The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people
Sandra Dı´az
1, Sebsebe Demissew
2, Julia Carabias
3, Carlos Joly
4, Mark Lonsdale
5, Neville Ash
6,
Anne Larigauderie
7, Jay Ram Adhikari
8, Salvatore Arico
9, Andra´s Ba´ldi
10, Ann Bartuska
11, Ivar Andreas Baste
12, Adem Bilgin
13, Eduardo Brondizio
14, Kai MA Chan
15, Viviana Elsa Figueroa
16, Anantha Duraiappah
17,
Markus Fischer
18,19, Rosemary Hill
20, Thomas Koetz
7, Paul Leadley
21, Philip Lyver
22, Georgina M Mace
23,
Berta Martin-Lopez
24, Michiko Okumura
25, Diego Pacheco
26, Unai Pascual
27,28,29, Edgar Selvin Pe´rez
30, Belinda Reyers
31, Eva Roth
32, Osamu Saito
33, Robert John Scholes
34,
Nalini Sharma
35, Heather Tallis
36, Randolph Thaman
37,
Robert Watson
38, Tetsukazu Yahara
39, Zakri Abdul Hamid
40, Callistus Akosim
41, Yousef Al-Hafedh
42, Rashad
Allahverdiyev
43, Edward Amankwah
44, Stanley T Asah
45, Zemede Asfaw
46, Gabor Bartus
47, L Anathea Brooks
48, Jorge Caillaux
49, Gemedo Dalle
50, Dedy Darnaedi
51,
Amanda Driver
52, Gunay Erpul
53, Pablo Escobar-Eyzaguirre
54, Pierre Failler
55, Ali Moustafa Mokhtar Fouda
56, Bojie Fu
57, Haripriya Gundimeda
58, Shizuka Hashimoto
59, Floyd Homer
60, Sandra Lavorel
61, Gabriela Lichtenstein
62, William Armand Mala
63, Wadzanayi Mandivenyi
64, Piotr Matczak
65, Carmel Mbizvo
66, Mehrasa Mehrdadi
67, Jean Paul Metzger
68, Jean Bruno Mikissa
69, Henrik Moller
70, Harold A Mooney
71, Peter Mumby
72,
Harini Nagendra
73, Carsten Nesshover
74,
Alfred Apau Oteng-Yeboah
75, Gyo¨rgy Pataki
76, Marie Roue´
77, Jennifer Rubis
78, Maria Schultz
79, Peggy Smith
80,
Rashid Sumaila
81, Kazuhiko Takeuchi
82, Spencer Thomas
83, Madhu Verma
84, Youn Yeo-Chang
85and Diana Zlatanova
86ThefirstpublicproductoftheIntergovernmentalPlatformon BiodiversityandEcosystemServices(IPBES)isitsConceptual Framework.Thisconceptualandanalyticaltool,presented hereindetail,willunderpinallIPBESfunctionsandprovide structureandcomparabilitytothesynthesesthatIPBESwill produceatdifferentspatialscales,ondifferentthemes,andin differentregions.SalientinnovativeaspectsoftheIPBES
ConceptualFrameworkareitstransparentandparticipatory constructionprocessanditsexplicitconsiderationofdiverse scientificdisciplines,stakeholders,andknowledgesystems, includingindigenousandlocalknowledge.Becausethefocus onco-constructionofintegrativeknowledgeissharedbyan increasingnumberofinitiativesworldwide,thisframework shouldbeusefulbeyondIPBES,forthewiderresearchand
knowledge-policycommunitiesworkingonthelinksbetween natureandpeople,suchasnatural,socialandengineering scientists,policy-makersatdifferentlevels,anddecision- makersindifferentsectorsofsociety.
Addresses
1InstitutoMultidisciplinariodeBiologı´aVegetal(IMBIV-CONICET)and FCEFyN,UniversidadNacionaldeCo´rdoba,CC495,5000Co´rdoba, Argentina
2NationalHerbarium,DepartmentofPlantBiologyandBiodiversity Management,CollegeofNaturalSciences,AddisAbabaUniversity,P.O.
Box3434,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia
3FacultaddeCiencias,UniversidadNacionalAuto´nomadeMe´xico, MexicoDF,Mexico
4DepartamentodeBiologiaVegetal,InstitutodeBiologia,Universidade EstadualdeCampinas,UNICAMP,Campinas,Brazil
5CommonwealthScientificandIndustrialResearchOrganization, Canberra,Australia.Presentaddress:MonashUniversityandCharles DarwinUniversity,Australia
6DivisionofEnvironmentalPolicyImplementation,UNEP,Nairobi,Kenya
7IPBESSecretariat,UNCampus,Bonn,Germany
8MinistryofScience,TechnologyandEnvironment,P.O.Box5832, Kathmandu,Nepal
9Science–PolicyInterfaceandAssessments,DivisionofSciencePolicy, NaturalSciencesSector,UNESCO,France
10MTACentreforEcologicalResearch,Alkotma´nyu2-4,Va´cra´to´t2163, Hungary
11USDepartmentofAgriculture,Washington,DC,USA
12Ska˚lagata50,5470Rosendal,Norway
13ResearchDivision,MinistryofForestsandWaterAffairs,Turkey
14DepartmentofAnthropology,IndianaUniversity,SB-130, Bloomington,IN47405,USA
15IRES,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Canada
16SecretariatoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD),413Saint- JacquesStreet,Montreal,QCH2Y1N9,Canada
17MahatmaGandhiInstituteofEducationonPeaceandSustainable Development,NewDelhi,India
18InstituteofPlantSciences,UniversityofBern,Switzerland
19BiodiversityandClimateResearchCenterBiKF,SenckenbergGfN, Frankfurt,Germany
20SocialandEconomicSciences,CommonwealthScientificand IndustrialResearchOrganisation(CSIRO)EcosystemSciences, Australia
21Universite´ Paris-Sud,Lab.ESE,UMR8079CNRS/UPS,91405Orsay, France
22LandcareResearch,P.O.Box69040,Lincoln7640,NewZealand
23CentreforBiodiversity&EnvironmentalResearch(CBER),Department ofGenetics,EvolutionandEnvironment,UniversityCollegeLondon, London,UK
24Social–EcologicalSystemsLaboratory,DepartmentofEcology, UniversidadAuto´nomadeMadrid,Spain
25PolicyCoordinationUnit,ExecutiveOffice,UNEP,Kenya
26UniversidaddelaCordillera,LaPaz,Bolivia
27Ikerbasque,BasqueFoundationforScience,Bilbao,Spain
28BasqueCentreforClimateChange,Bilbao,Spain
29UniversityofCambridge,DepartmentofLandEconomy,Cambridge,UK
30FundacionJunejT’inam,Guatemala
31CouncilforScientificandIndustrialResearch,Stellenbosch,South Africa
32DepartmentofEnvironmentalandBusinessEconomics,Universityof SouthernDenmark,Denmark
33UnitedNationsUniversity,InstitutefortheAdvancedStudyof Sustainability(UNU-IAS),Tokyo,Japan
34CSIRNaturalResourcesandEnvironment,MeiringNaude´ Road, Brummeria,Pretoria,SouthAfrica
35BiodiversityUnit,DivisionofEnvironmentalPolicyImplementation, UNEP,Nairobi,Kenya
36TheNatureConservancySantaCruz,CA95060,USA
37UniversityoftheSouthPacific,Fiji
38TyndallCenterDepartmentofEnvironmentalSciences,Universityof EastAnglia,UK
39DepartmentofBiology,FacultyofSciences,KyushuUniversity, Fukuoka812-8581,Japan
40PrimeMinister’sOffice,Putrajaya,Malaysia
41FederalUniversityofTechnology,Yola,AdamawaState,Nigeria
42KingAbdulazizCityforScience&Technology,P.O.Box6086,Riyadh 11442,SaudiArabia
43MinistryofEcologyandNaturalResources,Baku,Azerbaijan
44CentreforEnvironmentalGovernance(CEGOV),Accra,Ghana
45SchoolofEnvironmental&ForestSciences,Collegeofthe Environment,UniversityofWashington,Seattle,USA
46DepartmentofPlantBiology&BiodiversityManagement,Collegeof NaturalSciences,AddisAbabaUniversity,Ethiopia
47BudapestUniversityofTechnologyandEconomics,Mu˝egyetemrkp 3,BudapestH-1111,Hungary
48NaturalSciencesSector,UNESCO,Paris75007,France
49CEL-IUCNandPeruvianSocietyofEnvironmentalLaw-SPDA,Lima, Peru
50EthiopianBiodiversityInstitute,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia
51HerbariumBogoriense,ResearchCenterforBiology,Indonesian InstituteofSciences,Bogor,Indonesia
52SouthAfricanNationalBiodiversityInstitute,SouthAfrica
53DepartmentofSoilScienceandPlantNutrition,FacultyofAgriculture, UniversityofAnkara,Turkey
54BiodiversityInternational,Rome,Italy
55CentrefortheEconomicsandManagementofAquaticResources (CEMARE),UniversityofPortsmouth,UK
56EgyptianEnvironmentalAffairsAgency,Egypt
