170 Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Naturae, 2: 170–175, 2017, ISSN 2543-8832 DOI: 10.24917/25438832.2.13 S. Suresh Ramanan1, Anatoliy A. Khapugin2* 1Kerala Agricultural University KAU, College of Forestry, P.O Vellanikkara, �rissur, 680656 Kerala, India 2Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”, Republic of Mordovia, 430011 Saransk, Russia, *hapugin88@yandex.ru. Activity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for biodiversity conservation �e e�orts of scientists to create environmental awareness among the policy mak- ers as well as the public were started during the beginning of 19th century. Globally, this awareness among people and subsequent changes in the climate and the natural phenomenon made policy makers and politicians more action oriented. One of such great e�ort taken is the foundation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 (herea�er – IPCC). It is an organisation that was awarded Nobel Prize in 2007 for its action and e�orts. Furthermore, its reports and publications are well acknowledged and recognised politically as well as scienti�cally (Smith et al., 2009; Howarth et al., 2017). �e reports are mainly based on works that are already pub- lished. Reports of this sort have great signi�cance and the e�orts behind them have to be appreciated. Notwithstanding the due importance of climate change, biodiversity is not a lesser item on the table which needs great attention. Besides, it is well-known that mitigation e�orts on climate change do help in biodiversity conservation as an indirect reaction (Burch et al., 2014; Viña et al., 2016). With the distance between the continents being getting reduced, societies have merged together. �is leads to an increased exchange of biological diversity between countries (van Kleunen et al., 2015). For instance, the most of the vegetables on our dining table have reached us far from their centre of or- igin (Vavilovs centres of origin) (Vavilov, 1927). �is is a real example for exchange in local biodiversity. Not only plants, even animals and insects (Hilton, Cuthbert, 2010; Liebhold et al., 2016) are being exchanged, domesticated and introduced in places far from their centres of origin or its natural habitat. �e main motivation for this introduction is the bene�ts that are derived out of the introduced plants or animals. However, the impact of non-native organisms on the local biological diversity and the environment vary depending on species. History has many examples of the negative A ctivity of the Intergovernm ental S cience-P olicy P latform on B iodiversity and Ecosystem S ervices for biodiversity conservation 171 impacts caused by the introductions which became an invasive species. Lantana ca- mara L. (Sharma et al., 2005), Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (Villamagna, Mur- phy, 2010), Opuntia humifusa (Raf.) Raf. (Dean, Milton, 2000; Fateryga, Bagrikova, 2017) are some worldwide examples. Globally, the list of invasive organisms is very exhaustive, which is prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Invasive Species Specialist Group. �e article in Science journal (Stokstad, 2017) be- gins with one such example of South American Coatil (Nasua nasua L.), which a spe- cies that was introduced as a pet in Chile and has caused damage to a greater extent. �ese global examples mentioned above underline the need for understanding the biodiversity in order to avoid the catastrophic biodiversity loss. Further, it is human nature to follow the path of successful personalities (Reis et al., 2000). �e identical phenomenon did happen in the case of IPCC too. Development of Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) �ere is clear scienti�c evidence that we are on the verge of a major biodiversity crisis. Practically all facets of biodiversity are in sharp decline (Johnson et al., 2017). To date, biodiversity decline is still being unrecognised, and this issue is not receiving proper focus in public resolutions. �is argument has been put forward by many scientists all over the world. Yet still, Loreau et al. (2006) brought out the paper titled as “Diversity without representation”. It details the crux of the need for an international expert panel for biodiversity conservation, which should be more complex than existing one for climate change (IPCC). �e paper also details the activities that led to the formation of Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (herea�er – IPBES). �e real development of the IPBES started once the biodiversity loss was highlight- ed in �e Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (Larigauderie, Mooney, 2010). In the meantime, a major conference of UNESCO was held in France during 2005 entitled as “Biodiversity: Science and Governance” (Barbault, Le Duc, 2005). During this conference, there was a call for an intergovernmental panel on biodiversity with a similar mechanism to that of the IPCC. �is conference produced two documents, the “Paris Declaration on Biodiversity” and a Conference Statement. �e Paris declaration proposed an international mechanism including all governmental and non-govern- mental institutions into an expert panel on biodiversity. As a follow-up, the French government launched the International Mechanism of Scienti�c Expertise on Bio- diversity (herea�er – IMoSEB). �is was �nally revamped into an international sci- ence-policy interface, which was intergovernmental and also included many non-gov- ernmental stakeholders a�er the Montpellier recommendation. S . S ur es h R am an an , A na to liy A . K ha pu gi n 172 In April 2008, representatives of the IMoSEB Consultation and Global Strategy for the follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment met in Paris (France). It was decided to merge these two initiatives in order to the support discussions on an “Inter- governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”. Shortly a�erwards, the Conference of the Parties was been held (May 2008, Bonn, Germany), where a joint concept on the goals and modalities for IPBES was presented. In meantime, 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme (herea�er – UNEP) organised the �rst intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting in Pu- trajaya (Malaysia), where the mechanism of interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services was discussed. �e next meeting was held in Nairobi (Kenya, 2009), which was attended by 225 delegates from 95 countries and numerous organisations. �us, the interest for IPBES in the science-policy community was clearly demonstrated. �e third intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting was organised in South Korea in 2010, followed by the �rst plenary meeting on IPBES in Nairobi in 2011, where the platform’s modalities and institutional arrangements were framed. During the second plenary meeting in Panama City (2012), a full-�edged platform was established (Lar- igauderie, Mooney, 2010). Current achievements and non-recognition of IPBES �e current structure and functions of the IPBES are well detailed in their o�cial web- site (http://www.ipbes.net). �e output from this institution looks very remarkable. Indeed, the �rst report on �ematic Assessment of Pollinators, Pollination, and Food Production has incorporated more 3000 research papers. It has been highly appreci- ated by the policy makers as well as the scienti�c community (e.g., Potts et al., 2016). �e second report of IPBES was the methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES, 2016), which were also ap- plauded globally. Currently, the sphere of IPBES activity is still wider. Besides keeping records and assessing the biodiversity trends, it also categorises real-world policy con- straints in conservation issues. It also helps in the capacity building of governments and others. �e IPBES has employed over 1300 professionals to contribute in its two assessments reports. Similar to IPCC and others international panels like Internation- al Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, it does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parame- ters. However, there were critical opinions on IPBES work in the scienti�c community. For example, Turnhout et al. (2012) have indicated some omissions in the IPBES work and suggested nine recommendations for the improvement of IPBES e�ciency. �ey have suggested that the IPBES must focus on a much broader range of knowledge and stakeholders. But, as we see today, the IPBES uses the policy of attracting of external A ctivity of the Intergovernm ental S cience-P olicy P latform on B iodiversity and Ecosystem S ervices for biodiversity conservation 173 specialists to participate in the external review of the IPBES regional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Larigauderie, Watson, 2017). Where is support at a difficult time? Although IPBES performance is impressive, it has some problems. Stokstad (2017) in his article “UN biodiversity group confronts cash crunch” presents a clear picture on the current state of IPBES. �e author presents data that clearly indicates that the �- nancial status of the IPBES is in an unfortunate condition. As a result, three major as- sessment reports have been delayed. One of the reports is on