Second plenary day IPBES

Long day, slow pace and wrong direction

Disclaimer: the views expressed hereby represent the personal impressions and opinion of the writer, and do not attempt to represent SCB as a whole.

After a relatively short day yesterday, today everyone again bunkered in enormous windowless Plenary rooms named Maximus, little suspecting we would still be there 13 hours later. In the morning the Plenary established three Contact Groups (CGs), which are ‘smaller’ meetings between the IPBES Members, to discuss point-by-point, line-by-line the documents that will hopefully be approved at the end of this week. At lunch, the Contact Group for the Budget met; the CG for the Work Programme and Conceptual Framework as well as the CG for Procedures started work at 5pm, working all the way through to 22:30 with a break for dinner.

Joining the CG for Procedures, review started upbeat, with two decisions in quick succession: IPBES would adopt the historical UN Regional groupings into the future for IPBES, and second, that the number of persons in the so called “Multidisciplinary Expert Panel” (MEP) from each of these regions will foreseeably remain at five.

After these decisions, however, the situation rapidly unwinded. We spent thirty minutes discussing whether definitions of terms needed to be added to the beginning of the Procedures document, or whether it was sufficient to document them separately. At around 9pm, Argentina threw a major spanner in the works by stating that the process of acceptance-adoption-approval of reports were not only not understandable, but unacceptable to them. Despite Bob Watson’s emphatic insistence that the procedure was exactly the same as the IPCC procedure, Argentina resisted and insisted that IPBES was not the IPCC, that the introduction of the ‘validation’ concept was legally unique, and that without further legal clarity with rules, there could be no progress on this section. Post-square-bracketing, the CG moved on to an issue that made your two SCB delegates sit up nice and tall: the issue of whether Stakeholders would have the privilege of nominating experts into the process, alongside States?

Very much to our surprise, this appears to not be a straightforward decision by the Members that were in the room, with several (USA, Canada) expressing that they were yet to hold an opinion, while Egypt, Japan, Russia and Argentina were not in favour of direct stakeholder nominations. The EU, led by Lithuania, expressed that they supported nominations by stakeholders.

This is clearly a red line issue for SCB – and IPBES. If stakeholders’ expertise and right to participate in an effective way are not recognised, IPBES risks losing its connection to the scientific community. IPBES will then not only miss the chance to utilize the scientific network for identifying experts, but even more sever – if only governments can suggest experts, the whole process will be seen as political and lacking scientific credibility. The SCB delegation went to bed worried and probably slept uneasy. 

Eszter Kovacs (ESSRG) with support from others

IPBES Plenary Day 1: Health care for Mother Earth?

Disclaimer: the views expressed hereby represent the personal impressions and opinion of the writer, and do not attempt to represent SCB as a whole.

IPBES continues to grow. There are now 115 members, and over 100 listed observers. About thirty new observers were admitted today without discussion, and the Plenary moved smoothly into presentations of the Work Programme, the Conceptual Framework and the Budget.

Now, if you thought that the name IPBES might imply focus on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Conceptual Framework may surprise you. IPBES starts with talking about “Nature”, “Mother Earth” and “System of Life”. If we (scientists) consider ecosystems as supporting “Quality of Life” or “human wellbeing”, the Conceptual Framework attempts adds the terms “Living in harmony with nature” and “living in balance with Mother Earth”. Sounds strange? Not if you listen to Bolivia’s support of the Conceptual Framework versus its harsh comments on the Work Programme  (Hereafter, WP if you don’t mind).

The point is that being inclusive requires consideration of other schools of thought and other vision of the world. As well explained at the plenary, the MEP has made huge efforts to translate western terms into world-encompassing ones, while trying not to lose pragmatism on the way. The outcome is quite impressive, even if thought-provoking.

Notably, however, as the Conceptual Framework was developed only after the WP, which was written only after the Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, the three simply don’t align well with each other. As Bolivia put it: the Assessments are severely plagued with a western, colonialist, capitalistic approach which views the world through money. True, one has to admit, but the good thing is that this can still be rectified.

