Similar to how the IPCC represents key scientific consensus on climate change, IPBES produces important findings for decision making and stakeholders in the field of biodiversity. In 2019, the plenary yielded a global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services that sounded the alarm on a global crisis of biodiversity loss. According to the report, one million plant and animal species across the world are at risk of extinction. Although these numbers are sobering, this knowledge is essential for conservation policy and science. This year, the platform planned to approve two new reports highlighting the diverse uses and values of wildlife to humans and non-humans.

IPBES 9 took place both virtually and in Bonn, Germany from July 3-9, 2022. Students from the master program Global Change Ecology (GCE) could attend either as observers of the conference or as volunteers with the IPBES secretariat. In both cases, they were able to attend sessions, meet science and policy experts, and see firsthand the process of international negotiations. GCE sent more than 20 student volunteers to help run the event. This included tasks such as registration, running the help desk, managing the IPBES social media channels, working in the back office, and managing representatives in the session.

Personal Reflections from a Back Office Volunteer

When I first signed up to volunteer at IPBES 9, I was not sure what to expect. In all honesty, I had never actually heard of IPBES before. Nevertheless, I was interested in learning more about the organization and gaining experience through volunteering.

I chose to volunteer in the back office because I have technical skills that could come in handy. I had volunteered at some conferences in the past, so I figured that the experience would be somewhat similar. However, upon arriving at the venue, I realized that this experience would be different in some key ways.

For one, the stakes were much higher. As a matter of international diplomacy, attendees were not representing themselves, but their governments. Additionally, while IPBES is not a UN body, the United Nations Environment Program provides the secretariat for the plenary. As a result, student volunteers got to volunteer and interact with UN employees. The international and intergovernmental nature of this event made it feel very “serious” and, as student volunteers, we appreciated the importance of our work. 

When it came to my work specifically, I was very satisfied with my experience volunteering in the back office. I assisted the technical team with essential tasks such as:

• Sending push notifications to attendees through the conference app
• Updating the session schedule as times changed
• Posting media releases to the website
• Managing and monitoring online participants
• Troubleshooting technical issues

As an outside observer of IPBES 9, it would be easy to overlook the people working “behind the scenes”. As a volunteer, however, it is clear that there is a lot more that goes into these negotiations than meets the eye. While the experts, policy makers, diplomats and stakeholders are the focus of the negotiations, it is the IPBES secretariat and conference technicians that ensure the meeting goes smoothly.

Working on the technical side of the conference meant doing a lot of “little things” such as hitting “record” on zoom sessions, checking equipment, responding to emails, editing powerpoints, etc. Many of these tasks needed to be completed simultaneously or in a limited time period. While the work was fast-paced, I definitely feel like I learned a lot about managing my time, prioritizing tasks, and problem solving. Additionally, I always worked on a team and with a supervisor who could assist if need be.

Due to the nature of the work, I listened closely to the discussions and followed along for the duration of the (lengthy) sessions. As a result, I was able to pay attention to the details and nuances of the diplomatic process. It was surprising to see how finely the member states dissected the language and terminology of the reports. Of course, the point of the plenary is precisely this, to involve various governments in the communication of science and policy. This meant that every member state had to agree on every single word of the documents approved.

The tedious reviewing process took place every day, all day. When the reports were finally approved, it was hard not to get swept up in the emotion of it all. It was particularly exciting for the experts who had been working on these documents for four years to finally see their work come to fruition. Even as a volunteer who had just recently learned about the mission of IPBES, I was ecstatic that I could see this process happen. In a way, it felt as if I were along for the ride, especially after seeing all of the hard work that the volunteers, secretariat and technicians had put into facilitating it. The final days were marked by overwhelming excitement (and exhaustion) after a very busy and intense week. Now we waited for the outside world to get the reports.

Results of IPBES 9

The result of IPBES 9 was the publishing of two landmark reports, the “Assessment report on the sustainable use of wild species” and the “Methodological assessment regarding the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits”. With thousands of references and dozens of contributing authors, these reports present important scientific and policy consensus.

According to the sustainable use assessment, 1 in 5 people around the world rely on some 50,000 wild species for purposes such as food, fuel, medicine etc. For the world’s poor, this dependence is even greater. The findings from this assessment highlight the importance of wild species for humans.

The values assessment points out that the predominant short-sighted view of nature is the main driver of biodiversity loss. Instead of viewing nature as merely a commodity to exploit, the assessment highlights more than 50 alternative methods and approaches to value nature. This includes indigenous perspectives and women’s involvement in stewardship decisions.

When considered together, the findings highlight the importance of changing our relationship to nature and protecting biodiversity. Especially in order to protect vulnerable people all over the world in the face of climate change, conflict, the pandemic, and inflation. As a student who studies in the field of ecology, biodiversity, and global change, it was a truly educational experience to learn about these two reports. Not to mention the skills, experiences, and networking I did along the way.

The post Reflections on IPBES 9 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

On Monday, the 2^nd of August, 2021, my alarm clock rang early in the morning. It took me around 9 hours to travel by train from Hesse to Ruegen, Germany’s largest island in the North-East. After arriving, I was happy to find myself on the second to last ferry boat of the day from the Island of Ruegen to the Isle of Vilm. After another 20 minutes running time, the other passengers and I took our first steps on the isle. The passengers were young academics who participated in the “interdisciplinary science meeting on biodiversity research under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),” which was organised by the “International Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm” (INA). The INA is part of a branch office of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), which is one of the government’s departmental research agencies and works in the area of responsibility of the German federal environment ministry. The interdisciplinary science meeting takes place every summer and mainly addresses bachelor´s, master´s and Ph.D. students. Mrs. Stadler, the meeting host, warmly welcomed the students and showed the way to the reception desk. Along the way, a big information board close to the harbour provides every arriving guest with information on the fascinating history of the isle:

• The Isle of Vilm was already settled in Stone Age 7,500 years ago.
• In Middle Ages, the isle became a Christian place of pilgrimage.
• During the 19^th and 20^th century, many artists came to the isle to be inspired by the nature, which resulted in some paintings of scenes around the isle.
• In 1936, Vilm became a nature protection site.
• From 1962 to 1990, the isle was used by the government of the German Democratic Republic to host guests.
• In 1990, the biosphere reserve Southeast-Ruegen was designated. Most parts of Vilm are covered by the core area of the biosphere reserve. In the same year, the INA was founded.
• Today, the INA organises up to 70 events and welcomes around 1,700 participants from all over the world per year.

I was happy and grateful to be one of those participants this year.
After the registration, everyone looked for their assigned house. Every house consists of several guestrooms. I was the only one at my floor because of the corona situation. After dinner, the meeting started. The programme began with an introduction, followed by a presentation about the involvement of youth and young adults in international conventions.
On Tuesday, Prof. Dr. Volker Mosbrugger gave the first presentation of the day. He mentioned some surveys and reports like the IPBES Global Assessment Report (GCE students directly reported from IPBES 7 where the report was adopted) which document the ongoing biodiversity crisis. The professor stressed that there is still much unknown in biodiversity and presented the “Research Initiative for the Conservation of Biodiversity” of the German federal ministry of education, which aims to close some of those knowledge gaps.
Afterwards, each participant of the meeting presented his or her current scientific project for 20 minutes, followed by ten minutes of discussion. The topics were wide-ranging and interdisciplinary but always with a reference to the CBD. I presented some of the results of my master´s thesis, “The accountability of biodiversity strategies at the level of the Convention on Biological Diversity, European Union and the Federal Republic of Germany,” which I had done at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ). Some topics that other participants dealt with included the wild harvesting of medicinal plants, agri-environmental policy in Bavaria, effectiveness of UNESCO biosphere reserves, environmental ethics, wild mammals in urban areas, sea use planning, and knowledge of species.

After lunch, Mrs. Stadler offered an isle tour. Because most parts of Vilm are covered by the core area of the biosphere reserve, there is only one path which leads around the northern part of the isle and guests must not leave it. Mrs. Stadler explained that animals like deer could migrate from the Island of Rugen to the Isle of Vilm (that is even smaller than one square kilometre) when the water is frozen in winter. However, the distance would be too long for smaller animals like squirrels. Our meeting host emphasised the enormous diversity of ecological conditions on that isle by giving the following example: Grapevine snails can be found on one side of the isle, but not on the other side. The reason is that one side of the isle has some lime that offers a favourable environment for the snails, whereas the other side is too acidic. I was impressed by all of the deadwood and old trees, which can rarely be found in German forests. However, the forest of Vilm cannot be considered a virgin forest in the strict sense because it was used by humans in the past. Mrs. Stadler showed us the oldest tree on the isle at roughly 600 years old. However, the tree is not alive anymore.

