Members of the ecosystem services community have responded to the recently published article and editorial in Nature. Even though the article painted the situation within the community as hostile and divided, the responses which followed have clearly illustrated that this is not the case.
Nature published several response letters, whose sentiment was along the same lines: despite different opinions and views on some matters, we have one common goal – to highlight the importance of biodiversity to human well-being.
As stated in the joint letter from ESP chair Rudolf de Groot, TEEB’s Pavan Sukhdev and Mark Gough of the Natural Capital Coalition:
“Irrespective of the terminology used, our community is undivided in our knowledge that we fundamentally depend on nature in countless ways.”
A continuing thread on the Natural Capital Coalition’s Twitter feed, expressing the message that we are united, while still capable of constructive debate, has resonated with many within the community:
Firstly, the most important thing to remember is that no matter what term you use, the message remains the same: we fundamentally depend on nature in countless ways, and if nature continues to be degraded, we will all suffer. pic.twitter.com/meGcZu0eVf
— NatCapCoalition (@NatCapCoalition) August 23, 2018
“Debate between peers is central to scientific progress. Including the widest possible range of opinions, expertise, knowledge systems and evidence in that debate is fundamental to the systemic changes that are needed.” – R. de Groot, P. Sukhdev and M. Gough response letter
Contrary to what is implied in this article, @ESPartnership is working #together with @IPBES to highlight the contribution of #biodiversity to #humanwellbeing. At the #ESP18EU conference in San Sebastian this October an @IPBES session will be hosted. #Join https://t.co/PdIuZUVENJ
— Ecosystem Services Partnership (@ESPartnership) August 23, 2018