57ResearchCentreforEco-EnvironmentalSciences,ChineseAcademy ofSciences,Beijing,China
58DepartmentofHumanitiesandSocialSciences,IndianInstituteof TechnologyBombayPowai,Mumbai,India
59GraduateSchoolofGlobalEnvironmentalStudies,KyotoUniversity, Japan
60TheTrustForSustainableLivelihoods,TrinidadandTobago
61Laboratoired’EcologieAlpineCNRSUMR5553,Universite´ Joseph Fourier,BP53,38041GrenobleCedex9,France
62INAPL/CONICET,3deFebrero1378,1426BuenosAires,Argentina
63DepartmentofPlantBiology,UniversityofYaounde,Cameroon
64DepartmentofEnvironmentalAffairs,Pretoria,SouthAfrica
65AdamMickiewiczUniversityinPoznan,andInstituteforAgriculture andForestEnvironment,PolishAcademyofSciences,Poland
66SouthAfricanNationalBiodiversityInstitute,Claremont,SouthAfrica
67TechnicalExpertforHabitatsandProtectedAreas,Iran
68DepartmentofEcology,UniversityofSaoPaulo,SaoPaulo,Brazil
69EcoleNationaledesEauxetFore´ts(ENEF),Libreville,Gabon
70CentreforSustainability:Agriculture,Food,Energy,Environment— Ka¯ RakahauoteAoTu¯roa(CSAFE),UniversityofOtago,Dunedin,New Zealand
71DepartmentofBiology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,USA
72MarineSpatialEcologyLab,SchoolofBiologicalSciences,University ofQueensland,St.Lucia,Brisbane,Australia
73SchoolofDevelopment,AzimPremjiUniversity,PESInstituteof TechnologyCampus,India
74UFZ—Helmholtz-CentreforEnvironmentalResearch,Leipzig, Germany
75UniversityofGhana,DepartmentofBotany,P.O.Box683,LG55, LEGONAccra,Ghana
76EnvironmentalSocialScienceResearchGroupandCorvinus UniversityofBudapest,Hungary
77NationalMuseumofNaturalHistory(MNHN),De´partementHommes NaturesSocie´te´s,CP135,57rueCuvier,75231ParisCedex05,France
78ClimateFrontlinesProject,SciencePolicyandCapacity-building Division,NaturalSciencesSector,UNESCO,France
79StockholmResilienceCentre,StockholmUniversity,Sweden
80FacultyofNaturalResourcesManagement,LakeheadUniversity, ThunderBay,ON,Canada
81FisheriesEconomicsResearchUnit,UniversityofBritishColumbia, Vancouver,Canada
82UnitedNationsUniversity,Tokyo,Japan
83P.O.Box341,LanseAuxEpines,St.George’s,Grenada
84CentreforEcologicalServicesManagement,IndianInstituteofForest Management,Bhopal,India
85DepartmentofForestSciences,SeoulNationalUniversity,Seoul, RepublicofKorea
86DepartmentofZoologyandAnthropology,FacultyofBiology/Sofia University‘St.KlimentOhridski’,Sofia,Bulgaria
Correspondingauthor:Dı´az,Sandra([email protected])
CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2015,14:1–16 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonOpenissue
EditedbyEduardoSBrondizio,RikLeemansandWilliamDSolecki
Received20September2014;Accepted21November2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
1877-3435/#2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-SAlicense(http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).
Introduction1
The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012 asan independentintergovernmental body open toallmembercountriesoftheUnitedNations,withthe goal of ‘strengthening the science-policy interface for biodiversityandecosystemservicesfortheconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development’ (http://www.
ipbes.net).Developedinthewakeofotherinternational assessments, specifically the Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentandtheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimate Change (IPCC), IPBES was designed to proactively develop assessments matched to policy needs, and to supportcapacitybuildingacrossscalesand topics[1,2].
To achieve this objective, IPBES has four intercon- nected functions: to catalyse the generation of new knowledge; toproduce assessments ofexisting knowl- edge;tosupportpolicyformulationandimplementation;
andtobuildcapacitiesrelevanttoachievingitsgoal.The first publicproductof IPBESwasaconceptual frame- work to underpin all these functions, to structure the syntheses that willinform policy,andtoimprove com- parabilityacrossvariousassessmentscarriedoutatdiffer- entspatialscales,ondifferentthemes,andindifferent regions.
