Upload
duongdan
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Towards an International
Mechanism of Scientific
Expertise on Biodiversity
Michel Loreau Department of Biology, McGill University,
Montréal, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
• Biodiversity continues to be lost globally without
any sign of improvement
Biodiversity: where do we stand?
• In the long run, the loss of biodiversity and of
associated ecosystem services may be a serious
threat to human well-being
• Yet biodiversity is still perceived as a second-rate
issue (compared e.g. with climate change), and
current efforts have not been able to reverse the
trend towards biodiversity loss
• The biodiversity scientific community itself is
still fragmented and poorly involved in the
political process
Biodiversity: where do we stand?
• A mechanism for synthesising scientific
knowledge and providing independent scientific
assessment to support policy decisions (such as
IPCC for climate change) is currently lacking
• The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment was a first
attempt at filling the gap between science and
policy, but it was a one-off effort and it did not
involve governments
Biodiversity: where do we stand?
Towards an International Mechanism of
Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB)
• The establishment of an IMoSEB was supported by Jacques
Chirac and the > 2,000 participants in the International
Conference Biodiversity Science and Governance
• Steps have been taken by the French government to launch
an international consultative process to assess the need,
scope and possible forms of an IMoSEB
Oaxaca Declaration on Biodiversity
The scientists participating in the DIVERSITAS First Open Science Conference, Integrating biodiversity science
for human well-being, held in Oaxaca, November 9-12, 2005, support the conclusions of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment and of the Conference Biodiversity Science and Governance held in Paris in January 2005:
1. Biodiversity is our common natural heritage and the foundation for a wide variety of ecosystem services that
are crucial to human well-being.
2. Irreversible destruction of biodiversity is taking place globally as a result of human activities; there is
insufficient political and public attention to its extent and consequences.
3. Mechan isms to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity have been developed at local, national and
international levels; these need to be supported and considerably expanded .
4. Scientific knowledge of biodiversity must be substantially increased, but immediate actions must be taken to
better protect biodiversity based on existing knowledge .
Therefore, they call upon gove rnments, policy makers and citizens:
1. to integrate biodiversity into the criteria considered in all economic and policy decisions that affect
environmental management;
2. to launch and support ambitious interdisciplinary research programmes to explore the Earth’s biodiversity,
the ecological and socio-economic causes and con sequence s of its changes , and the best means to conserve
and sustainably use it;
3. to commit resources to build and greatly expand th e capacity, especially in developing countries, to
undertake biodiversity research and implement the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
In agreement with the recommendations of the Paris Conference, they urge national governments and
United Nations bodies to establish a properly resourced international scientific panel that includes an
intergovernmental component and that aims at providing, on a regular basis, validated and independent
scientific information relating to biodiversity to governments, international conventions, non-governmental
organisations, policy makers and the wider publ ic.
• The goal of the current consultative process is to
assess the need, scope, and possible forms of an
IMoSEB — completely open process!
• An IMoSEB requires the following elements: – intergovernmental component
– independence
– competence
– representativeness (opinions, disciplines, regions)
– peer review
– transparency
– policy relevance
Assessing the need and scope of an IMoSEB
• Key issues to be addressed during the consultative
process: – Is there a need for such a mechanism?
– What would its added value be compared with existing
mechanisms?
– Who would its audience and stakeholders be?
– What information do national governments and
international bodies need on biodiversity?
– What would its mandate and governance structure be?
– What would its relationships with international
conventions be?
– How would it be funded?