Coming to money, though, our SCB delegation maintains some serious concerns. IPBES’s suggested budget for 2014-2018 was set at merely $39 million. For the size of such a Platform this is actually quite cheap. The sum is reachable, and Norway alone agreed to offer $8 million to support. But would it be sufficient? SCB and other organizations see a major gap: even if approved and supported, too little budget is currently allocated to supporting the engagement of stakeholders – without which, how exactly can IPBES deliver?!

Following short contemplation, we decided SCB should make its own intervention at the opening Plenary. We raised a hand, marked a wish, and were nearly to give up - when suddenly the opportunity fell on us due to a minor error: we were erroneously recognized as Saudi Arabia by the Chair, meaning that we had a priority over 8 other interventions… Excited but concrete, Bege raised our concerns about the limited funding for stakeholder involvement, the need to make reference to the Aichi targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the lack of concrete plans on how to secure a bottom up, regionalized structure of IPBES – which SCB can support through its structure.

SCB’s statement closed the day, and offered an immediate opportunity for unofficial  discussions.

Guy Pe’er, Antalya.

Picture: Bengt Gunnar Jonsson (Bege, Middle, in white) speaking up at the Plenary. Picture: Andras Baldi (MEP member)

What is a stakeholder, really?

IPBES Stakeholder Day:

 What is a stakeholder, really?

(the following blog reflects the personal views and not the general opinions of the attendants at the IPBES Plenary)

Two days of stakeholder discussions have ended. Networking among the large and heterogeneous groups of stakeholders is a core activity for the SCB delegation during this IPBES meeting. Among us, all agree that stakeholders have clear importance to the success of IPBES. We also managed quite smoothly in discussing topics such as internal organization and management among the stakeholders.  The challenge is now how to make governments accept  this view, and provide the stakeholders with sufficient influence and resources to enable our contributions. For that purpose, a joint statement is being prepared for the start of the plenary meeting tomorrow morning. It will address our commitment to IPBES, communicate the importance of endorsing and implementing the stakeholder engagement strategy, but also highlight some concerns expressed by the stakeholders. For example, one issue which we raised during the discussions was that stakeholders must have the possibility to nominate experts to the working groups.

The only issue of obvious disagreement among the stakeholders actually relates to the term “stakeholder” itself. This expression does not reflect the status of indigenous people and hence they feel not fully respected in the process. However, the term stakeholder seems to be already so established within IPBES that no other identifier besides the Members of the Platform exists. This, evidently, complicates our own internal communication. When reflecting on this problem we realize that it is also difficult for others since it suggest that we are more “down the line” rather than being central contributors to IPBES. The other term used is “Observers” which is the role of SCB and other Stakeholder organizations in the Plenary meeting. This is even worse since it suggests no other role apart from sitting on the side-bench and listening. Some suggested the term “Partners” must be used – other said it’s risky. A small identity crisis? For us it’s something to reflect upon during the evening in the piano bar, but other people will likely reflect much more ferociously during the Plenary itself.

Blog provided today by Bege Jonsson with support from Guy Pe'er and others

Securing the voice of science

Securing the voice of science – Next IPBES plenary coming up next week (December 9-14)

Last year the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established. With the ambition of being a parallel to the climate change panel (IPCC), the upcoming meeting will be the first real test for this “new born baby”. During a week of negotiations the 115 member countries will attempt to establish the programme of work for 2014-2018 as well is finalizing a set of formal procedures. If successful, it would mean that real work could start and slowly credible and independent summaries of critical knowledge will be synthesized. As being representatives for SCB we hope to establish good working relations with other knowledge holders and guard the scientific independence of IPBES. We intend to keep you updated by regularly writing short reports on this blog.

Bege Jonsson 

 

The SCB delegation is composed of

Bege Jonsson, Sweden
Cagan Sekercioglu, USA & Turkey
Eszter Krasznai Kovács, UK & Hungary
Guy Pe’er, Germany & Israel
Teuta Skorin, Croatia

”IPBES should increase the political feasibility of biodiversity conservation” – How can Eastern Europe contribute? East European Regional Consultation on IPBES, Hungary 31 July – 2 Aug

With its first plenary meeting held in January 2013 in Bonn, Germany, the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has moved into its operational phase. Right now, the newly elected Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) are preparing key documents for the future: The draft work programme (2014-2018) and the draft of a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. In summer 2013, draft documents will be released for public consultation, and governments and stakeholders of IPBES, like regional knowledge networks, are asked to provide their input.