Conceptualframeworks,inthecontextofIPBES,might bedescribedas‘aconcisesummaryinwordsorpicturesof relationshipsbetweenpeopleandnature’.Inotherwords, conceptual frameworks depictkey socialand ecological
components, and therelationships betweenthese com- ponents. Theyprovide commonterminologyand struc- ture for the variables that are the focus of a system analysis,andproposeassumptionsaboutkeyrelationships inthesystem.Conceptualframeworkshavetheabilityto provideasharedlanguageandacommonsetofrelation- shipsanddefinitionstomakecomplexsystemsassimple astheyneedtobefortheirintendedpurpose.Integrative conceptual frameworks are particularly useful tools in fieldsrequiringinterdisciplinarycollaborationwherethey areusedtomakesenseofcomplexity[3,4]byclarifying and focusing thinking about relationships, supporting communicationacrossdisciplinesandknowledgesystems andbetweenknowledgeandpolicy [5].
In this article, we present a detaileddescription of the ConceptualFrameworkapprovedbytheIPBESSecond Plenary,aimednotonlyforthoseinvolvedinIPBESwork but also as ageneralintegrative frameworkof potential interest for members of the widerresearch and knowl- edge-policycommunitiesfocusingonthelinksbetween natureand people.The IPBESConceptual Framework (hereafterCF)isahighlysimplifiedmodelofthecomplex interactions between the natural world and human societiesthataremostrelevanttoIPBES’sgoal.Itbuilds on the basis of previous influential conceptual frame- works[3,6]andmostnotablytheMillenniumEcosystem Assessment[7,8].
TheworkofIPBESisinnovativeintworespects.First,it has been constructed in a transparent, inclusive and participatory manner, through multidisciplinary work- shops and open review by a broad range of countries and stakeholders over more than two years (Box 1).
Second, it explicitly embracesdifferent scientificdisci- plines (natural, social, engineering sciences), as well as diverse stakeholders(thescientific community,govern- ments, international organizations, and civil society at differentlevels), andtheirdifferentknowledgesystems (western science, indigenous, local and practitioners’
knowledge).
Key featuresof theIPBESConceptual Framework
The CF starts with consideration of the goal of the platform, ‘...conservationand sustainableuse of biodi- versity,long-termhumanwell-beingandsustainablede- velopment’, and therefore the key elements (or components)are nature,thebenefits thatpeople derive fromnatureandagoodqualityoflife.Inashiftoffocus with respect to most previous initiatives, the CF also highlights thecentral role that institutions, governance and decision-making play on the links among these elements. Most importantly, theCF explicitlyincludes multiple knowledgesystems. Themainelements, their interlinkagesandthedifferentknowledgesystemsareall represented inFigure 1.
1KeytermsusedinthisarticlearedefinedintheGlossary.
The different knowledge systems are indicated using different fonts and colours for the boxes representing the main elements. The headlines in larger bold font indicate thebroad, highly inclusive categories, and the greenandbluefontsindicatethemorespecificcategories that Western science and other knowledge systems, respectively, often use to refer to them. There is con- siderabledebateabouttheterminologyforwhatwehere callwesternscienceontheonehandandotherknowledge systems, in particular indigenous and local knowledge (ILK),ontheother(seeglossary2for definitions).Their usehereisintendedtobebroadandindicative.Similarly, weacknowledge thatwesternscienceand otherknowl- edge systemsare not necessarily mutually exclusive in character,content,andhistory[9,10].Thereforetheclear- cutdistinction betweenthe blue and green‘circuits’ is largelyoperational,andameanstohighlighttheimport- anceofincorporatingdiverseperspectivesintotheCF.A fullalignmentamongthecategories ofdifferentknowl- edge systems or even disciplines is unattainable, but every effort was made during the development of the CFto representthese alternative views. While asingle
CFhasbeen retainedfor practicalpurposes, itisrecog- nizedthatrepresentationsofhuman–naturerelationships may vary across cultures and knowledge systems in relationtospecificworldviewsandcosmologies,including betweenscientificandindigenousknowledgesystems,as well as among indigenous cultures. The CF is mainly intendedto providecommonground,to facilitatecross- disciplinary and cross-cultural understanding and inter- operability,andtoidentifyoptions foraction.
