Explore the vast range of titles available.

The inclusion of the knowledge and perspectives of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) in global science-policy processes are increasingly being mandated. This is indicative of the recognition of their expertise and worldviews to inform social and ecological decisions. The IPBES Values Assessment (VA) explicitly highlighted the necessity for a nuanced engagement of different actors while undertaking valuation for decisions related to nature. In this paper we further reflect on the findings of Chapter 6 of the VA that focused on operationalizing diverse values approaches in policy. We examine how IPLC are consulted and their values included in sectoral and cross-sectoral policies interlinked with biodiversity. We specifically share IPLC experiences of the IPBES process based on personal reflections of a participating Indigenous scholar. Apart from emphasizing the pitfalls of excluding diverse IPLC values of nature from decision making, our review also discusses how IPLC perspectives are represented within global forums, and particularly in IPBES processes . Our analysis reveals that meaningful IPLC inclusion pertains to representation of knowledge (mind) and of active participation and agency to bring their networks into the discourse (body). While highlighting some major deficiencies of the current decision-making practices (e.g., lack of pluralistic and inclusive processes, human and financial resources, or culturally sensitive processes) that preclude the full and effective inclusion of IPLC, we offer promising approaches, specifically engaging reflexivity and learning, that can address these deficiencies and move toward ensuring higher representation of IPLC by and for themselves.

Non-technical summaryThis article examines the challenges and opportunities to integrate diverse sources of evidence in assessments produced by international platforms working at the science–policy interface. Diversity (or pluralism) of sources of literature, both in terms of their geographic origin and disciplinary focus, is essential for assessments to inform decision-making across social–ecological contexts. Using the recently completed ‘Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature’ of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as a case, we find that significant effort has been dedicated to reviewing diverse literature. We discuss three strategies to expand pluralism in future assessments.Technical summaryRepresenting plural views in science–policy platforms is essential to avoid reproducing geographic and epistemic biases that permeate contemporary scientific knowledge production and synthesis. The Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has strived to produce assessments that incorporate information from diverse regions and knowledge systems. We explore the geographic and epistemic pluralism of the literature included in the ‘Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature’ (VA), and the challenges and opportunities to achieve such knowledge pluralism. We applied a bibliometric analysis to the sources of evidence cited in the VA, and reflected on the assessment development process, in which we were directly involved. Our results highlight the success of different strategies developed by VA experts to engage with diverse sources of literature. Still, most evidence was English-language academic literature produced in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, echoing the prominence of this literature in scientific publication in environmental disciplines. Reflecting on our experiences, we discuss strategies that could further enhance the geographic and epistemic pluralism in the information reviewed for future environmental assessments produced by IPBES and other international science–policy platforms.Social media summaryEpistemic and geographic pluralism was partially achieved in IPBES Values Assessment, and can be further enhanced in future assessments.

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being 1 , 2 , addressing the global biodiversity crisis 3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever 4 . Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 6 , predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature 7 . Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change 8 , pandemic emergence 9 and socio-environmental injustices 10 . On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions 7 , 11 . Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures. Following a wide-ranging review of studies, reports and policies about nature’s multiple values, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation of nature, address barriers to uptake in decision-making, and make transformative changes towards more just and sustainable futures.

Gray literature is increasingly considered to complement evidence and knowledge from peer-reviewed literature for science-policy processes and applied research. On the one hand, science-policy assessments need to both consider a diversity of worldviews, knowledge types and values from a variety of sectors and actor groups, and synthesize policy-relevant findings that are salient, legitimate and credible. On the other hand, practitioners and scholars conducting applied research, especially in environmental and health-related fields, are affected by the time lag and documented biases of academic publication processes. While gray literature holds diverse perspectives that need to be integrated in science-policy processes as well as practical evidence unfiltered by commercial publication processes, its heterogeneity has made it challenging to access through conventional means for a literature review. This paper details one endeavor within the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to review gray literature using Google’s Programmable Search Engine. In the absence of a standardized approach, we build on a limited experiential knowledge base for reviewing gray literature and report on the potential applicability of our strategy for future reviews. Our results contrast the findings of our parallel review of academic literature, underlining the importance of mobilizing different knowledge bases in science-policy assessments, evidence-based practices, and applied research.

Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México

Twenty-fve years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and beneft from nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientifc publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.