Hungary is hosting now the IPBES East European Offical Stakeholder Meeting for the coming 2 days. Two members of the MEP and two members of the IPBES Bureau are present in the consultation, during which experts and stakeholders from Eastern-European countries are compiling a list of comments, suggestions and additional contribution to be channeled into the draft Work Programme 2014-2018 and the stakeholder engagement strategy. These documents will be finalized and approved by the next IPBES plenary at the end of this year (December 2013) in Antalya. It is therefore essential to raise and articulate Eastern-European issues and perspectives in order to include them in the IPBES process.

The consultation started with an open meeting at the Hungarian Ministry of Rural Development attended by the participants. As György Pataki, vice-chair of the Multidisciplinary Panel pointed out, this meeting should serve as an opportunity to learn from invited stakeholders, to feed their aspects and suggestions into the IPBES  process. Eastern-European countries have not been too active so far, they need to become more dedicated and articulated in the consultation process. György also mentioned the problem of financing – due to UN regulations, many of the MEP members have to cover their own budget related to IPBES activities, and lack of governmental support  seriously challenges their consistent participation.

Jerry Harrison, Interim Secretariat of IPBES is talking
about the ongoing process 

Jerry Harrison (UK), representative of the IPBES Interim Secretariat reported on the IPBES build-up progress and the timeline of the coming events. He highlighted the fact that actual implementation of the IPBES will start after the Antalya Plenary with five documents being out now for international review. The actual implementation is also the subject of current discussions.

András Báldi (HU) talked about the ecosystem sevice concept and the need to put a price tag on nature as the main reason behind forming IPBES. Adem Bilgin from Turkey presented the work of the study group on conceptualization of value in IPBES as the core concept.

Will IPBES really help in addressing biodiversity crisis? – asked one concerned NGO participant. As Adem Bilgin replied, the responses that IPBES will give, depend on the questions the governmenst are asking. IPBES should go well beyond being a scientific body, it has to be an interface between science and policy. As Bilgin stated "IPBES should increase the political feasibility of biodiversity conservation” stressing the importance of policy implications.

After the closing remarks, workshop participants headed towards Lake Balaton to continue the consultation.

IPBES wrap-up: Reflections on the last day and beyond

(disclaimer: The following text represents personal accounts of ipbes and do not attempt to represent the view of SCB-ES as a whole)

The 26^th of January 2013 can be marked as historical day: The IPBES has finally been officially launched. It has a Bureau, it has a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel comprising 25 excellent scientists across the world, and now, after a long process, its Bureau also has a Chair: M. Zakri, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia and Chairman of the Malaysian Professors’ Council.

From the perspective of the stakeholders, it is worthy to point out two additional achievements: First of all, 78 organizations have already been admitted to the IPBES as official observers, a number which is higher than ever admitted to the IPCC. This is not at all an insignificant difference given that the success of IPBES will truly depend on a broad range of contributions, across the world and throughout its work.

The second, related achievement is the initiation of a process to develop a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, to be supported by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). How the IPBES intends to support this process, however, is not yet clear.

These achievements are well-summarized by the very positive statement made by IUCN by the name of the stakeholders at the closing session, as it appears below, but there are also some challenges ahead.

First of all, the question of how to admit future observers to the IPBES remains open, and demands were repeatedly made to do so only under consensus. This means that some stakeholders may have serious difficulties in becoming observers. This might not sound like a major problem for those who support IPBES from the first place, for environmentalists may always remain welcome, but it may pose challenges when wanting to achieve transparency and a broad societal acceptance. Thus, a political question of how to include or exclude observers could later on become a barrier when trying to use the recommendations made by IPBES in reconciling the conflicts between humans and nature.