On Wednesday, the presentations continued.
On Thursday, the 5^th of August, 2021, the meeting came to an end. After breakfast, the ferry boat brought us back to the Island of Ruegen.
After the meeting, every participant was invited to submit a short text on his or her scientific project. Those contributions have been collected by the BfN and will be published in a BfN script soon.
I liked the meeting very much. The programme was dense and demonstrated the highly interdisciplinary subject of biodiversity with all its input. Besides the presentations, it was refreshing to talk to so many young and motivated people after a time of corona lockdowns. And, finally, it is worthwhile to visit the Isle of Vilm, with its fascinating history and nature. The Isle of Vilm is not just a place to talk about the conservation of nature – it is a place to show how nature develops if nature is allowed to be nature.

If you are interested to participate in one of the next meetings, regularly have a look on the homepage of the INA.

The post Talking about Biodiversity on an Isle full of History and Nature appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Why did you decide to study GCE?
GCE was the only study program that I found which combined multiple different topics pertaining to sustainability. I have always enjoyed learning about a broad range of subjects and GCE offered exactly that.

What did you like most about GCE?
Like I said previously, the broad range of subjects is what I liked about GCE the most. However, I was always drawn to the Societal Change modules since they included ways in which we might steer away from the unsustainable path our global civilization is currently on. In terms of the study program itself, I particularly liked the teaching and examination format. It encouraged critical thinking and practical work, rather than the outdated rote learning and repetition of information. This is especially relevant in today’s world where information can be accessed in a matter of seconds using a smartphone and an internet connection while the ability to critically process that information is much more important.

How has your career continued after GCE?
After essentially a year of looking for a job I applied for a PhD at the Professorship of Ecological Services with Prof. Dr. Thomas Koellner as the supervisor. And for the past three years this has been my job. My contract has finished in February 2021, but I am still continuing to work on the PhD.

What is your current position? What are your tasks?
Currently I am partly employed as a GCE lecturer teaching the course M16 Modeling Ecosystem Functions with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). And the rest of my time is split between working on the PhD and caring for my newborn son together with my wife.

How has GCE supported your career?
GCE enabled me to do two internships, one at IPBES and one at UNCCD where I also worked as a consultant. I found these experiences at the UN extremely valuable and enjoyed them very much. GCE has also given me the opportunity to further my career by doing a PhD, as well as allowing me to give something back to GCE by becoming one of the lecturers.

What do you recommend to the current GCE students?
I would say, make the most out of the variety of courses offered by GCE. It is a rare opportunity since the vast majority of study programs force you to specialize in a single narrow field while GCE gives you the option for specialization, as well as a broader perspective.

The post GCE Alumni (12): PhD at the Professorship of Ecological Services appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

28.04.2019 – 04.05.2019, Paris (France): 36 GCE students participated in the seventh plenary session of IPBES as “observers”.
For more information click here

22.06.2019, Regensburg (Germany): GCE sent a football team to the “EliteCup” 2019.

29.06.2019, Bayreuth (Germany): The traditional GCE Summerfête took place in the Ecological-Botanical Garden of the University of Bayreuth.
For more information click here

14.10.2019, Bayreuth (Germany): GCE students from the previous years welcomed the new “GCE 2019″ students generation during the GCE Welcome Meeting. 29 new students were expected to start the master´s course in the winter term 2019/20.
For more information click here

25.10.2019 – 27.10.2019, Wallenfels (Germany): GCE students from different years spent a weekend together to get to know each other better.

09.11.2019, Munich (Germany): A group of the new GCE 2019 students travelled to Munich and took part in the “Get Together” of the Elite Network of Bavaria.

09.12.2019, Munich (Germany): 21 “old” GCE students were part of the graduation ceremony of the Elite Network of Bavaria.
For more information click here

13.12.2019 – 14.12.2019, Bayreuth (Germany): The training workshop “Global Diversity” was conducted. The voluntary workshop was organised for 30 GCE students.
For more information click here

We wish everyone a happy new year and look forward to the future together!

The post 2019 – The GCE Year in Review appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“IPBES” and the “Global Assessment Report”

“On the way to ecological insolvency” (spiegel-online), “One million species threatened by extinction” (tagesschau.de), and “Humanity is eradicating nature from earth” (ZDFheute) were three among other similar headlines which suddenly appeared in online media on Monday, May 6, 2019. The headlines were triggered by a press conference held in Paris in which the results of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services were presented to the public. This report was the result of weeklong negotiations that took place during the seventh plenary session of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES, also known as the World Biodiversity Council, is an independent intergovernmental organization. It is tasked with providing scientific advice to policymakers in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In the summary of the Global Assessment Report, contributing scientists describe the current global state of biodiversity. To sum it up, the loss of biodiversity is quickening at a worrying pace.

