Capacity building in a global setting is often the only thing that everyone agrees is important and needed. Such a broad consensus is usually not a good sign. The term ranges from a very narrow vision, often associated with training activities and workshops, to an all-encompassing vision that tends to be useless from an analytical and practical standpoint (Schacter, 2000). It could mean helping respond to a lack of technical or scientistic skills, of money, time or authority to do all the things expected, or to a lack of institutional capacity (Potter & Brough, 2004). It has been and continues to be a major component, if not a motto, of many global development programs, as well as a major component of any international documents and protocols related to global change and sustainable development (UNEP, 2005). Its importance has also been perceived as critical in science-policy interface discussions at the global level (Kleine, 2009). The need to increasingly address challenges of global scale calls for science to play a central role in the making of global policy (Miller, 2001). This increased importance of science in formulating global policy, however, raises several concerns, particularly with regard to the unequal capacity of countries to contribute to the production of this science. Capacity building plays an even more important role in this context. Developing countries repeatedly insist on the need to increase their active participation in scientific research and monitoring, global scientific assessments, and on the need to build enough capacity for the formulation of national science policies and related action plans. But the issue goes even beyond science to encompass all modes of knowing and deciding. The basic structure of the biodiversity problem raises challenging questions with regard to the types of knowledge that “count” and/or are necessary for decision making. Dealing with biodiversity issues entails a multiplicity of legitimate perspectives and disc