Download “biodiversity” and “option values of biodiversity”

Recommendations to promote consistency in IPBES usage/definitions of
“biodiversity” and “option values of biodiversity”
Context: IPBES3 draft decision to approve undertaking of the “multiple values” methodological assessment.
“Biodiversity” refers to living variation. A core benefit/value of such variation is the option value of biodiversity.
In accord with this, the IPBES Conceptual Framework (IPBES/2/INF/2/Add.1) lists anthropocentric values including “the
option values of biodiversity as a reservoir of yet-to-be discovered uses from known and still unknown species and
biological processes, and as a constant source, through evolutionary processes, of novel biological solutions to the
challenges of a changing environment [11].” (quoted from the published version of the Conceptual Framework; Diaz et
al 2014, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability). The Glossary in Diaz et al. also refers to “The ‘option values of
biodiversity’, that is, the value of maintaining living variation in order to provide possible future uses and benefits”.
IPBES therefore has made good progress in highlighting this core benefit/value of biodiversity, following earlier
reviews and consultations(1). However, the content of current IPBES documents suggests to us that there now is a
critical opportunity to achieve greater consistency in the usage of “biodiversity” and “option value” among the different
parts of the IPBES work program. We outline below several concerns and make corresponding recommendations.
1. The diagram of the Conceptual Framework includes those “elements of nature and society that are at the main focus
of the Platform” (Diaz et al.). “Biodiversity” is included under “Nature” but biodiversity option values are not included
under “Nature’s benefits”, which refers only (green text) to ecosystem goods and services. These within-ecosystem
benefits naturally do not include the typically- global option values of biodiversity.
Recommendation – include “option values of biodiversity” within the “Nature’s benefits” box within the Conceptual
Framework diagram, in order to properly acknowledge and include it as a “main focus of the Platform”.
2. The published version of the Conceptual Framework (Diaz et al 2014) creates an inconsistency in the IPBES definition
of “biodiversity”. In the original Conceptual Framework document (IPBES/2/INF/2/Add.1), the definition is “The
variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystems.” This accords well with the CBD and reflects the core idea of living variation. However, the published
version has this definition: “The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and
other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes variation in genetic,
phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional attributes, as well as changes in abundance and distribution over time and
space within and among species, biological communities and ecosystems.” This seems inconsistent with the idea that
we assess changes in biodiversity (rather than seeing change as part of biodiversity). Further, including abundance and
distribution change does not accord well with the idea of biodiversity as living variation. Indeed, under this modified
definition, the extinction of a species (abundance goes to zero) would imply an increase in biodiversity. This runs
counter to IPBES goals to address biodiversity loss.
Recommendation – retain the CBD definition of “biodiversity” across all IPBES documents, with “variability” either
replaced by the term “variation” or clarified as meaning “variation”
3. The new “Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits,
including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services” does not provide guidance on option values of biodiversity.
In Table 2.1 on values, “Biodiversity” includes “Genetic, functional, taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity”. This naturally
should link to option value, but is linked only to intrinsic value in the Table. Elsewhere, the Table does refer to “diversity
of current and future options”. However, the broad use of option value in the Conceptual Framework (as in Diaz et al)
suggests no clear link here to option values of biodiversity. A bioGENESIS paper (ref. [11] above and in Diaz et al) quoted
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: “poor measurement of biodiversity reduces the capacity to discover and
implement good trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity and ecosystem services ..Sometimes responses to this
information problem may . . .. neglect the difficult problem of finding surrogates for global option values.”
Recommendation – provide guidance on option values of biodiversity, including on the measurement or surrogates
problem, and on the integration with other values through multi-criteria analysis and related valuation methods.
Produced by bioGENESIS, contact: [email protected] (Dan Faith)
Footnote 1) Observer organisation bioGENESIS is a Project within Future Earth. bioGENESIS previously provided
comments on option values for the Conceptual Framework and proposed an assessment addressing the multiple values
of biodiversity. IPBES/2/INF/9 concluded that the bioGENESIS suggestion has “High priority for inclusion in regional and
global assessments” and that it be covered “in rapid methodological assessment on values (deliverable 3d)”.