controlling invasive spe- cies; secondly, it is on the sustainable use of wild species; thirdly, it is on the cultures perspectives of ecosystem services and the quanti�cation of ecosystem services. �is delay is mainly due to the �nancial issues. Furthermore, it resulted in the reduction in the IPBES annual budget by 8% (to $8.7 million) in 2017, and it has been decided to cut this budget to $5 million (by 30%) in 2018. As a result, some processes in the algorithm of biodiversity assessment and ecosystem services are delayed. As Stokstad (2017) rightly noted, many members have re�ected on this situation. Unfortunately, there are many cases with similar situations where impressive results are welcome and highly appreciated, but there is a lack or even the absence of appropriate �nancial support from a state (Pei et al., 2012; Rybakova, 2013; Editorial, 2016). Conclusions All these cases clearly indicate that governments, the private sector, and civil societies all over the world want more robust information on reasonable futures for biodi- versity and ecosystem services. �ey want to know how the drivers are impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services that might undergo a dramatic change in the upcoming years. �ey also want to comprehend the repercussions of di�erent policy choices on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and how to achieve policy targets, e.g., the Aichi targets. Despite these numerous desires, they are all reluctant to fund it. �e concern about the economic situation in a country should not hide the prob- lem of environmental quality and nature conservation. �e greatest threat is that the decline in public funding for scienti�c research and organisation, such as IPBES, will have an impact on the research quality. Of course, we do not call for funding of every organisation. We say that appropriate funding must be provided to those who provide the relevant results. We would like to end by words of Mahatma Gandhi: �e world has enough for everyone’s need but not enough for everyone’s greed. S . S ur es h R am an an , A na to liy A . K ha pu gi n 174 Acknowledgements �e authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers whose comments and recommendations have contrib- uted to improving this paper. References Barbault, R., Le Duc, J.P. (2005). Proceedings of the International Conference “Biodiversity: Science and Governance”. Paris: Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle. Burch, S., Berry, P., Sanders, M. (2014). Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conser- vation: A case study of England. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 79–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.envs- ci.2013.08.014 Dean, W.R.J., Milton, S.J. (2000). Directed dispersal of Opuntia species in the Karoo, South Africa: are crows the responsible agents? Journal of Arid Environments, 45(4), 305–314. DOI: 10.1006/ jare.2000.0652 Editorial (2016). Private funding for science. Nature Methods, 13, 537. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3923 Fateryga, V.V., Bagrikova, N.A. (2017). Invasion of Opuntia humifusa and O. phaeacantha (Cactaceae) into plant communities of the Karadag Nature Reserve. Nature Conservation Research, 2(4), 26–39. DOI: 10.24189/ncr.2017.011 Hilton, G.M., Cuthbert, R.J. (2010). �e catastrophic impact of invasive mammalian predators on birds of the UK Overseas Territories: a review and synthesis. Ibis, 152(3), 443–458. DOI: 10.1111/j.1474- 919X.2010.01031.x Howarth, C., Viner, D., Dessai, S., Rapley, C., Jones, A. (2017). Enhancing the contribution and role of practitioner knowledge in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group (WG) II process: Insights from UK workshops. Climate Services, 5, 3–10. DOI: 10.1016/j. cliser.2017.04.003 IPBES (2016). �e methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and eco- system services. In: S. Ferrier, K.N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L.A. Acosta, H.R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W.W.L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K.A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Ober- steiner, H.M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, B.A. Wintle (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser- vices. Bonn: IPBES. Johnson, C.N., Balmford, A., Brook, B.W., Buettel, J.C., Galetti, M., Guangchun, L., Wilmshurst, J.M. (2017). Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science, 356(6335), 270–275. DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9317 Larigauderie, A., Mooney, H.A. (2010). �e Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1), 9–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.006 Larigauderie, A., Watson, R.T. (2017). IPBES calls for peer review of its dra� assessments. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1(6), 164. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0164 Liebhold, A.M., Yamanaka, T., Roques, A., Augustin, S., Chown, S.L., Brockerho�, E.G., Pyšek, P. (2016). Global compositional variation among native and non-native regional insect assemblages emphasizes the importance of pathways. Biological Invasions, 18(4), 893–905. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-016-1079-4 Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Arroyo, M.T.K., Babin, D., Barbault, R., Donoghue, M., Gadgil, M., Häus- er, C., Heip, C., Larigauderie, A., Ma, K. (2006). Diversity without representation. Nature, 442(7100), 245–246. DOI: 10.1038/442245a Pei, L., Gaisser, S., Schmidt, M. (2012). Synthetic biology in the view of European public funding organi- sations. Public Understanding of Science, 21(2), 149–162. DOI: 10.1177/0963662510393624 A ctivity of the Intergovernm ental S cience-P olicy P latform on B iodiversity and Ecosystem S ervices for biodiversity conservation 175 Potts, S.G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H.T., Aizen, M.A., Biesmeijer, J.C., Breeze, T.D., Dicks, L.V., Garibaldi, L.A., Hill, R., Settele, J., Vanbergen, A.J. (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature, 540(7632), 220–229. DOI: 10.1038/nature20588 Reis, H.T., Collins, W.A., Berscheid, E. (2000). �e relationship context of human behaviour and devel- opment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 844–872. Rybakova, L.I. (2013). State Scienti�c and Technological Policy and Financing of Science (Experience 2000–2012). Science. Innovation. Education, 14, 151–174. [In Russian] Sharma, G.P., Raghubanshi, A.S., Singh, J.S. (2005). Lantana invasion: an overview. Weed Biology and Management, 5(4), 157–165. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-6664.2005.00178.x Smith, J.B., Schneider, S.H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe, G.W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M.D., Patwardhan, A., Burton, I., Corfee-Morlot, J., Magadza, C.H., Füssel, H.M. (2009). Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11), 4133–4137. DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.0812355106 Stokstad, E. (2017). UN biodiversity group confronts cash crunch. Science, 355(6332), 1358. DOI: 10.1126/science.355.6332.1358 Turnhout, E., Bloom�eld, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., Wynne, B. (2012). Conservation policy: listen to the voices of experience. Nature, 488(7412), 454–455. DOI: 10.1038/488454a van Kleunen, M, Dawson, W., Essl, F., Pergl, J., Winter, M., Weber, E., Kre�, H., Weigelt, P., Kartesz, J., Nishino, M., Antonova, L.A. (2015). Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. Na- ture, 525(7567), 100–103. DOI: 10.1038/nature14910 Vavilov, N.I. (1927). Geographical regularities in the distribution of the genes of cultivated plants. Bulletin of Applied Botany, Genetics and Selection, 17(3), 411–428. Villamagna, A.M., Murphy, B.R. (2010). Ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive water hy- acinth (Eichhornia crassipes): a review. Freshwater biology, 55(2), 282–298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2427.2009.02294.x Viña, A., McConnell, W.J., Yang, H., Xu, Z., Liu, J. (2016). E�ects of conservation policy on China’s forest recovery. Science Advances, 2(3), 1–8. p.e1500965. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500965 Działalność Międzyrządowej Platformy Naukowo-Politycznej na rzecz Różnorodności Biologicznej i Usług Ekosystemowych dla zachowania różnorodności biologicznej Streszczenie W artykule przedstawiono zwięzłe sprawozdanie dotyczące chronologii oraz działalności Międzyrządowej Platformy Polityki Naukowej w  sprawie Różnorodności Biologicznej i  Usług Ekosystemowych (IPBES). Organizacja ta przywiązuje szczególną wagę do globalnego stanu różnorodności biologicznej, trendów i aktywności politycznej. Artykuł prezentuje uogólniony obraz rozwoju i osiągnięć IPBES w trakcie jego ist- nienia. Raporty IPBES ze względu na swoje znaczenie są uznawane i aprobowane na całym świecie. Jednak rozpoznawalny sukces IPBES jest niweczony przez sytuację �nansową IPBES. W efekcie istnieje stan, która prowadzi ostatecznie do wniosku, że zawsze następuje hamowanie �nansowania wspólnego dobra. Key words: biodiversity monitoring, ecological assessment, ecological policy, funding, nature conserva- tion Received: [2017.09.01] Accepted: [2017.11.13]