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.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an independent intergovernmental organization that was established in 2012. Its purpose is to “strengthen 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” [1]. The work of IPBES comprises giving policy support, building capacity and knowledge, developing and writing assessments and outreach. Governments as well as expert scientists are involved in this work.

The IPBES-8 Plenary, which was held online from the 14^th to the 24^th of June 2021, began with opening remarks from the IPBES chair, secretary, and regional groups, followed by an inspiring video on the achievements of IPBES since the last plenary in 2019. The opening video, which is embedded below, emphasized the great impact of the Global Assessment report, which launched at IPBES-7 in 2019. Organizers also highlighted the IPBES Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics, as well as the newly released IPBES – IPCC Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Climate Change. These two workshop reports show the importance of the work of IPBES in the most relevant context: Now, while we face the ongoing pandemic, but also as we grapple with continuing anthropogenic climate change.  

The main aim of IPBES-8 was to finalize and adopt two scoping reports. One on a “thematic assessment of the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health” [2] and the other on a “thematic assessment of the underlaying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity” [2].  Over the course of the conference, the collaboration of IPBES with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for work on the interlinkages between biodiversity and climate change was also discussed. GCE students had the opportunity to observe not only the plenary, but also working group sessions, where the scoping report drafts were discussed in detail. It was particularly interesting for students to see such a process happening, after learning about how these negotiations work theoretically in previous seminars offered by the GCE study program.

An important point on the agenda included the determination of venues for future plenary sessions. As worthwhile as it was to listen in to these negotiations online, hopefully GCE students can travel to the next IPBES plenary in person again! 

References:

[1] About IPBES, available under https://ipbes.net/about  

[2] IPBES/8/1* Provisional agenda, available under https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-8-plenary

The post GCE students at IPBES-8 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The Landesnaturschutzverband Baden-Württemberg e.V. (LNV)

In Baden-Württemberg, one of the 16 German states, there are 3 large nature conservation organizations: the BUND, the NABU and the LNV. LNV is an umbrella organization with 33 member organizations including nature conservation organizations, fishing, hunting and hiking organizations.

“Sometimes there are conflicts between freetime activities like mountain biking, climbing, diving and nature conservation”, explains Gerhard Brönner, director of the LNV in Baden-Württemberg.  “The LNV tries to find solutions together with all stakeholders. Nature conservation is successful only when it follows the principle “use it or lose it”. For this reason, it has to provide benefits to everybody, otherwise it is not effective in the long run.”.

Since those associations have different opinions and ideas, the LNV mediated the creation of agreements consisting of position papers followed by the 33 organizations. These position papers are important for county working groups as they serve as a directing line for working volunteers. Brönner deplored the recent difficulty to find new volunteers:

“Most of the work is done by volunteers. That is why it is essential for us to find dedicated people. Sometimes we have the chance to be in contact with relevant persons and try to get them to volunteer at the LNV, retired public servant for instance”, he says. According to Brönner, the LNV  is recently facing difficulties to engage young people in nature conservation.

“I guess it’s due to new technology distractions, a lack of commitment or a change in generation mindset and interests”, he says.

With so many different stakeholders it takes a long time and effort to develop a common position paper — the last one took about 1 year to be written. LNV was facing difficulties with a hunting regulation, but it finally found an agreement pleasing everybody. Some of these positions are very sensible and if one of the member organization has a different opinion it cannot speak about it in the name of the LNV. It has to stay in a “grey zone” with its own opinion. However, most of the time the 33 organizations cooperate and stay united to defend their view in front of the politicians.

Budget, funding and subvention

The LNV is mainly financed by the local state subventions and organization membership fees. “The state budget varies and has to be approved annually, it is rarely sufficient”,  complains Brönner.

Each of the 33 organizations belonging to the LNV pays a membership fee based on their size, which means based on the  number of individuals in the organization. Usually only NGOs can be members, nonetheless individuals can support the LNV by paying an annual membership fee of 300€. “Those supporting individual members don’t have any voting rights. In addition, they have to be approved by the LNV’s executive board to avoid any conflict of interest. For the same reason, the LNV refuses money from companies and corporate. Unlike famous international foundations such as WWF and Greenpeace sponsored by rich donors and organizations, we prefer to be as independent as possible. Even if we received two third of our budget from state subventions, we would still criticize it openly and freely”, the director of the LNV says.

For specific projects requiring extra expenses, the LNV raises fundings through donation campaigns. “Although donations vary, most of the fundings are constant over time as public subvention and membership fees are fixed”, says Brönner. All this money is used by the LNV to act politically as a lobbyist,  so that they can pay their office staff and defray their volunteer expenses.

LNV’s role at the state level

The LNV is a consulting organization, it doesn’t deal with practical environmental protection but gives detailed opinions about projects impacting nature and organizes lobbying legal actions. Currently, there is one court case against a windmill built in an area of the red kite (Milvus milvus).

Although the planning process was done by the company together with the public and the local authorities, the planning documents were never made public. Since the windmill was composed of less than 20 turbines, the LNV had access to the planning documents only at the court. The windmill project documents contained weaknesses and the LNV asked the court to review its decision about the construction project.

The LNV aims to  mediate conflicts between renewable energy and nature conservation. The organization ensures that wind turbines don’t harm migrating birds, bioenergy land doesn’t compete with food production and hydroenergy doesn’t disturb aquatic wildlife…

“On the one hand, we don’t have enough space in Baden-Württemberg to produce all the energy we need. On the other hand, in the north-western states of Germany there is more electricity produced than needed. To solve our energy problem, there is a project to bring electricity from Morocco with windmill on the coastline and solar panels in the Sahara. Only 5–10 % of the electricity would be lost during the transport and it could provide energy to all Europe” says Bronner.

The LNV helps county administrations create landscape conservation unions and mediate nature conservation actions between towns, farmers and conservationists. It also tries to convince the state government to provide funding for every county to have his union. Since there is an increasing demand of space for infrastructures and settlements, the LNV ensures the efficient use of the scarce urban land and abundant cheap rural land. “In the countryside, we try to integrate agriculture with nature conservation. We try to make farmers have a more biodiversity friendly and still economically viable management. We need to change the policy and get away from the current agri-environment scheme which subsidizes farmers on a hectare based evaluation”, Brönner says.

To control the implementation of impact compensation in the state of Baden-Württemberg, the LNV is also creating a system where all compensation measures are documented.

Once per year, in autumn, the LNV holds the “Zukunftsforum” or translated “Forum of the Future”. The aim is to bring different stakeholders together to discuss about pressing issues: last year’s conference, for example, they discussed about the declining insect diversity. Two years ago, the forum was about environmental education and the LNV tried to convince the local government to put back the basic identification of plants and insect families into the school curriculum.

“In the forum we promoted so called Naturpark schools which are primary schools in the south of the Black Forest where children go outside and learn practical subjects about nature. Pupils also meet rangers, foresters and carpenters to widen their view on the world”, says Brönner. “Nonetheless it is difficult to create these schools because teachers lack training about nature. Thus, they are afraid to go out of the school because of security and responsibility issues. Not to mention the difficulty to get parent permission and logistic funding. Another problem is the lack of experts in various conservation fields, people who know the insect or plant species. This is mainly due of the low wages in this sector.”

LNV’s role at the national and European level

As mentioned before, the LNV is a state run organization. Nonetheless, at the federal level, the LNV is part of the “Deutscher Naturschutzring” (translated German nature conservation ring) organization which assesses and shares the most efficient policies and practices among states.

“The Deutscher Naturschutzring regularly publishes reports and organizes meetings, so there is a communication between Federal states. A good example is a recent study searching for the best conservation regulations among states. We submitted the best ones to the Ministry of Baden-Württemberg and some were added in the state law.”, Brönner says.

The organization reminds the state government about their commitment to European environmental laws such as the Habitat, Birds directives and Natura 2000, in extreme cases it can complain to the European court of justice in Brussels.

To conclude, I would like to remind all of us that “alone we go faster, but together we go further “.

If we want our Earth and people to go far, we will need to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize partnerships. Organizations like the LNV are already doing this, enhancing cooperation between different stakeholders and acting for sustainable development and use of Central European landscapes.

Written by Thuan SARZYNSKI

The post Inside a German Organization of Nature Conservation appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

IPBES Chair Sir Robert Walton released the following statement:
“The issue of gender is of paramount importance to IPBES, but we still have a long way to go to get balanced representation. I encourage all governments to nominate women to all IPBES structures and activities.”

While there clearly is a great deal of work remaining to better promote and elevate gender equality, one thing is certain: the work of IPBES would not be possible without the superb contributions and leadership of women.

The future is female!

The post IPBES5- International Women’s Day appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Group 1 has discussed issues of local and indigenous knowledge and the review of IPBES. Issues discussed include the scope of the review, who will conduct the review, budget considerations, and how the results of the review will be used.

Group 2, meanwhile, has discussed the pending assessments, the scope of the sustainable use of wild species scoping document and capacity building. Specific issues under consideration include which of the pending assessments should be prioritised and whether the pending assessments should be commenced—questions which garnered a great deal of debate and disagreement among member nations. As commencement of the pending assessments is very much dependent upon budget considerations, Group 2 will meet with the budget group today.

As the discussions within the contact groups are open negotiations, details of country positions and the issues discussed cannot be published on the blog.

The post IPBES5, Day 3: Contact Group Meetings appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

1. A values assessment
2. An assessment of invasive species
3. An assessment of sustainable use of wild species.

Each of these assessments would cost approximately $1 million USD and take three years to complete.

Numerous countries, including Mexico, Colombia, and the Africa Group have stressed the critical importance of these new projects and their immediate implementation in 2017. However, not all countries agree on which thematic area should be prioritized. Several countries, including Japan, Sweden and China see the values assessment as being critical for direction of future policy. The Africa Group and the CITES secretariat highlighted the importance of the assessment of the sustainable use of wild species.

Other nations, however, noted the great limitations on financial and human resources, and argued that beginning the pending assessments before the current assessments have been completed would not be prudent or advisable. Among these countries were Germany, the United States, and New Zealand. Several countries also pointed out that it may be worthwhile to wait for the results of the regional assessments so that these can be used in scoping the pending assessments. Norway suggested that this may result in more targeted assessment and prevent duplication of work.

Contact groups on budget and the pending assessments will meet this afternoon. The assessments group will have to discuss whether any of the pending assessments should start–if so, which one and when. The two contact groups will also have to meet with one another to determine how any further assessments can be funded.

Owing to the diverse views on all of these issues, discussions are likely to be lively. The Chair Sir Robert Walton noted that parties should be polite and friendly with one another.

The post IPBES 5, Day 2: Should pending IPBES assessments be started? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The pollination assessment has had a wide impact. It has been taken up by governments of member states, the FAO, the scientific community, and CBD among others. There is now a coalition of the willing on pollinators who are now acting to protect pollinators; collaborating, sharing information, providing funding for research etc. Other member states were invited to join this coalition of the willing.

Speakers emphasized the need to find synergies between work on climate change and biodiversity. Biodiversity will play a key role in both mitigation of emissions and adaptation to climate change. Country level integration of biodiversity into development and investment strategies and across sectors will be critical to achieving climate change goals and the SDGs – and time is short. We need to reduce emissions, increase resilience and have a long-term vision of stewardship for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Emphasis was placed on the need to strengthen partnerships across sectors. This will be key in the future as the traditional approach of dealing with biodiversity in isolation is not sufficient if goals e.g. Aichi targets are to be met.

Opening statements were made by speakers representing different regions. Most regions expressed enthusiasm and continued support for the IPBES. The USA, however, took a notably pessimistic tone. The United States representative regarded the goals and direction of IPBES as “overly ambitious”; emphasizing the need to focus on realistic goals based on the current budget, the USA stated that it would not support the start of any new assessments or activities unless others are eliminated.

The EU has requested enhanced observer states, similar to that which it maintains in the IPCC. This would enable active engagement in terms of right to speak and reply, and to provide financial support to IPBES. Although many countries supported this move, the Africa Group repeatedly expressed its opposition.

