Towards an International

Mechanism of Scientific

Expertise on Biodiversity

Michel Loreau Department of Biology, McGill University,

Montréal, Canada

E-mail: michel.loreau@mcgill.ca

• 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 ?

JANEIRO/2007

MARÇO/2007

ABRIL/2007

AGOSTO/2007

OUTUBRO/2007

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.

NOVEMBRO/2007

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;