Sixmain elementstolink peopleand nature The CF includes six primary interlinked elements (or components)representingthenaturalandsocialsystems thatoperate atvarious scalesin time and space:nature;
nature’sbenefitstopeople;anthropogenicassets;institutionsand governancesystemsandotherindirectdriversofchange;direct driversofchange;andgoodqualityoflife3(Figure1).These elements have been conceived as broad, inclusive categories with which all stakeholders should be able torelate.Thesixelementsaredescribedindetailbelow:
1. ‘Nature’inthecontextofIPBESrefersto thenatural world with an emphasis on the diversity of living organismsandtheirinteractionsamongthemselvesand withtheirenvironment.Withinthecontextofwestern science, it includes categories such as biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystemstructure andfunctioning,the evolutionary process, the biosphere, living natural resources (as defined in, e.g. Ref. [7]), shared evolutionaryheritage[11,12],andbioculturaldiversity [13,14]—whichincorporates‘ethnobiodiversity’[15].
Being western science-based, these categories are indicated in green font within the nature box in Figure 1. Non-living natural resources which may benefitpeopleandthereforecontributetoagoodquality oflife,suchasdeepaquifers,mineralandfossilreserves, wind,solar,geothermalandwavepower,areconsidered aspartofnature,buttheirdirectbenefits(i.e.thosethat arenotmediatedbynon-humanlivingorganisms)are not thefocus of IPBES. Withinthe context of other knowledgesystems,natureincludesdifferentcategories and holistic concepts held by indigenous peoples aroundtheworld(inbluefont).ExamplesareMother Earth and systems of life, shared by the indigenous peoples of the South American Andes [16,17], the concepts of se¯nluo´-wa`nxia`ng (vast forest and every manifestationofnature)andtien-ti(HeavenandEarth) of Taoism shared by East Asian peoples [18], and concepts ofthe landencompassingnon-human living organisms, living people, ancestors, deities and their sharedhistoriesintheSouthPacificIslands(e.g.fonua, vanua,whenua,ples)[15].Naturehasitsownintrinsic values,independentfromanyhumanconsiderationsof itsworthorimportance,andalsocontributestosocieties through theprovision of benefits topeople,whichhave
Box1TheprocessofdevelopingtheIPBESConceptual Framework
DiscussionsthatledtotheIPBESCFhadtheiroriginslongbeforethe formalestablishmentofIPBES,andbuiltontheexperiencesin developingandusingtheMillenniumEcosystemAssessmentcon- ceptualframeworkandvariousotherprocesses,includingtwo informalinternationalworkshopsinTokyo(2011and2012).Atthe timeoftheofficialestablishmentofIPBESinPanamainApril2012, theIPBESSecretariatwasrequestedtoprepareadraftconceptual frameworkdocument,drawingonandinformedbyexistingcon- ceptualframeworks,andtomakethisavailableforonlinereview throughanopenandtransparentprocess.Insupportofhiswork,an informalexpertworkshoponaconceptualframeworkforIPBESwas organizedbyUNESCOinParisinOctober2012,supportedbyIUCN andtheMinistryoftheEnvironmentofJapan.Theoutcomeofthis workshopwasmadeavailableonlinebytheIPBESSecretariatfrom December2012toMarch2013,andsubmittedasabackground documenttoIPBES-1(Bonn,December2013).Feedbackfromthis consultationanddiscussionsatIPBES-1werecompiledbythe IPBESSecretariatandtakenasthebasisforaformalInternational ExpertWorkshopontheConceptualFrameworkforIPBES,(Cape Town,August2013),hostedandsupportedbytheGovernmentsof SouthAfrica,theUnitedKingdom,andJapan.Theworkshopwas attendedby28expertsfrommultipledisciplines,representatives fromrelevantMultilateralEnvironmentAgreementscientificsubsidi- arybodies,aswellasfromUNEP,FAO,UNDPandUNESCO,and membersoftheIPBESBureauandMultidisciplinaryExpertPanel (MEP).Theoutcomeofthisworkshopwasfurtherconsideredbythe MEP,whosubsequentlyproposedaconceptualframeworktothe IPBESPlenaryatitssecondmeeting.TheConceptualFramework (CF)wasadoptedbyIPBES-2inAntalyainDecember2013[84].See http://www.ipbes.net/http://www.ipbes.net/forfulldocumentation relatedtothisprocess.
2DefinitionsrelatedtothespecificcontextoftheIPESConceptual Framework; they may thus differin detail from those used within individualdisciplines.
