IPBES: Implementing an expert panel on biodiversity

---

Launched in 2005 in Paris (France), during the international conference on biodiversity (“Biodiversity. Science and Governance”), the concept of an international expert panel on biodiversity (described as the “biodiversity’s equivalent to the IPCC”) has developed considerably since then. Two years of consultations held around the globe on the International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) led to a meeting of scientists in Montpellier (France), in 2007, proposing its effective launch.

The French government (Ministry of Research and Higher Education) asked Laurence Tubiana, supported by the IMoSEB secretariat and by IDDRI’s experts, to assist in implementing the recommendations made in Montpellier at the international level and to contribute to drafting the strategic guidelines.

In Bonn (Germany), in 2008, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at its ninth meeting voted a resolution in favour of establishing an expert group, known as the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-stakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

IDDRI assisted in the preparation of the thirst meeting of this expert group, which was held in Putrajaya (Malaysia), in November 2008. The meeting aimed to bring together initiatives under the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (the first attempt at globally assessing ecosystems and their services provided to societies) and the IMoSEB towards exploring mechanisms to improve relevant science-policy interfaces. This consultative process revealed the need to conduct a gap analysis of the current science-policy interfaces in terms of biodiversity protection, and also to provide a clearer shared vision of the mandate of the future platform and the way in which it could function.

Two more Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-stakeholder Meetings on an IPBES were convened respectively in Nairobi (Kenya), in October 2009 (IPBES II), and in Busan (South Korea), in June 2010 (IPBES III). In particular, IPBES III considered whether to establish an IPBES and developed a draft text on its function, guiding principles and recommendations. Delegates eventually adopted the Busan outcome “whereby they agreed that an IPBES should, inter alia: be established; collaborate with existing initiatives on biodiversity and ecosystem services; and be scientifically independent."¹

The relationship between the IPBES and the CBD, in particular, was also a problematic issue. This relationship was partially clarified by the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the CBD in October 2010. In its decision, COP 10 endorsed the establishment of the IPBES by, inter alia:

• encouraging the UN General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session to consider the establishment of the IPBES;
• emphasizing the need for the proposed intergovernmental platform to follow the guidance provided by Governments in the Busan outcome and be responsive to the needs of the Convention and to strengthen the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA); and
• requesting the CBD Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the SBSTTA Bureau, to consider how the CBD could make full and effective use of the platform, seeking complementarity and avoiding duplication of work.

On 21st December 2010, the UN General Assembly responded to the above call by adopting a resolution on establishing an IPBES.² In such resolution, the General Assembly "equests the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), without prejudice to the final institutional arrangements of the platform, in collaboration with the secretariat of the [CBD], relevant international, regional and subregional organizations,³ [ ] …to convene a plenary meeting providing for the full and effective participation of all Member States, in particular representatives from developing countries, to consider modalities and arrangements to fully operationalize the platform at the earliest opportunity."

Following the adoption of the resolution, the European Union "welcomed the ‘green light’ the text had given for the Platform’s creation, saying it would be a major step forward in international efforts to strengthen scientific knowledge of the links connecting biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being."⁴

The Governing Council of UNEP at its twenty-sixth session to be held in Nairobi (Kenya) from 21 to 24 February 2011, is expected, in accordance with the Busan outcome, to adopt a work schedule related more specifically to institutional agreements ; a first plenary meeting will be held during fall 2011, with the objective of tackling explicitly matters which have been considered on a principle level, such as IPBES contribution to reinforcing capacity-building of developing countries and countries with economies in transition. 2010 audits on IPCC methods are supposed to be taken into account while IPBES procedures are being implemented.

The plenary, which should be the platform’s decision-making body, should be open to participation to all States Members of the United Nations and to regional economic integration organizations. Intergovernmental organizations and other relevant stakeholders should participate in the plenary as observers.

In accordance with the Busan outcome, the IPBES shall fulfill the objective of strengthening the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well being and sustainable development. In order to fulfil this objective, the platform should inter alia:

• respond to requests from Governments, including those conveyed to it by multilateral environmental agreements related to biodiversity and ecosystem services;
• encourage and take into account inputs and suggestions made by relevant stakeholders, such as intergovernmental organizations, international and regional scientific organizations, environment trust funds, non-governmental organisations and the private sector—a process to receive and prioritise requests should be established by the plenary;
• identify and prioritise key scientific information needed for policymakers and catalyse efforts to generate new knowledge, but should not directly undertake new research;
• perform assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages. Such assessments must be scientifically credible, independent and peer-reviewed, and must identify uncertainties;
• support policy formulation and implementation by identifying policy-relevant tools and methodologies;
• prioritise key capacity-building needs to improve the science-policy interface and provide and call for financial and other support for priority needs related to its activities, and catalyse financing for such capacity-building activities;
• be established as an independent intergovernmental body administered by one or more existing United Nations organizations, agencies, funds or programmes.

¹. For more information, see: C. Monfreda, W. Mwangi, T. Rosen, and L. Willetts (2010), "Summary Report of the Third Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-stakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES III)", International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Final Issue, Volume 158, No. 11, Monday, 14 June 2010, online at http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/biodiv/ipbes3/
². UNEP press release, Biodiversity year ends on high hote as UN General Assembly backs resolution for an 'IPCC-for Nature', available at: http://unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=653&ArticleID=6872&l=en
³. Such organizations include: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNesco), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
⁴. For further information see: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gaef3302.doc.htm

For more information, please contact: Lucien Chabason - Claudio Chiarolla