– …
Assessing the need and scope of an IMoSEB
• Currently led by an interim International Steering
Committee involving scientists and policy makers
(two meetings: Paris, June 2005, and Oaxaca,
November 2005)
• International Steering Committee to be appointed
in Paris, February 2006
• Executive secretariat is being set up in France
• Progress report at the 8th CoP of the CBD in
Curitiba, March 2006
Organisation of the consultative process
• to make biodiversity science and
governance move forward
• to fill the gap between biodiversity science
and policy
• to find new ways of facing the current
biodiversity crisis
Whatever its outcome, the consultative
process towards an IMoSEB is a unique
opportunity
Development
of the
Consultative Process
towards an
IMoSEB
Didier Babin, Executive Secretary
Yaoundé 2007
International Steering Committee
• Scientists: Gaston Achoundong, Mary Kalin Arroyo, Carlo Heip, Leonard Hirsch, Yvon Le Maho, Michel Loreau, Keping Ma, Georgina Mace, Harold A. Mooney, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Charles Perrings, Peter Raven, José Sarukhan, Robert J. Scholes, Arkady Tishkov, Jacques Weber.
• Governments represented: Austria, Canada, China, Costa-Rica, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Madagascar, Morocco, Namibia, New-Zealand, Poland, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, UK, USA.
• International or Intergovernmental organizations, United Nations Specialized agencies, International Conventions, NGOs, Research Initiatives: CITES, CMS, Conservation International, DIVERSITAS, EPBRS, European Commission - DG Research, EEA, FAO, GBIF, Greenpeace, ICES – CIEM, ICSU, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, IPGRI, IUCN, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ramsar Convention, Swedish Scientific Council on Biological Diversity, Swiss Biodiversity Forum, The Nature Conservancy, UNCBD, UNCBD-SBSTTA, UNCCD, UNEP - DEWA, UNEP - WCMC, UNESCO, UNU - IAS, World Bank, WWF.
The Executive Committee
• Appointment of the Executive Committee (14 members)
Co-chairs: Alfred Oteng-Yeboah / Michel Loreau
Members: Ivar Baste, Martha Chouchena-Rojas, Christine Dawson, Horst Korn, Keping Ma, Georgina Mace, Martha Mapangou, Charles Perrings, Peter Raven, José Sarukhan, Robert Watson, Jacques Weber.
Executive Secretariat: Didier Babin, Anne Larigauderie, Maxime Thibon, Stéphanie Guinard, Chad Monfreda
Consultative support
• Diplomacy
• Integration of the Consultative Process
• Involvement of ISC members
• Voluntary contributions
Workshop Leipzig BEDC Paris
NAC, Montreal
Plan of action Step 2, December 2006 -
September 2007
• Second Executive Committee meeting, Paris, 5-6 Dec 2006
• Wider consultation with regional consultation,
Jan-Sept 2007
• Targeted consultation with key stakeholders • Presentation at CBD-SBSTTA 12 (Paris, July)
2nd EC
Discussions on needs
Need to bring independant scientific expertise:
to inform decision making affecting biodiversity
to support work of international conventions
to support work of on-going monitoring and assessment exercises.
Need to enhance our capacity:
to predict consequence of current actions affecting biodiversity
to provide, proactively, scientific advice on emerging threats.
Communication/Publication
to the public
to inform science funding agencies
to improve accessibility and timeliness of scientific results
Proposed options to be discussed
• Option 1 A partnership of existing mechanisms delivering science to national & international decision-making bodies
• Option 2 A new mechanism with intergovernmental and nongovernmental components
• Option 3 Invite IPCC to consider developing a biodiversity component to their activity
• Option 4 Strengthen existing networks of scientists to feed science into various fora through a small coordination mechanism
Rendez-vous, before CoP 9 May 2008
• Main events : – CBD-WG RI 2 Paris (Jul 2007) – Ecosummit 2007 Beijing (May 2007) – CoP or meetings of Conventions (Cites, Ramsar, CMS, WHC, …) – EPBRS meeting Leipzig (May 2007) – Trondheim conference on Biodiversity, Norway (Oct - Nov 2007) – CBD-SBSTTA 13 Roma (Feb 2008) – …
• Meeting of the International Steering Committee,
Oct 2007 Final recommendations and proposals by the ISC
• Recommendation / action / decision at CBD-CoP 9 ?
OUTUBRO/2007 The meeting agreed that neither of the two options for an IMoSEB
originally put forward by the IMoSEB Executive Committee was entirely
sufficient, and instead proposed two new options for an IMoSEB.
The first option was the “new” option proposed in Working Group Two,
consisting of an international panel of scientists, political figures and other
biodiversity actors to give legitimacy to the organization, supported by a
“network of networks” for exchanging, systematizing and building scientific
information.
A third feature of the option would be IMoSEB-appointed personnel who would
maintain close contact with, and participate in, national processes relating to
biodiversity.
Participants considered that this model represented a combination
of the two original IMoSEB Executive Committee options. The meeting also
considered the draft design of a structure for this option, while acknowledging that
the structure would require further work and consultation within the region.
A draft structure diagram was prepared, including features such as
national IMoSEB nodes or focal points, and with allowance for the biodiversity-
related conventions to be represented on the Intergovernmental Panel. The
Secretariat indicated that the draft structure diagram would be included in the final
report of the Consultation.
OUTUBRO/2007
The second option was proposed in both working groups, and aimed to
build upon existing scientific information networks and mechanisms and
enhance national and regional level decision-making on biodiversity issues.
The model also proposed technical groups involving all biodiversity users to
analyze scientific information and put it into socio-economic and cultural context. A
further feature would be formal agreements with national governments to add
authority to the work of the technical groups. In discussions on this model, some
participants stated that national decisions, not global ones, are mostly responsible
for impacts on biodiversity, and that IMoSEB should give priority to work at the
national level. Other participants observed that decisions and developments at all
levels from global to local are affecting biodiversity.
Many participants emphasized that both options sought to respect
national governments’ interests and ensure the cooperative involvement of
governments in IMoSEB processes. In this regard, attendees discussed how to
reflect in the summary of discussions the low level of official government
representation at the Consultation. One participant considered the poor national
representation to reflect the level of attention paid to biodiversity research in the
region.
Final outcome: The Summary of Discussions addresses the discussions
on needs and options. The preambular text, interalia:
• states that the Latin American regional consultation agrees with the needs identified
at the European regional consultation, in particular the importance of enhancing
the communication and accessibility of scientific research results, and
fostering the communication of this information in a form useful to decision-
makers;
• notes the low level of participation by national governments at the consultation;
• highlights credible science and political legitimacy as key factors that will be
needed to ensure that governments and other biodiversity users accept information
generated by an IMoSEB;
• notes that forms of information such as traditional knowledge should also be taken
into account;
• defines “biodiversity users” as including governments, the private sector, NGOs,
local and indigenous communities, and civil society; and
• agrees that a mechanism to address the highlighted needs should make
information available to all levels of decision makers while respecting national
views.
The text then outlines the two options identified for
such a mechanism. The first option would consist of:
• an international panel of scientists, political figures and
other biodiversity actors;
• a “network of networks” for exchanging, systematizing and
building scientific information, including ad hoc groups on
specific issues; and
• close interaction with national processes relating to
biodiversity via IMoSEB-appointed personnel who would
maintain contact with, and participate in, such national
processes.
The text then outlines the two options identified for
such a mechanism. The first option would consist of:
•The second option features:
• strengthening of existing scientific information networks
and mechanisms, with a focus on enhancing national and
regional-level decision-making on biodiversity issues;
• technical groups involving all biodiversity users,
coordinated by IMoSEB, to analyze scientific information and
put it into socio-economic and cultural context; and
• formal agreements with national governments to ensure
that results are taken into account in decision-making.
SPECIFIC NEEDS OF LATIN AMERICA:
Participants discussed the specific features of the Latin American
region and the particular needs that an IMoSEB would need to address in
order to be effective in the region.
Commenting on the biodiversity of the region, participants noted that
the ecosystems of Central and South America and the Caribbean islands
are closely linked, with some countries being mega-diverse and with all
countries containing valuable ecosystems, often featuring high levels of
endemism. However, many participants agreed that Latin America could
be seen as a “series of islands” in terms of research and information
systems, with the sophistication and operation of scientific and
technical systems varying greatly throughout the region.
The meeting concluded that an IMoSEB would need
to find ways to overcome this fragmentation in order to
achieve effective networking and cooperation, with some
suggesting incentives for such action such as those that
exist in projects funded by the Organization of American
States.
Recognising that the consultative process revealed a number of needs to
improve the interface between science and policy at global and sub-global
levels, i.e.:
a) Need for independent scientific expertise
b) Need for more capacity
c) Need for improved communication
Recognising that there are a number of intergovernmental and non-
governmental institutions that address some of these needs;
Recognises additional needs for:
a) credible, timely and accessible information to support biodiversity
governance where this is not currently available,
b) the capacity to identify and respond rapidly to biodiversity-related
emergencies,
c) strengthening scientific activities at global and sub-global scales, and in the
short, medium and long term,
d) enhancing linkages between relevant information-using organisations;
e) providing linkages between science and policy interface for biodiversity
science and other environmental and development processes which
impact or depend on biodiversity;
Recommends that measures be taken to strengthen the science-policy interface
in ways that respect a number of principles:
a) be scientifically independent, credible, inclusive, and subject - where
appropriate - to critical expert peer review,
b) be policy legitimate through inter-governmental and multi-stakeholder
involvement in transparent and representative processes at all stages, be
policy relevant without being policy prescriptive,
c) be responsive to policy needs as identified by decision-making organs at
multiple scales, including biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs),
d) be communicated in a clear, readily accessible way through outreach to
decision-making bodies for their consideration and possible action,
e) be supported by a network of scientific and national capacities and by
capacity building integrated into the assessment process and/or networking
efforts,
f) be based on a robust conceptual framework respecting the scope of the
question under consideration with a focus on the impacts of biodiversity
change on ecosystem services and human well-being to enhance
understanding of the trade-offs involved in alternative decisions,
g) address decision-makers from governments and other sectors of society at
global, regional and national scales,
h) promote dialogue between international agencies and decision-makers;
Recommends further and urgent consideration of the establishment of a
means and enhancement of existing institutions, to provide an objective
source of information about biodiversity change and its impacts on ecosystem
services and human well-being, employing high scientific and technical
standards, and reflecting a range of views, expertise, and wide geographic
coverage, and more specifically:
a) to build upon, and promote, regular global and sub-global assessments of
the state and trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services, and their
effects on human well-being at multiple spatial scales,
b) to undertake or promote special studies on emerging issues of importance to
biodiversity, particularly those that are transnational and/or cross-cultural in
nature, either in response to requests of decision-makers or indicated by
science,
c) to contribute rapid, authoritative scientific information on biodiversity-related
emergencies at short time scales;
d) to promote development of the capacity to generate and use the information,
methodology and techniques to accomplish the above objectives,
e) to promote effective communication, including the results of activities
performed under (a), (b) and (c),
f) to undertake any other activities consistent with its objectives as may be
appropriate;
Invites the Executive Director of UNEP, in collaboration with the Government of
France and other governments, the CBD (secretariat, SBSTTA and COP
Bureaus) and the partners of the IMoSEB consultation process*, to convene an
intergovernmental meeting with relevant governmental, and non-
governmental organisations, including the relevant MEAs, academic
institutions and civil society (including local communities and indigenous
people) to consider establishing an efficient international science-policy
interface to address the above objectives, and with the following
characteristics:
a) be flexible, intergovernmental and include non-governmental stakeholders,
and build upon existing networks of scientists and knowledge-holders,
b) in collaboration and as a follow up of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, consider the need, scope and requirements for assessments
of biodiversity and ecosystem changes at the global level.
c) ensure the interaction with other relevant assessment processes;
Welcomes the pledge from the Government of France to provide the secretarial
and financial support to prepare the above meeting and its aftermaths;