The report is the result of a multi-year process: According to IPBES, 150 experts from 50 countries worked on the report for three years. This is the first ever global-scale intergovernmental report on nature, ecosystems, and human services. The actual main report entails over 1,000 pages, but its key messages have been summarized for policy makers. For the report to be officially recognized, it had to be approved by the then 132 IPBES member states. Adoption of the report was the main theme of the seventh IPBES Assembly (“IPBES 7”), which took place from April 29 to May 4, 2019 at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris.

“IPBES 7” and the Uni Bayreuth Global Change Ecology students

The international Elite Master’s Program “Global Change Ecology” (GCE) at Uni Bayreuth deals with global environmental changes of the 21st century, such as the loss of biodiversity. As the degree program has an observer status for IPBES, about 30 GCE students made their way to Paris as “observers.” For some students, this was their first participation in an intergovernmental assembly. The simultaneous surprise and frustration over the sometimes torturously slow progress during the negotiations was correspondingly great: Every single sentence of the summary of the Global Assessment Report had to be accepted by all member states present. In practice, this means that negotiations on the wording of some sentences and sections took hours. As the proceedings dragged and fell behind schedule, the chairman became increasingly concerned and animated. The late-houred negotiations did not go unnoticed on the faces of some delegation members. If the Global Assessment Report had not been approved by the General Assembly, it would have signaled a major setback for IPBES, every scientist and stakeholder involved, and above all for the protection of biodiversity.
It was encouraging to see the commitment of people working for the IPBES to succeed. In addition, besides GCE students, many other observers were present, such as representatives of indigenous communities or NGOs who, like us, wished for a successful outcome of the negotiations. “I could feel that there is a lot of people like us around the world – we are only separated most of the time”, says Ana Leticia Vital, a GCE student from Brazil. “In other words, I had the perception that we are not alone concerned about nature and biodiversity conservation.” Aanu Samuel Busari, a GCE student from Nigeria, was thrilled with the global expertise that went into the Global Assessment Report. What impressed him most was “the incredible amount of human and cultural intelligence which go into the production of such a globally accepted legal and scientific document.” As observers, GCE students were in the stands during the negotiations, but people from all over the world were mingling in the entrance hall of the UNESCO headquarters: delegates from various countries, scientists, indigenous peoples, conservationists, and, in between, the GCE students. Much was exciting and new in the first few days, but gradually the processes became more and more familiar.

Fortunately, on the last day, the Global Assessment Report was wholly accepted by all delegations. The immense tension among participants vanished with thunderous applause and all the frustration and tiredness from the previous days had suddenly disappeared. So what remains?
On the one hand, a comprehensive and alarming report which is internationally-recognized now. Although this has no direct political consequences, it increases the pressure on policymakers currently negotiating the post-2020 global biodiversity framework which is to be decided in 2020. Donald Mwaba, a GCE student from Zambia says: “Science is very clear about global changes happening. What remains unclear is whether governments and its people will make the necessary adjustments to counter these changes.”
On the other hand, IPBES 7 has shown that much is possible when willpower remains. The Global Assessment Report provides a simultaneous warning and hope: The results are alarming, but their emergence is the result of global cooperation of countless dedicated people from various professional fields. If this energy is used to not only account for current problems, but also to ensure a life-friendly future, there is still hope despite pessimistic headlines such as those mentioned at the beginning. Ana also thinks: “Somehow, IPBES 7 renewed my hope for our future” and Aanu recalls: “Policies and politics may divide us, but that we are first humans should unite us.”

English editing kindly done by Taylor Blair

The post Warning and hope for our common future: IPBES 7 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

„IPBES“ und der „Global Assessment Report“

„Auf dem Weg in die ökologische Insolvenz“ (spiegel-online), „Eine Million Arten vom Aussterben bedroht“ (tagesschau.de) und „Menschheit tilgt die Natur von der Erde“ (ZDFheute) sind drei von weiteren ähnlichen Überschriften, die am Montag, dem 06. Mai 2019, in den online-Medien plötzlich auftauchten. Die Schlagzeilen wurden von einer zuvor in Paris abgehaltenen Pressekonferenz ausgelöst, in der die Ergebnisse des sog. „Global Assessment Report[s] on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services“ der Öffentlichkeit vorgestellt worden waren. Dieser Report war das Ergebnis einwöchiger Verhandlungen, die während der siebten Vollversammlung der „Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services“ (IPBES) stattgefunden hatten. IPBES, auch „Weltbiodiversitätsrat“ genannt, ist eine unabhängige zwischenstaatliche Organisation. Ihre Aufgabe ist es, politische Entscheidungsträger im Bereich der Biodiversität und Ökosystemdienstleistungen wissenschaftlich zu beraten. In der Zusammenfassung des Global Assessment Reports beschreiben die Wissenschaftler den aktuellen globalen Zustand der Biodiversität. Um es mit einem Satz zusammenzufassen: Der Verlust der Biodiversität schreitet in einem beunruhigend schnellen Tempo voran.

Der Report ist das Ergebnis eines mehrjährigen Prozesses: Laut IPBES arbeiteten 150 Experten aus 50 Ländern drei Jahre lang an der Erstellung des Berichts. Dieser ist der erste jemals erschienene zwischenstaatliche Bericht über den globalen Zustand der Natur, der Ökosysteme und ihrer Dienstleistungen für den Menschen. Der eigentliche Hauptbericht umfasst mehr als 1.000 Seiten, wurde jedoch für die politischen Entscheidungsträger auf die Kernaussagen zusammengefasst. Damit der Bericht offiziell anerkannt werden kann, musste dieser zuvor von den damals 132 IPBES-Mitgliedsstaaten genehmigt werden. Die Verabschiedung des Reports war das Hauptthema der siebten IPBES-Vollversammlung („IPBES 7“), die vom 29. April bis zum 4. Mai 2019 im UNESCO-Hauptquartier in Paris stattfand.

„IPBES 7“ und die Bayreuther „Global Change Ecology“-Studierenden

Der internationale Bayreuther Elite-Masterstudiengang „Global Change Ecology“ (GCE) beschäftigt sich mit den globalen Umweltveränderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts, wie dem Verlust der Biodiversität. Da der Studiengang einen Beobachterstatus für IPBES besitzt, machten sich ca. 30 GCE-Studierende als „Beobachter“ auf den Weg nach Paris. Für einige Studierende war es die erste Teilnahme an einer internationalen Vollversammlung. Entsprechend groß war bei manchen die Überraschung und zugleich Frustration über den teilweise quälend langsamen Fortschritt während der Verhandlungen: Jeder einzelne Satz der Zusammenfassung des Global Assessment Reports musste von allen anwesenden Mitgliedsstaaten akzeptiert werden. In der Praxis bedeutete dies, dass die Verhandlungen um die Formulierungen mancher Sätze und Abschnitte stundenlang dauerten. Je weiter man hinter den Zeitplan zurück fiel, desto besorgter und energischer wurde der leitende Vorsitzende und desto länger zogen sich die Verhandlungsrunden bis in die Nacht hinein, was an den Gesichtern einiger Delegationsmitglieder nicht spurlos vorbei ging. Wäre der Global Assessment Report von der Vollversammlung nicht angenommen worden, hätte dies einen großen Rückschlag für alle involvierten Wissenschaftler und Akteure, für IPBES und vor allem für den Schutz der Biodiversität bedeutet.
Es war ermutigend zu sehen, mit welchem Engagement sich die Menschen, die für IPBES arbeiteten, für einen Erfolg einsetzten. Zudem waren neben uns Bayreuthern viele weitere Beobachter anwesend, wie z.B. Vertreter indigener Einwohner oder NGOs, die sich wie wir einen erfolgreichen Ausgang der Verhandlungen wünschten. „Ich konnte spüren, dass es viele Menschen auf der Welt gibt, die wie wir sind. Nur sind wir die meiste Zeit über voneinander getrennt“, erzählt Ana Leticia Vital, „Global Change Ecology“-Studierende aus Brasilien. „Mit anderen Worten: Ich merkte, wir sind nicht alleine mit unseren Sorgen um den Schutz der Biodiversität.“ Aanu Samuel Busari, GCE-Studierender aus Nigeria, war von der “globalen Expertise” begeistert, aus welcher der Global Assessment Report heraus entstand. Am meisten beeindruckte ihn „die unglaubliche Menge an menschlicher und kulturelle Intelligenz, welche in die Erstellung dieses globalen, wissenschaftlich und politisch anerkannten Dokuments floss.“ Als Beobachter befanden sich die GCE-Studierenden während den Verhandlungen auf der Zuschauertribüne, in der Eingangshalle des UNESCO-Hauptquartiers vermischte sich aber die ganze Welt: Delegationsmitglieder aus den verschiedensten Ländern, Wissenschaftler, Indigene, Naturschützer, Wirtschaftsvertreter und zwischendrin die Bayreuther Studierenden. In den ersten Tagen war noch vieles aufregend und neu, nach und nach wurden die Abläufe aber immer vertrauter.

Am letzten Tag konnte der Global Assessment Report in seiner Gesamtheit zum Glück doch noch von allen Delegationen angenommen werden. Unter tosendem Applaus fiel die ganze Anspannung der letzten Tage von den Teilnehmern ab und aller Frust und die Müdigkeit waren plötzlich verschwunden. Was bleibt?
Zum einen ein umfassender, alarmierender Report, der nun international anerkannt ist. Zwar zieht dieser keine direkten politischen Konsequenzen nach sich, erhöht aber den Druck auf die politischen Entscheidungsträger, die derzeit den neuen globalen Rahmen für die biologische Vielfalt verhandeln, welcher 2020 beschlossen werden soll. Donald Mwaba, GCE-Studierender aus Sambia sagt dazu: „Die Wissenschaft ist zu den derzeit stattfindenden globalen Umweltveränderungen sehr eindeutig. Unklar bleibt, ob die Regierungen und Menschen die notwendigen Maßnahmen ergreifen werden, um sich diesen Veränderungen entgegenzusetzen.“
Zum anderen bleibt die Erkenntnis, dass wenn der Wille da ist, vieles möglich ist. Der Global Assessment Report ist Warnung und Hoffnung zugleich: Die Ergebnisse sind alarmierend, seine Entstehung aber das Resultat globaler Zusammenarbeit unzähliger engagierter Menschen aus den verschiedensten Bereichen. Wenn diese Energie nicht nur für die Bestandsaufnahme der aktuellen Probleme aufgebracht wird, sondern auch für die Sicherstellung einer lebensfreundlichen Zukunft, besteht trotz pessimistischer Schlagzeilen wie den anfangs erwähnten noch Hoffnung. Auch Ana findet: „Irgendwie hat IPBES 7 meine Hoffnung für unsere Zukunft erneuert“ und Aanu erinnert daran: „Die Politik mag uns voneinander trennen, dass wir zu allererst aber Menschen sind, sollte uns vereinen.“

The post Warnung und Hoffnung für unsere gemeinsame Zukunft: IPBES 7 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Those are four sentences taken out from the IPBES summary for policymakers of the “Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”, the first intergovernmental report about the global state of nature, ecosystems and ecosystem services ever.
Now, the final version of the IPBES report is available and worth reading:
IPBES Global Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers

For more information about the Global Assessment Report, IPBES 7 and the attendance of around 30 GCE students, please click here:
IPBES 7 – 2019

The post Final version of the summary of the IPBES Global Assessment Report is now available appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

As a master’s student of natural science, I know of what I am speaking: A vast number of scientific papers is extremely hard to read (and therefore understand). Additionally, the reach of the publishing journals is limited – often, you need to pay high amounts of money just to access a paper. People with a good understanding of the subject and with the ability to communicate these papers are truly needed. In order to get insights into this business, I went to the 11th World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) in Lausanne, in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. It took place in the L’Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), a research institute and university in Lausanne.

The WCSJ is an event by the World Federation of Science journalists and is held every two years. In 2017, it was in San Francisco, USA. The next conference will take place in Medellín, Colombia, as was announced at the end of the event in Lausanne. This notice made for loud cheering from the side of the Colombian people at the conference.

In total, 1200 people took part in this conference: journalists, scientists, members of the EU, chairpersons of international scientific associations such as the IPCC or IPBES, members of communication boards of universities all around the globe – and some (very few) students like me. The aim of this biannual conference is to bring together professionals and students in science journalism to exchange skills, ideas and thoughts. But also, to build networks and form collaboration on a global scale. During the conference, many science journalists reported about their way into science writing and the possibilities and challenges of this job. 

The spectrum of talks, panel discussions, workshops and presentations was broad. There were three big auditoriums, hosting one major event after the other with a variety of topics. “The new goldrush: Prospects and controversies in deep seabed mining”, “Fake-news in science: How to recognize and fight it” or “Biodiversity: Reporting a silent crisis” – there was something for everyone. Researchers and science journalist from all over the world came together, discussed possible solutions for different challenges. Not all speakers could attend the conference physically, which is why some of them were called in via Skype. During a talk about marine protection, a number of researchers took part in a panel discussion, some of them sitting in chairs at the beach on a small island in the Indian Ocean, their feet in the white sand, the sound of the waves in the background echoing in the big hall in Lausanne. One of the highlights of the conference was the talk of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Hoesung Lee. The auditorium was jam-packed, everyone wanted to hear what he had to say. He spoke about the findings of the current report on 1.5°C warming. He especially pointed out the necessity of combining different fields of research: “We have a good understanding of the technological and economic feasibility, but the social dimensions leave room for more knowledge”, Hoesung says. “We need a change in behaviour. We need a different economy.” He also talks about the choices in private and daily life. Particularly, he emphasizes the need for better infrastructure in remote areas: “Public transportation in cities is often very good. But in the countryside, you often have no choice.” Yet, one aspect he is not talking about – even when asked from the audience – is a change in diet. Even though it is well known that the meat consumption is one of the main reasons for greenhouse gas emissions. “What food choices people make, is not our area.”

