Natural Capital and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

  • Lenke BalintEmail author
  • Aled Jones


Recent recognition of the reliance of human economies on natural resources has been a crucial achievement for policymaking. However, there remains a gap in the knowledge of the full extent of the connection between human economies and natural resources. This is relevant for policymaking as understanding who affects the generation of ecosystem services (called ‘providers’ or ‘suppliers’) and who benefits from ecosystem services (‘beneficiaries’ or ‘consumers’) allows assessments of the costs and benefits from any given policy, including the distributional consequences across affected parties. In this chapter, we explore progress towards furthering this particular gap in knowledge, reflecting on a number of conceptual ecosystem service assessment frameworks developed in the last decade, including the one deployed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a recently established intergovernmental body; and its efforts to inform policy formulation.


  1. 1.
    Ring, I., B. Hansjürgens, T. Elmqvist, H. Wittmer, and P. Sukhdev. 2010. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guerry, A., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, T. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P. Kareiva, L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Reyers, T. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira. 2015. Natural capital informing decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (24): 7348–7355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E.L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G. Cundill, V. Dakos, T.M. Daw, L.S. Evans, K. Kotschy, A.M. Leitch, C. Meek, A. Quinlan, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, M.D. Robards, M.L. Schoon, L. Schultz, and C. Paul. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. West Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schultz, L., C. Folke, H. Österblom, and P. Olsson. 2015. Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112: 7369–7374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. 2010. Available at Accessed 10 Apr 2018.
  6. 6.
    Diaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martin-Lopez, R. Watson, Zs Molnar, R. Hill, K.M.A. Chan, I. Baste, K. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Lariguardie, P. Leadley, P.E. Van Oudenhoven, F. Van der Plaat, M. Schroter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. Guerra, C. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Folke, C., S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15 (4): 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scheffer, M., S. Barrett, S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, A.J. Green, M. Holmgren, T.P. Hughes, S. Kosten, I.A. van de Leemput, D.C. Nepstad, E.H. van Nes, E.T.H.M. Peeters, and B. Walker. 2015. Climate and conservation. Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems. Science 347 (6228): 1317–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ulgiati, S., A. Zucaro, and P. Franzese. 2011. Shared wealth or nobody’s land? The worth of natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 70: 778–787. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK National ecosystem assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santos-Martín, F., B. Martín-López, M. García-Llorente, M. Aguado, J. Benayas, and C. Montes. 2013. Unraveling the relationships between ecosystems and human wellbeing in Spain. PLoS One 8: e73249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dymond, J. 2013. Ecosystem services in New Zealand. Lincoln: Landcare Research New Zealand, Manaaki Whenua Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biodiversity Information System for Europe. 2018. Accessed 10 Apr 2018.
  14. 14.
    Vohland, K., and T. Nadim. 2015. Ensuring the success of IPBES: Between interface, market place and parliament. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 370 (1662): 20140012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bennett, E., W. Cramer, A. Begossi, G. Cundill, S. Diaz, B. Egoh, I.R. Geijzendorffer, C. Krug, S. Lavorel, E. Lazos, L. Lebel, B. Martín-López, P. Meyfroidt, A. Mooney, Unai Pascual, K. Payet, P. Harguindeguy, G. Peterson, and G. Woodward. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 76–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Josephsen, L. 2017. Approaches to the implementation of the sustainable development goals – Some considerations on the theoretical underpinnings of the 2030 Agenda. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2017–60, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  17. 17.
    Geijzendorffer, I.R., E. Cohen-Shacham, A.F. Cord, W. Cramer, C. Guerra, and B. Martín-López. 2017. Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environmental Science and Policy 74: 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rode, J., H. Wittmer, and G. Watfe. 2012. Implementation guide for Aichi Target 2 – A TEEB perspective. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill, R., G.A. Dyer, L.M. Lozada-Ellison, A. Gimona, J. Martin-Ortega, J. Munoz-Rojas, and I.J. Gordon. 2015. A social–ecological systems analysis of impediments to delivery of the Aichi 2020 Targets and potentially more effective pathways to the conservation of biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 34: 22–34 ISSN: 0959–3780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IPBES Plenary 5 Decision IPBES-5/1. 2015. Implementation of the first work programme of the platform, p. 23.
  21. 21.
    Diaz, S., S. Demmisew, J. Carabias, J. Carlos, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Lariguade, J.R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Baldi, A. Bartuska, I.A. Baste, A. Bilgin, E. Brondizio, K.M.A. Chan, E. Figureroa, A. Duraiappah, M. Fischer, and D. Zlanatova. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Panel. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis, Millenium ecosystem assessment series. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maes, J., B. Burkhard, and D. Geneletti. 2018. Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to people. One Ecosystem 3: e24720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peterson, G.D., Z.V. Harmackova, M. Meacham, C. Queiroz, A. Jiménez Aceituno, J.J. Kuiper, K. Malmborg, N.E. Sitas, and E.M. Bennett. 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecology and Society 23 (1): 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Braat, Leon C. 2018. Five reasons why the science publication assessing nature’s contributions to people (Diaz et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 30 (A): A1–A2. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BirdLife InternationalCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Global Sustainability InstituteAnglia Ruskin UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations