Unfortunately, the plenary is still stuck on organizational matters.<\/p>\n
For example, use of the IPBES acronym and logo by member countries and other organizations. Is the current policy of IPBES (approved at IPBES-4) too restrictive? Some see wider use of these as a potential risk to the credibility of the organization. On the other, many organizations working in partnership with the IPBES would be able to use the logo and acronym. Maybe, more use of the logo and acronym would give IPBES wider visibility.<\/p>\n
The secretariat will be improving communication activities, including an update of the website. Many countries expressed the need for improvement of the website.<\/p>\n
How well is IPBES doing its job? It’s time for the IPBES to be reviewed. Terms of reference for the review need to be decided. The plenary needs to decide on who will do the review. There are different options. IPBES will be reviewed by an external review panel but there will also be an internal review panel made up of members of the MEP, secretariat and Bureau. Who will\u00a0 be involved in the external review and how will they be selected? Who will coordinate the review?<\/p>\n
All of these issues need to be decided. The review is also restricted by budget considerations. Transparency of the review is highlighted by many countries as a critical issue. Also the timing of the review will be important as the outcomes need to be incorporated into the second Work Programme.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Unfortunately, the plenary is still stuck on organizational matters. For example, use of the IPBES acronym and logo by member countries and other organizations. Is the current policy of IPBES (approved at IPBES-4) too restrictive? Some see wider use of these as a potential risk to the credibility of the organization. On the other, many […]<\/p>\n