The post IPBES 5, Day 1: Getting Started appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The incorporation of indigenous knowledge cannot be limited to late-stage discussions. Rather, successful implementation of the IPBES work programme must necessarily involve local and indigenous actors from the very beginning. This includes engaging with local communities to determine questions about what kind of research is valuable; these conversations can guide planning and prioritization. Showcasing the impact of issues relevant to biodiversity and ecosystem services on these communities is likewise stressed as essential. To enable these types of dialogue, local dialogue workshops were proposed.

The involvement of indigenous and local peoples in the mission and activities of IPBES is truly one of mutual benefits. All to often, the needs of these groups go unrecognized in strategy and policy planning. Equally problematic is the failure to recognize these groups’ unique skills and contribution regarding local habitats and ecosystems in the plans that will directly affect them. Local and indigenous people have demonstrated elite-level skills in such activities as mapping from which IPBES can greatly beneficial.

What is certain is that any effort to incorporate the skills and contributions of indigenous peoples must be conscious of the imbalance of our relationship with these people. Too often, such knowledge has been used without true consent or any respect for the intentions of the contributors. A peer-to-peer relationship–one of true collaboration, consent, listening, and learning–with indigenous people is needed to address these ethical concerns.

The political marginalization–both historical and present–of indigenous peoples has suppressed and inhibited the contribution of indigenous knowledge of ecosystem. Hopefully, the concentrated efforts of IPBES will allow the invaluable skills and offerings of these groups to be implemented into the work of promoting and protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services in a productive, respectful, and mutually beneficial manner.

The post Stakeholder Day: Indigenous & Local Knowledge appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Involving more actors, including local communities and indigenous people, in creating knowledge about biodiversity is a major focus. Opportunities and challenges for incorporating more stakeholders need to be identified.

Several potential solutions and strategic directions were raised. Innovation was highlighted, noting the goal of improving web usage, capabilities, and presence for the purpose of increasing accessibility. A broader web presence is intended to be implemented not only for IPBES, but likewise for IPCC. Thus, the external outreach and activities of these organizations can be complemented and expanded.

A question from the floor raised a specific problem within the broader issue stakeholder engagement: How can we improve communication with local—in particular, rural—communities. These communities directly affect land use and have been shown to create significant political upset when decision makers become perceived as elites.

Addressing this problem requires simple-level communication, which is especially difficult for the academic-types which largely make up the body of organizations like IPBES. While it was accepted that this type of communication is a persistently difficult task, early education in relevant issues was raised as a potential solution. As the popular movement for recycling demonstrated, directly involving children in environmental issues can have a trickle-up effect and yield parental involvement. This strategy may help to improve engagement with local community members.

“No more new assessments!”. There are currently six assessments underway: land degradation, global, and four regional assessments. Budget issues will limit the ability of IPBES to coordinate more assessments in the near future.

However, improving communication of assessment content is a consistent priority. Robert Spaull, head of IPBES communication, spoke at length about communication strategies–both broad and minutely technical.

Engaging traditional media was underscored as a goal with significant room for improvement; contact consolidation and collaboration are particular goals that are stressed within a 12 month media outreach plan that is underway. An emphasis on opinion pieces and the formation of regional communication and outreach networks likewise hold a prominent place within this strategy.

As is the case in almost every 21^st century issue, the strategic role of social media was reinforced. It was here that the technical strategies were raised to better focus the social media outreach of IPBES—such as advising the use of a consistent hashtag (#IPBES5) for the current conference.

And, even more essential than a consistent hashtag, the issue of a consistent acronym pronunciation was addressed. Is the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to be referred to as “I-P-B-E-S”? “I-P-bes”? Or perhaps the phonetic pronunciation, “Ip-bes”?

As Spaull concluded, phonetic pronunciations are memorable, and should be utilized when verbally possible. And so, the pronunciation “Ip-bes” was settled upon.

One small issue of IPBES successfully accomplished! Many more to go.

The post Engaging Stakeholders at IPBES 5 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.