3TheinclusivenamesofthesixelementsoftheCFareindicatedin italicsinthemaintextandinboldblackfontinFigure1.
anthropocentricinstrumentalandrelationalvalues(see Valuessectionbelow).
2. ‘Anthropogenic assets’ refers to built infrastructure, health facilities, knowledge (including ILK and technical or scientific knowledge, as well as formal
and nonformaleducation),technology (bothphysical objects and procedures), and financial assets, among others. Anthropogenic assets have been highlighted to emphasize that a good life is achieved by a co- production of benefits between nature and various
Figure1
Good quality of life Human wellbeing Living in harmony with nature
Living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth
Nature
Changing over time
Interacting across spatial scales
Baseline-Trends-Scenarios Biodiversity and ecosystems
Mother Earth Systems of life Ecosystem goods
and services Nature’s gifts
Anthropogenic assets Nature’s benefits
to people
Institutions and governance and other
indirect drivers
Direct drivers
Anthropogenic drivers
National Global
Local Natural drivers
Intrinsic values
IPBES Scope IPBES level of resolution 8
6
5 7
4
10 1 9
2
3
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
TheIPBESConceptualFramework(CF).Inthecentralpanel,delimitedingrey,boxesandarrowsdenotetheelementsofnatureandsocietythat areatthemainfocusofthePlatform.Ineachoftheboxes,theheadlinesinblackareinclusivecategoriesthatshouldbeintelligibleandrelevant toallstakeholdersinvolvedinIPBESandembracethecategoriesofwesternscience(ingreen)andequivalentorsimilarcategoriesaccordingto otherknowledgesystems(inblue).Theblueandgreencategoriesmentionedhereareillustrative,notexhaustive,andarefurtherexplainedinthe maintext.Solidarrowsinthemainpaneldenoteinfluencebetweenelements;thedottedarrowsdenotelinksthatareacknowledgedasimportant, butarenotthemainfocusofthePlatform.Linksindicatedbynumberedarrowaredescribedinthemaintext(sectiononLinkagesamongthe elements,andBox2).Theanthropocentricvaluesofnatureareembeddedinthenature,nature’sbenefitstopeopleandgoodqualityoflife boxes,andinthearrowsconnectingthem.Theintrinsicvaluesofnature(representedbyablueovalatthebottomofthenaturebox)are independentfromhumanexperienceandthusdonotparticipateinthesearrows(seeValuessectioninmaintextfordetailedexplanation).The thickcolouredarrowsbelowandtotherightofthecentralpanelindicatethattheinteractionsbetweentheelementschangeovertime(horizontal bottomarrow)andoccuratvariousscalesinspace(verticalarrow).Theverticallinestotherightofthespatialscalearrowindicatethat,although IPBESassessmentswillbeatthesupranational-subregionaltoglobal-geographicalscales(scope),theywillinpartbuildonpropertiesand relationshipsactingatfiner—nationalandsubnational-scales(resolution,inthesenseofminimumdiscernibleunit).Theresolutionlinedoesnot extendallthewaytothegloballevelbecause,duetotheheterogenousandspatiallyaggregatednatureofbiodiversity,eventhebroadestglobal assessmentswillbemostusefuliftheyretainfinerresolution.Thisfigure,modifiedfromRef.[78],isasimplifiedversionofthatadoptedbythe SecondPlenaryofIPBES[84];itretainsallitsessentialelementsbutsomeofthedetailedwordingexplainingeachoftheelementshasbeen eliminatedwithintheboxestoimprovereadability.
assetsbuiltbypeople(seebelow).Anthropogenicassets are also important to include in the CFbecausethe value of many of nature’s benefits to people vary depending on the availability and preferences for alternativesourcesofthosebenefits.Forexample,the value of the vegetation and soils of watersheds in filteringwaterfordrinkingwillbehigherwhenthereis nobuiltalternative (e.g.awaterfiltrationplant).
3. ‘Nature’sbenefitstopeople’referstoallthebenefitsthat humanity — individuals, communities, societies, nationsor humanityasawhole—inruraland urban settings—obtainsfromnature.Ecosystemgoodsand services — including provisioning, regulating and culturalservices[8]—allfallinthiscategory.Because they are categories from western science, they are indicated in green font in Figure 1. Analogous categories in other knowledge systems(indicated in bluefont)includethatofnature’sgifts[16,19,20].The importanceofnature’sbenefitstopeoplecanbeexpressed through a diverse set of valuation approaches and methods (discussed further in the Values section below). The CF is inclusive of all of these value definitionsandencouragesbroadconsiderationofthe fullsuiteofvaluesinanyassessment.Asanillustration, anassessmentthatincludesconsiderationofthevalue of beeswould needto consider theirdiversevalues.