Another special feature of the conference were the field trips offered on various days. Every participant could sign up in advance for the field trip they were interested in. Those trips included, for example, a trip to the research station at Jungfraujoch at 3700 meters of altitude, where climatic research has been done for the last 100 years. As temperature measurements at the station suggest, that the annual mean temperature has risen by 1.8°C since 1933. “I remember, when I started my research here around 40 years ago, the glacier was so much bigger”, Bertrand Calpini says and lets his glance wander over the Eiger glacier, which spans under the research station. He is head of the Deputy Director of the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (MeteoSwiss) and Head of the Measurements and Data Department in MeteoSwiss.

The final speech of the conference was held by Bob Watson, chairmen of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) since 2017. With wild gestures and his loud voice, the 71-year-old scientist with the greying white beard calls the audience for action. In his speech – which was originally set for 40 minutes and shortly before Watson’s presentation was cut to 20 minutes – he urges everyone to do write about biodiversity loss and climate change, pointing out the absolute necessity to change humankind’s current lifestyle. “In 2060, we will be probably beyond 2°C of global warming, more likely are 3-3.5°C”, he says while walking on the stage. “That means that countries have to double and triple their efforts to maintain the climate below 2°C warming! This is necessary to secure biodiversity and the global climate!”

What I have taken home from this conference is that it is absolutely necessary to look at as many facets of science as possible. Only focussing on one topic, one direction, may give ideas for this very subject. Yet, in order to understand the bigger picture, and to be able to write about it in a comprehensible way, it is essential to illuminate it from every perspective possible. It’s not only political injustice – but it can also go in hand with environmental disasters caused by political decisions. It’s not only climate change – it’s as well the social impacts that go along with it.

The post A review on the World Conference for Science Journalists appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“Human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before.” (p. 11)

“Nature across most of the globe has now been significantly altered by multiple human drivers, with the great majority of indicators of ecosystems and biodiversity showing rapid decline.” (p. 11)

“Climate change is a direct driver that is increasingly exacerbating the impact of other drivers on nature and human well-being.” (p. 13)

“In the past 50 years, the human population has doubled, the global economy has grown nearly fourfold and global trade has grown tenfold, together driving up the demands for energy and materials.” (p. 13)

These sentences are some of the main messages of the recently published “summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services” of the “Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” (IPBES). IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body and supported by the UN. Its task is the scientific advice of policymakers in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sometimes, IPBES is compared with the more well-known “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) where scientists are supporting the policymakers in the field of climate change.
Written by scientists, the text of the summary of the global assessment report is matter-of-fact but the content is very worrying: The loss of biodiversity takes place at an alarming rate. Around 1 million of species are in danger of extinction in the coming years and decades. The current global rate of species extinction is “already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years”. The scientists also conclude that “seventy-five per cent of the land surface is significantly altered, 66 per cent of the ocean area is experiencing increasing cumulative impacts, and over 85 per cent of wetlands (area) has been lost.”
However, the alarming sentences are the final results of a multi-annual process: According to IPBES, the report underwent a process of 3 years and was prepared by 150 experts from 50 countries. It is the first intergovernmental report about the global state of nature, ecosystems and ecosystem services ever.
The original main report comprises more than 1,000 pages which are summarised in the 39 pages of the summary for policymakers (so that everyone has the time to read the urgent main messages). However, the report needs to be adopted by the 132 member states of IPBES to become official.
Every year, the member states meet to adopt reports and/or to take further decisions. The recent seventh session of the IPBES Plenary (IPBES 7) took place at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris from Monday, 29 April to Saturday, 4 May, 2019.

Here, around 30 of us GCE students come into play. Because our master´s programme has an “observer status” during the IPBES plenaries, we students could attend the negotiations. The day before the plenary started, the stakeholders came together at the UNESCO headquarters. One could meet representatives from many different interesting organisations, for example representatives of indigenous people. I was surprised by the degree of active involvement of the indigenous people in the IPBES activities. During the stakeholder day, the documents which should be adopted at the end of the plenary session were presented. The summary of the global assessment report was not the only document but the most prominent one during IPBES 7. In addition to that, some of the most important people during IPBES 7 came on the stage like the (former) IPBES chairman Robert Watson, the Executive Secretary Anne Larigauderie or the leading authors of the global assessment report. All in all, the stakeholder day was very useful to get an overview of the coming days.
On the next day, the seventh plenary session was inaugurated. The opening started with a touching performance of young dancers who symbolised the beauty and importance of an intact nature. In my opinion, it was a statement that the older policymakers should not forget the needs of the younger generations during the negotiations. During the next days, we master students were the “youngest” people at IPBES 7. The performance was followed by some speeches like a speech given by François de Rugy, the French environment minister.
In the evening, there was a reception at the National Museum of Natural History. I think it was a good plan of the organisers to start the first day with the impressive dancing performance and to finish it in a museum with dining next to a multitude of exhibited animals. The animals were showing the beauty of diversity and symbolised the final call to take actions to prevent that museums will become the last “habitats” of those species.

In the following days, IPBES 7 worked in different groups on different issues and documents. I mainly joined the working group on the global assessment report. The process was the following: Every sentence of the summary for policymakers had to be approved. To do so, the respective paragraph was projected on the screen. One of the scientific authors presented the respective paragraph and explained what was modified compared to the previous version (before the plenary session, the member states could submit requests for modifications). Subsequently, the delegates of the member states had the chance to propose modifications for the current working document. The chairman had the task to lead the discussions and to find compromises and the present authors answered questions and paid attention that the modified sentences were scientifically acceptable. The discussions continued up to the point where every delegation could accept the respective sentence. This means in practice that the discussions about some sentences and paragraphs took hours. If the parties could not find a compromise, a so called “friends of the chair” group was formed. Every interested delegation could participate in the “friends of the chair” (which usually met during the official breaks) and negotiate up to the point where everyone could agree to the compromise.
Already after the first paragraph, the working group was behind schedule. The delay became worse and worse. With increasing delay, the chairman became more and more worried and tried to speed up the negotiations. Interestingly, mostly the same countries piped up whereas other delegations did not say anything. The summary of the global assessment report had to be approved by Saturday at 18.00 o´clock at the latest. In the meantime, I was afraid that the negotiations will not succeed. If the global assessment report had not been approved, it would have been a big setback for the scientists and stakeholders involved, for IPBES and especially for the protection of biodiversity. However, looking back, I guess the lack of time is common in international negotiations. Shortage of time increases pressure on everyone. Because of the pressure, “friends of the chair” groups were formed more often, the chairman became stricter and the negotiations were extended into the night at the end.
Fortunately, the concluding plenary session could approve the summary of the global assessment report on Saturday. A big applause and gladness was the result.

I have learned a lot in Paris during the week. Now, I am reading sentences like the cited ones at the beginning of this article in a different way. Now, I understand better that every sentence is the result of hard work of scientists and policymakers from all over the world and that every written word as well as missing word has a very specific and deliberate meaning. Now, I understand why some sentences sound circuitous because they are the results of compromises (I tried to avoid to cite those sentences at the beginning).
In addition to that, I have learned how IPBES by itself and how international negotiations in general are working. The idea to bring scientists and stakeholders together with policymakers seems to be very promising. My impression was that the people working for IPBES are very friendly and motivated to protect biodiversity. It was unique that we master students could attend the plenary session where the global assessment report was adopted. The report was the main news in media and it could become the foundation for new international measures to protect biodiversity. By itself, the report has no direct political consequences but because of its approval of 132 countries, the scientific information about the worsening of the state of our global biodiversity is internationally accepted now and politics cannot ignore it anymore. Currently, a new UN framework agreement for biological diversity is prepared which shall be adopted in 2020. Now, the decisive question is: How will politics, the society and every individual person respond to that? For me, IPBES 7 stands for huge concerns but also for hope at the same time. Both, a failure but also a change is still possible. It depends on everyone of us, which direction future will go.
The IPCC reports influenced our awareness of climate change and forced politicians to react. Thanks to the mainly young people of the “Fridays for Future” movement, climate change is rightly one of the most prominent topics these days. However, besides an appropriate climate, humans also depend on biodiversity and the ecosystem services. Climate change and the rapid decline of biodiversity are two of the most urgent problems of the 21^st century.
The global assessment report of IPBES is helping to raise our awareness of the need to protect biodiversity. Now, we should take advantage of this momentum, move forward and orient our behaviour on the insight that we need “Biodiversity for Future”!

The post IPBES 7: How to express the proceeding catastrophe? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The post One conference – 132 languages? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.