I may be all wrong and wet behind the ears when it comes to issues of biodiversity, but I beg to differ from the opinion expressed in this editorial in Nature. It is very simple, biodiversity is not an issue that needs another mammoth global entity to tell the local folks about their fauna and flora management. 

Wanted: an IPCC for biodiversity : Nature : Nature Publishing Group: “Moves are now afoot to establish a body to review the science and anticipated effects of changes in biodiversity, reminiscent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

Now that they have mentioned it, biodiversity is closely coupled with climate change, and the last thing we need is yet another international body… but I wrote this already. That said, there is nothing wrong, and it is certainly welcome that research be coordinated. I just do not get why biodiversity needs its own little, or not so little, research lobby. To be able to have standards and research infrastructure does not necessitate another international organisation, does it?

If there is something to fight for, in my book the fight is for sustainability, and not for preservation although there are good and bad arguments for either. I often just can not follow the biodiversity call to arms, and it all could be that it is my ignorance and prejudices that prevent me from being more enlightened about this. Besides, it is not as biodiverstiy were not in the international agenda. It is, as is pointed out in the cited editorial.

Wanted: an IPCC for biodiversity : Nature : Nature Publishing Group: “To ensure that it can speak to all parties that have an influence on biodiversity, the IPBES should have formal relations not just with the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also with other biodiversity treaties, agencies of the United Nations, international environmental non-governmental organizations, global scientific organizations and the private sector.”

I need to study the literature on the effects of this type of entity on policy, and then perhaps I will need to revise my opinion on this. I suspect, but have not verified, that part of this activity of yet another international organisation, has something to do with the abundance and proliferation of information on the topic that is emerging at a very fast rate but which is not organised in any useful way. If that is the case, then, it could be that there is a case to be made for yet another international organisation with another pet peeve.