For example, bees provide pollination services that havemonetaryvalueinservicetoseveralofthemain cropsthatfeedtheworld,estimatedatmorethanUSD 200billionperyear[21].Inaddition,beescanprovide value via pollination of locally consumed crops, production of honey and other wild foods that are essential sources of nourishment and income more locally[22].Furthermore,somepollinatorspeciesare partofindigenousandlocalcommunities’knowledge andmanagementsystems:forexample,therainforest and the openforest honey bees — dabu and walarr respectively—aretwoofthemostimportanttotemic species and form the basis of moieties and land classification for the Yalanji people of theAustralian tropicalrainforests[23].AmongtheMaya,thestingless bees thatareraisedas partofanancientpracticeare consideredagiftfromthegods[24].Someofnature’s benefits to people require no intervention (or minimal intervention)ofsocietytobeproduced.Forexample, theproductionofoxygenandthecontributiontothe regulation of the Earth’s temperature by photosyn- thetic organisms; the regulation of the quantity and quality of water resources by vegetation; coastal protection by coral reefs and mangroves; and the directprovisionoffoodormedicinesbywildanimals, plants and microorganisms. Most of these benefits, however, depend for their provision on the joint contribution of natureand anthropogenicassets[25,26], in aprocesssometimes referredto as ‘co-production’
[25]. For example, some agricultural goods such as food or fibre crops depend on ecosystem processes
such as soil formation, nutrient cycling, or primary production as well as on social intervention such as farm labour, knowledge of genetic variety selection and farming techniques,machinery, storage facilities andtransportation.Trade-offsbetweenthebeneficial and detrimentaleffects of organismsand ecosystems arenotunusual[27]andtheyneed tobeunderstood withinthecontextofthebundlesofmultiplebenefitsto people provided within specific contexts [28]. In addition, what is beneficial, detrimental or value- neutral depends on the perspective and context of differentsocieties,groupsandevenindividuals[4,29].
The notion of nature’s benefits to people includes detrimental as well as beneficial effects of nature on the achievement of a goodquality of life bydifferent people andindifferentcontexts.
4. ‘Institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers’ are the ways in which people and societies organizethemselvesandtheirinteractionswithnature atdifferentscales.Theyaretheunderlyingcausesof change that are generated outside the ecosystem in question(i.e.outsidethenaturebox ofFigure1)and are central to the CF because of their crucial role, influencingallaspectsofrelationshipsbetweenpeople and nature.Their effectcan bepositive or negative, either inabsolute termsor context dependent.They are considered indirect drivers because in the vast majorityofcasestheydonotaffectnaturedirectly,but rather through their effects on direct anthropogenic drivers(seebelow).Institutionsencompassallformal and informal interactions among stakeholders and social structures that determine how decisions are takenandimplemented,howpowerisexercised,and how responsibilities are distributed [30] Various collections of institutions come together to form governancesystems,thatincludeinteractionsbetween different centres of power in society (corporate, customary-law based, governmental, judicial) at different scales from local through to global [31].
Institutions and governance systems determine, to various degrees, the access to, and the control, allocation and distribution of components of nature and anthropogenic assets and their benefits to people.Examplesofinstitutionsaresystemsofproperty andaccessrightstoland(e.g.public,common-poolor private),legislativearrangements, treaties,customary laws,informalsocialnormsandrules,andinternational regimes such as agreements against stratospheric ozonedepletion.Economicpolicies,includingmacro- economic,fiscal,monetaryoragriculturalpolicies,are institutions that playasignificant role in influencing people’s perception abouttheimportanceof nature’s benefits,and theirbehaviourandthus decisionsabout the way they interact with nature. People,however, have diverse perspectives on a good quality of life, beyond the domain of wealth and income, to incorporate issues of justice, freedom, and equality.
Governance systemshavedifferentdegreesoflegiti- macyandvoice,performance,accountability,fairness and rights, and scale of operation [32,33]. The thorough consideration of different forms of institu- tions and decisions [34] and their role in altering connectionswith allother elements inthe CFhelps decision makers identify and test different policy options.
