Search

Nature is valuable in diverse ways, including as a source of food and materials, as part of human cultures and identities, and as a community of living beings with their own interests and welfare. Since its formal establishment in 2012, IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) has endeavoured to synthesise this diversity of values, and to present it in policy-relevant ways. In this Perspective article, I propose and justify three major improvements to IPBES' treatment of values, with special focus on its Conceptual Framework and Values Assessment. First, a better alternative must be found to the recently proposed concept of 'relational values' because, paradoxically, this proposed concept constrains rather than promotes relational thinking, as well as entrenching dualisms between humans and nature. Second, IPBES must pay greater attention to the negative impacts of nature (its disvalues); failure to do so risks imbalanced environmental policies, as well as the alienation of people who have been harmed by nature and by environmental decision-making. Third, and to fully account for the diverse ways in which nature matters, IPBES must go beyond values and disvalues, and consider nature's status, bonds, and the trauma that can result from natural events and environmental degradation. It is only by reworking its frameworks and assessments in these three ways that IPBES can make full progress toward fairer and more effective environmental policy. • IPBES frameworks of values must expand rather than confine the scope for relational thinking. • They must also include nature's negative contributions (its disvalues). • Nature also matters in ways that cannot be reduced to values or disvalues: IPBES must account for these too. • Pursuing these three ways forward would greatly improve the fairness and effectiveness of IPBES policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]