The experience of the IPCC may serve in demonstrating how high the price of such resistance may be: While I strongly believe that scientific excellence has guided the development of IPCC assessments and recommendations, we should warily note the various accusations as if IPCC assessments are dominated by political and economic interests. Hopefully, greater transparency and an effective inclusion of stakeholders in the IPBES process, including some which may not be welcome at first sight, may lead to greater societal acceptance and overall cooperation.

A second challenge relates to the work of the MEP: It is now that a group of 25 excellent scientists will have to start scanning through a pile of environmental crises and ask themselves which ones are most urgent, relevant and teaching. I do not envy the members of the MEP (Sorry Andras), for the poor representation of some disciplines – especially among the social sciences (there are enough conservation ecologists, of course) – may put hurdles on the selection process when touching realms of science that members of the first MEP may lack.

Thus, if we want to contribute to the success of IPBES, perhaps the starting point should be to assist the MEP by making constructive suggestions for cooperation between the MEP and potential contributors of knowledge and experience. Likewise, the MEP might be able to still shape the work of IPBES if it develops, for instance, a procedure for inviting experts from the outside (primarily to compensate for disciplinary biases) but at the same time help in addressing the question whether observers of any kind should be allowed to the meetings of the MEP. In other words, the MEP could enhance stakeholder involvement by forming active cooperation on the ground and paving the route for both sides (that is, both stakeholders and the IPBES) in identifying means of effective and productive cooperation.

Now, at this point, I would like to shift from a reporting tone to a more personal one, and play a little bit with ideas. Having seen the impact of political processes on the process of building the IPBES, I am wondering what would happen if a request for assessment touches the country of origin, say, of the distinguished Chair of the Bureau: Malaysia.

Malaysia, in my opinion, could serve a one of the most fascinating case studies for the local manifestation of global pressures. With one of the most diverse fauna and flora in the world, it also suffers from one of the highest current rates of deforestation, primarily due to the expansion of palm-oil plantation –for consumption in China, India, Europe (biofuel!) and many others. All in all, it produces over 40% of the world’s palm-oil, in response to rocketing global demands. Malaysia is also one of the most important hubs for wildlife trade, which surely does not contribute to securing biodiversity. Interestingly enough, this trade is facilitated by European markets, such as the pet trade, and rumours say that one of the leading countries here is… Germany: Home of the IPBES Secretariat.

I thus wish to make my humble request: would the MEP be interested in such case studies, and seek to identify and engage relevant stakeholders in assessing how intricate global linkages act? Can we take such case studies to investigate what societal and economic changes are needed in order to provide solutions at the consumers’ side? Or in other words, what can we do to enhance global responsibility and replace the current belief that technology is the mother of all solutions?

This is just a small idea, of course, to express my more general wish to see a systematic coverage of drivers and pressures, rather than regional balance, in the work of the MEP and its assessments.

At any rate, I would like to end with an even more personal note: I would like to wish IPBES, and more specifically the MEP, Bureau and the secretariat the best of luck: I truly hope that this body will be able to mark a route out of current trends.

Statement made by IUCN in the name of the Stakeholders:

Mr Chairman,

Thank you for giving us the floor,

This is a statement on behalf of a group of stakeholders, ranging from the scientific communities to civil society organizations, present as observers at IPBES-1:

The engagement and participation of all relevant stakeholders is critical to the effectiveness, credibility and overall success of IPBES. This means contributions throughout: from agenda setting to submissions, prioritization and implementation.

We, therefore, thank the many IPBES Members for having considered stakeholder interests and participation in all major topics addressed in this meeting.

We acknowledge UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP for their steady support of our common work, so far, and we are confident that this support will continue.

We congratulate the Chair, the elected members of the Bureau and of the MEP. Their work will be critical for the future operations and success of IPBES. We look forward to working with them.

We also stand ready to contribute and participate in the intersessional process and in future meetings of this Plenary. We strongly call for a continuous openness of the Members to involve stakeholders in order to ensure full and effective participation in the finalized rules of procedures of the platform. 

We are honored by the responsibility this Plenary conferred to us to prepare a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy to support the implementation of the work programme. We are committed to fulfill this task in an inclusive and transparent manner.

Thank you.