ePeerReview: Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Comments

Found 17 items (out of 590 total)

Reset Your search: UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre | Round 1

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): 0 Issue: Other	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

There is in this document a significant mismatch between the ‘Purpose’ (as laid out in Annex I), the expected benefits as laid out under ‘Rationale’ (Page 4), ‘specific recommendations’ as laid out on page 4 and the Key Components for Phase I as laid out in pages 6-7. For example, the Purpose does not speak about Capacity Building, but this would seem to be an important part of the purpose….

Response: Comments reflected in the revised concept note and other working documents prepared for the November meeting.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): 0 Issue: Role of IPBES	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The document makes only very little mention of sustainability and none of sustainable use which is one of the three pillars of the CBD. It would strengthen the document if it made clear mention that one of the purposes (or objectives) of the platform is to help ensure that the use of ecosystem services is sustainable, and also that use is structured so that it provides incentives for resource management and conservation. These are key issues that should be explicit in the document.

Response: Captured.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): 0 Issue: Role of IPBES	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Generally speaking, while the Platform is about linking science and policy, the document is generally strong on the science elements but not on the policy side. How will science, including the knowledge that arises from sub-regional assessments, be used to inform policy? Will the science simply be presented to decision-makers to adopt as they see fit or will there be policy recommendations? This is a major issue that needs attention.

Response: IPBES can only be policy-relevant and can not take on a policy-prescriptive role.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): 0 Issue: Role of IPBES	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The document talks a great deal about science, but ‘monitoring’ is only mentioned once, and then in terms of capacity building. It is important to note that good science is based on data and that the underlying data for biodiversity and ecosystem assessment is often very weak. There is a need for the Platform to examine a) the availability of data and how this is converted to useful information, and b) ways in which data and information are gathered, updated and analysed. This is a major shortcoming in the document.

Response: See revised components in the working documents UNEP/IPBES/1/2 and UNEP/IPBES/1/3.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 4 Line(s): 13 Issue: Role of IPBES	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

It is not clear from anything in this document how the panel would improve coherence and coordination between the MEAs. This is an important ambition and more information would be helpful.

Response: The revised concept paper makes it clear that IPBES would provide uniform and consistent framework that will strengthen the links among biodiversity related conventions.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 5 Line(s): 22 Issue: IPBES and other ongoing processes	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

How will the reverse mechanism be put into place whereby the subsidiary technical advisory bodies of MEAs are empowered to draw upon the IBPES?

Response: See various options presented on the possible governance structure and rules and procedures in working documents UNEP/IPBES/1/4 and UNEP/IPBES/1/5.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 6 Line(s): 9 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Section 12 on the Research Agenda does not appear to be internally consistent. How does the prioritization of research relate to the development of a “robust set of targets” for the 10th CBD COP (line 24)? Both would appear to be valuable outputs, but it is not clear that they are directly linked. Perhaps there is a need for a separate component to help the international community come up with new targets to replace that for 2010?

Response: Research agenda component has been deleted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 6 Line(s): 11 Issue: IPBES and other ongoing processes	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

While the ESSP and Diversitas are important with respect to the research agenda, myriad other networks and institutions are also important, ranging from the Society for Conservation Biology, through the IUCN to the Centre for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS). This section would benefit from broadening in this regard.

Response: Specific references to organizations have been deleted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 7 Line(s): 16 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

It would be appropriate to include ‘economic’ in its own right rather than assume that this is covered by reference to the social sciences

Response: This might be said for law and other disciplines. Best to keep it general.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 8 Line(s): 1 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The section on incentives for sustaining ecosystem services is strong on market mechanisms, but it does not mention issues such as security of access to resources and the reform of tenure systems both of which have been demonstrated to be of critical importance to sustainability. I recommend that appropriate language be included.

Response: Revised to include market incentives plus regulatory mechanisms.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 8 Line(s): 15 Issue: IPBES and other ongoing processes	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Setting up a networked panel will not be adequate on its own to achieve effective horizon scanning. There is a need to establish methodologies based on the successes of other sectors and to learn from existing initiatives such as those at the Wildlife Conservation Society and Cambridge Conservation Initiative.

Response: Section deleted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 8 Line(s): 18 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Rather than make reference to current emerging issues (both of which have already ‘emerged’) it may be appropriate for the initiative to formulate key questions that have to be answered with respect to emerging issues.

Response: Reference to biofuels, etc., deleted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 9 Line(s): 2 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

This section would be strengthened if it specifically mentioned national statistical offices and include data gathering and synthesis.

Response: Included in revised policy support and outreach component.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 14 Line(s): 17 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The section on Purpose tells us that the platform will concentrate on what is known. Where is the equivalent reference to horizon scanning and that which is not known?

Response: Section on purposes deleted from rules and procedures.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 14 Line(s): 17 Issue: Clarity of text	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The Section on purpose does not mention capacity building, but elsewhere in the documents this is included as a major output.

Response: Section on purposes deleted from rules and procedures.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 15 Line(s): 25 Issue: Institutional arrangements	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The Section on ‘Secretariat’ doesn’t actually say much about the Secretariat, which is a problem given that this will be the powerhouse of the initiative. Who will establish this, what will be its terms of reference, who will it answer to, where will it be based?

Response: Various options on the governance structure and rules and procedures are presented in working documents UNEP/IPBES/1/4 and UNEP/IPBES/1/5 to be used as a basis for deliberations in the November meeting.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 20 Line(s): 16 Issue: Role of IPBES	Jonathan Hutton Institutional (Jonathan.hutton@unep-wcmc.org) UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

A key element in any mission to strengthen national capacity for improved biodiversity and ecosystem decision-making is the development of data and information gathering and recording where these are inadequate. In this regard a major ambition should be to have biodiversity and ecosystem information included within the remit of national statistical offices (NSOs). This will likely require significant investment in the development of standards as well as expertise.

Response: Included in revised policy support and outreach component.