require strong institutional support for scientists' participation in activities that transcend conventional research and publication. From Assessment to ActionThe first IPBES Global Assessment, released in 2019, reveals widespread, accelerating declines in our planet's biodiversity and life-support systems [1,2]. The assessment's unanimous approval by the 132 member countries, and the resounding calls by multiple stakeholders for action [3], underscore both urgency and hope for significant response i . The assessment concludes that nature's capacity to support humanity's wellbeing is threatened by habitat conversion, excessive resource harvesting, climate change, invasive species, and other impacts [2]. Declines in species viability, human safety, mental and physical health, and food and livelihood security will continue unless these trends are checked and reversed. The critical challenge now is to disseminate and apply the findings of the IPBES Global Assessment at national and local scales where most policy and management decisions affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services are made. This will require significant, long-term commitments by governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, civil society, and the scientific community. Commitments are required not only from individual scientists but also the institutions that host and fund them. The pathways and processes necessary for successful implementation transcend business-as-usual approaches and require a broader transformation in how scientists work with decision makers.Converting scientific knowledge to action is often complex, but the ingredients of success are clear. Effective, enduring action comes from collaborative, multidisciplinary science-policy processes that frame and cogenerate knowledge with decision makers and stakeholders from many sectors [1,[4][5][6][7]. A spectrum of approaches has been developed for such so-called 'translational science' and 'knowledge coproduction' practices (e.g., [8][9][10][11]), but all share key properties, including deep multidisciplinarity, close engagement and dialogue with partners, and incorporation of diverse

How to diminish the geographical bias in IPBES and related science?

“…Global concerted action with a good geographic balance of experts and local relevance is essential for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Kovács & Pataki, 2016; Ruckelshaus et al., 2020).…”

A machine-learning approach to human footprint index estimation with applications to sustainable development

“…A dimensionless metric which captures the extent of human influence on the terrestrial surface, the HFI is distinct from many land-use metrics in that it captures the total influence of human existence on a given location in a single index, rather than categorizing individual land use types (2) . The applications to which the HFI is put to use are manifold (3)(4)(5)(6) , with enormous demand for information about human pressure on the land surface to support policies related to land use change, biodiversity conservation, and climate action (6)(7)(8) . A key challenge for expanded use of the HFI for operational efforts, however, is that new updates typically lag the present day by seven or more years (9,10) .…”

“…1a), the HFI is distinct from many land-use metrics in that it captures the total influence of human existence on a given location in a single index, rather than categorizing individual land use types (Riggio et al 2020). The applications to which the HFI is put to use are manifold (Di Marco et al 2018, Belote et al 2020, Beyer et al 2020, with enormous demand for information about human pressure on the land surface to support policies related to land use change, biodiversity conservation, and climate action (Pascual et al 2017, Beyer et al 2020, Ruckelshaus et al 2020.…”

Monitoring Extinction Risk and Threats of the World’s Fishes based on the Sampled Red List Index

“…Threats continue to increase, resulting in declines in the abundance and distribution of species 4,5 . A recent global assessment of the state of biodiversity by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) estimated that up to one million species are at risk of extinction 6 . This estimate relies on inferences from the known extinction risk of species assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, arguably the most comprehensive inventory on species' extinction risk worldwide 7 .…”