5. ‘Directdrivers’,bothnaturalandanthropogenic,affect naturedirectly.‘Naturaldirectdrivers’arethosethatare not the result of human activities and whose occurrence is beyond human control. Theseinclude natural climate and weather patterns, as well as extreme events such as prolonged drought or cold periods, tropical cyclones and floods, glacial lake outburst floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis.‘Anthropogenicdirectdrivers’arethosethatare theresultofhumandecisionsandactions,namely,of institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers. Some examples of anthropogenic drivers are degradation, exclusion and restoration of terrestrial and aquatichabitats,intensificationor abandonment, harvesting of wild populations, climate change produced by anthropogeniccarbon emissions, pollu- tionofsoil, waterorair,andspeciesintroductions.
6. ‘Good quality of life’ is the achievement of a fulfilled human life.Althoughwhatit entailsvariesconsider- ablywithinandamongdifferentsocietiesandcultures, everybodywantstobefreefrompovertyanddisease, havealongandfulfillinglife,andaccesstofreedoms and rights. It is a highly value-based and context- dependent state comprising multiple factorssuch as accesstofood,water,shelter,health,education,good social relationships, physical, energy and livelihood security,equity,culturalidentity,materialprosperity, spiritual satisfaction, freedom of choice, action and participation in society [35,36]. From virtually all standpoints,agoodquality oflifeis multidimensional, having material,as wellas non-materialcomponents.
Reflectingthediversityofhumankind,perceptionsof a good life also vary with gender, age, and culture.
Different societies, and different individuals within societies, have different viewson desirable relation- ships with nature, the material versus the spiritual domain,andthepresentversusthepastorfuture[36].
BecauseIPBESaimstoembracedifferentknowledge systems and stakeholders, the consideration of differences and commonalities among these various visionsonqualityoflifeisparticularlyimportant.The threeperspectivesongoodqualityoflifementionedin thetopboxofFigure1—Humanwell-being,Living in harmony with nature and Living in balance and harmony with Mother Earth — illustrate this point.
Humanwell-being(ingreenfont)isaconceptwidely used in the international development field and is oftendefinedasthestateofphysicalandmentalhealth ofindividuals.Commonindicatorsofwell-beingused
in national reports and by policy makers focus on materialwealthor onsyntheticmeasuressuchas the
‘humandevelopmentindex’(HDI),butforIPBES,it is essential to embrace a broader definition such as suggestedin theMillennium EcosystemAssessment [7].Initial indicatorsof humandevelopment,suchas incomeandpercapitagrossdomesticproduct(GDP), continue to be used by most countries. These indicators are important because average values per person per country are often correlated with child mortality, life expectancy and human development index,buttheytendtocaptureonlyasmallproportion ofthemanyattributesofthecurrentconceptofhuman well-beingofindividuals.IPBESoffersanopportunity to add to the above definitions and indicators the ethical and ecologically sustainable utilization of nature as key components of the concept of human well-being. A number of indicators covering the various aspects of well-being are now available, includinggenuineprogressindicator,inclusivewealth index,thegrossnationalhappinessindexpioneeredby Buthan,OECDgoodlifeindicator,andthecoefficient of living standard among others [37,38,39]. Other knowledgesystemsor culturaltraditions relatemore meaningfully to perspectives ona good quality of life that show both differences and commonalities with that of human well-being, and are indicated in blue font.Forexample,theconceptof Livinginharmony with nature — which was initially presented in international discourse at the United Nations in 1982, but then largely ignored until recently — has been adopted as vision by the Convention on Biological Diversity and used in its Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets (http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268). This concept appears already in early colonial sources describingindigenouspopulationsintheAndes[40].
Over time,it hascome to highlight the interdepen- dence that exists among human beings, other living speciesandtheelementsofnature.Itimpliesthatwe shouldlivetogetherwithallotherorganismsrespect- fully eventhough we need to exploit some of these organisms to a certain degree. This concept was originally proposed to the Convention on Biological DiversitybyJapan.TheoriginalJapaneseterm(shizen kyoseishakai)literally meanssocietyinsymbiosis — orlivingtogether—withnature,notonlywithmutual benefitbut also with relationshipswhichare necess- arily detrimental for one of the parties, but which should be made sustainable [41]. Likewise, Living- wellin balanceand harmonywithMother Earthisa conceptoriginatingin thevisionof manyindigenous peoplesworldwide,hasbeenrecentlyincorporatedin thelegalframeworkofsomeLatinAmericancountries [16,19], and emphasizes the collective cosmocentric relationshipsacrosstime amongpeople andbetween peopleandMotherEarth.Balanceandharmonyrefers
