Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How we know biodiversity: institutions and knowledge-policy relationships

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that what we do to conserve biodiversity depends on how we know biodiversity. The former Chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is concerned that national policymakers may not take the findings of this global assessment (GA) seriously because of ‘squabbling scientists.’ The paper explores the contentious issues in IPBES, about presenting knowledge to policymakers, and about the integration of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) into this global scientific knowledge creation. It asks why IPBES fights shy of addressing the dialectical relationship between how we know and how we act on the environment. Given that biodiversity is best understood and conserved by local communities, we present a case study of the protocols or policies of the Maldhari community in the Banni grasslands in India. The institutions or norms of the Maldhari ‘way of life’ govern and co-create their knowledge and policy decisions or protocols for biodiversity and livelihoods. The IPBES conceptual framework places these institutions that govern knowledge generation and policy-making outside and distinct from the direct drivers of nature and human well-being. If IPBES findings are to be taken up by nation states, we need astute policy makers who understand institutions and are capable of public engagement and co-creation of knowledge and policy. The paper makes a plea for building on the IPBES report with national and local public engagement, to enable knowledge-policy relationships of co-ownership and action for biodiversity conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Most Maldhari women do not want to sell their embroidered products. Sewing and embroidering their own clothes is considered their innate activity, a part of their culture, like taking care of their livestock.Since the 1990s, with the initiative of Kutch Mahila Vikas Sanghathan and Panchayati Raj institutions, the women from some Panchayats started leveraging their skills for income generation, aided by new markets (tourism in the Rann).

  2. These practices and norms reported here are based on the fieldwork conducted in February 2017 and a review visit in October 2018 by the authors.

  3. This does not mean that the Maldharis are not selecting for yield per animal. The average yield of a Banni buffalo is between 10 and 12 litres per day, with a peak yield recorded at 16 litres per day.

  4. Mr. Salim Mahmmad personal interview on 4th February, 2017 in Sergu village.

  5. Dr. D.K. Sadana (former Head, Animal Genetics and Breeding, NBAGR) personal interview on 6th March, 2017 at NBAGR, Karnal.

  6. Mr. Ramesh Bhatti (Sahjeevan) personal interview at RAMBLE, Hodka village, Banni grassland on 11th February, 2017; Dr. Sabyasachi Das (WASSAN) personal interview October 2017 and June 2019.

References

  • Agrawal A, Saberwal V (2006) Raika pastoralists in Rajasthan. The forsaken drylands: a symposium on some of India's ost invisible people, Seminar, No. 564: 30–34. http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/564/564_a_agrawal_&_v_saberwal.htm

  • Agrawal R (2015) Water of life. Down to earth. 7th June. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/water/water-of-life-28919. Accessed June 2018

  • Barkin D (1987) The end to food self-sufficiency in Mexico. Latin Am Perspect 14(3):271–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner S (2007) The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. Nat Resour Model 20(1):87–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharwada C, Mahajan M (2012) Let it be Banni. Understanding and sustaining pastoral livelihoods of Banni. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie P (1985) The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. Longman Development Series, Londin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil C, Levidow L (2012) How does the world trade organization know? The mobilization and staging of scientific expertise in the GMO trade dispute. Soc Stud Sci 42(1):75–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Borie M, Hulme M (2015) Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 54:487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borie M, Mahony M, Hulme M (2015) Somewhere between everywhere and nowhere: the institutional epistemologies of IPBES and the IPCC, Conference Paper, Resource Politics 2015. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex

  • Borrass SM, Edelman M, Kay C (2008) Transnational agrarian movements: origins and politics, campaigns and impact. J Agrar Change 8(2 and 3):169–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgewater P, Loyalu A, Schmeller DS (2019) The seventh plenary of the intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES-7): a global assessment and a reshaping of IPBES. Biodivers Conserv 28:2457–2461

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs SV, Knight AT (2011) Science-policy interface: scientific input limited. Science 333(6043):696–697

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BPUMS (2010) The biocultural community protocol of the Maldharis of Banni. Banni Pashu Uchherak Maldhari Sanghatan (Banni Breeders Association) in collaboration with Natural Justice, South Africa and Sahjeevan, Bhuj, Kutch, p 34

  • Diaz S et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Esguerra A, Beck S, Lidskog R (2017) Stakeholder engagement in the making: IPBES legitimization politics. Glob Environ Polit 17:1. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber M (2008) How to be an ecological economist. Ecol Econ 66(1):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman S, Biggs S, Raina RS (2010) A messy confrontation of a crisis in agricultural science. Econ Polit Wkly 45(3):66–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2–3):151–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Bagethun E, DeGroot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman P (2014) Policy: the art of science advice to government. Nature 507:163–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/507163a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GUIDE (2016) Birds of Banni grasslands, the Ravi Sankaran foundation. Jak Printers, Mumbai

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe R (1999) Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Sci Public Policy 26(3):201–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M et al (2011) Science-policy interface: beyond assessments. Sci New Ser 333(6043):697–698

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads, executive summary of the synthesis report, international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (2012) Intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services United Nations Environment Program, Bonn, Germany. https://www.ipbes.net/about. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • IPBES (2013) Conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Decision IPBES-2/4. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/downloads/Decision%20IPBES_2_4.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=14649. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • IPBES (2016) Technical report of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services (deliverable 3 (c)), in the Report of the plenary of IPBES on the work of its fourth session, 22–28 February, 2016. Kuala Lumpur. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-3.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=13439. Accessed 27 Sept 2019

  • IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, in the Report of the plenary of IPBES on the work of its seventh session, 29 April–4 May, Paris. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329. Accessed 27 Sept 2019

  • Jadhav PV, Bhatti R, Das S (1992) A note on traditional breeding practices among Maldharis of Banni Region of Kutch District of Gujarat. Int J Adv Res Dev 1(1):113–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 13–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2006) Just evidence: the limits of science in the legal process. J Law Med Ethics 34(2):328–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi PN, Kumar V, Kalodiya M, Patel YS, Karthik T (2009) Local perceptions of grassland change and priorities for conservation of natural resources of Banni, Gujarat. India. Front Biol China 4:549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11515-009-0041-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashwan P (2017) Democracy in the woods: Environmentalism, conservation and social justice in India, Tanzania and Mexico. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar VV et al. (2015) Ecology and management of Banni Grassland of Kachchh Gujarat. In: Rawat GS, Adhikari BS (Eds) Ecology and management of Grassland Habitats in India, ENVIS Bulletin: wildlife and protected areas, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun 17, 42–53.

  • Larigauderie A, Mooney HA (2010) The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(1–2):9–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Leadley PW, Krug CB, Alkemade R, Pereira HM, Sumaila UR, Walpole M, Marques A, Newbold T, Teh LSL, van Kolck J, Bellard C, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Mumby PJ (2014) Progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets: an assessment of biodiversity trends, policy scenarios and key actions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. Technical Series 78, p 500. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-78-en.pdf

  • Leahy S (2019) One million species at risk of extinction, UN report warns. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/05/ipbes-un-biodiversity-reportwarns-one-million-species-at-risk/. Accessed 20 May 2019

  • Lele S, Norgaard RB (2005) Practicing Interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55(11):967–975

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Lopez B, Montes C (2015) Restoring the human capacity for conserving biodiversity: a social–ecological approach. Sustain Sci 10(4):699–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, Neil JO (1997) Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 26:277–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascia MB et al (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv Biol 17(3):649–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Masood E (2018) The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature 560:423–425

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Montana J (2017) Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: achieving closure through typologies in IPBES. Environ Sci Policy 68(1):20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard RB (2009) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69:1219–1227

    Google Scholar 

  • Obermeister N (2018) Local knowledge, global ambitions: IPBES and the advent of multiscale models and scenarios. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0616-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel YS, Joshi PN (2011) A floristic inventory in the Banni region of Bhuj Taluka, Kachchh District, Gujarat (India). Indian Forester 137(9):1114–1121

    Google Scholar 

  • Parvaiz A (2016) Banni pastoralists see success in battle for survival. Vikalp Sangam. http://www.vikalpsangam.org/article/banni-pastoralists-see-success-in-battle-forsurvival/#.XgGjjUczY2w. Accessed 10 Oct 2017

  • Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H (2011) The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science (new series) 331(6021):1139–1140

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Planning Commission (2006) Report of the task force on biodiversity and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the environment and forests sector for the eleventh five year plan. Planning Commission of the Government of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Raina RS, Dey D (2016) The valuation conundrum: biodiversity and science-policy interface in India’s livestock sector. Econ Polit Wkly 51(47):70–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Redford KH, Groves C, Medellin RA, Robinson JG (2012) Conservation stories, conservation science, and the role of the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 26(5):757–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahjeevan (2012) Participatory natural resource mapping for Dadhhar Panchayat, Banni Region- Kachchh (Distribution, Utilization and Conservation of Pasture Land). Final Report submitted by Sahjeevan, Bhuj-Kachchh (Gujarat-India)

  • Saltelli A, Funtowicz S (2017) What is science’s crisis really about? Futures 91:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin S (2006) Science. Contexts 5(3):41–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava A, Kothari A (2012) Churning the earth: the making of global India. Penguin, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout E, Dewulf A, Hulme M (2016) What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Curr Opin Environm Sustain 18:65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2006) Institutions. International society for ecological economics, Internet encyclopaedia of ecological economics

  • Veblen T (1919) The place of science in modern civilisation and other essays. Huebsch, New York, p 362

    Google Scholar 

  • Visvanathan S (1997) A carnival for science. A carnival for science – essays on science, technology and development. Oxford University Press, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson RT (2012) The science-policy interface: the role of scientific assessments—UK national ecosystem assessment. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci 468(2147):3265–3281

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Sci Public Policy 26(3):151–161

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the members of the Sahjeevan family and the Maldhari community whose knowledge made this paper possible. We gratefully acknowledge comments from an anonymous reviewer and the Editor of this journal. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Relations and Governance Studies, Shiv Nadar University, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P., India

    Rajeswari S. Raina

  2. Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies (CSIR-NISTADS), New Delhi, India

    Debanjana Dey

Authors
  1. Rajeswari S. Raina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debanjana Dey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajeswari S. Raina.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Salvatore Arico, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, France.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raina, R.S., Dey, D. How we know biodiversity: institutions and knowledge-policy relationships. Sustain Sci 15, 975–984 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00774-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00774-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation