Comments

For some time now, New Zealand has recognized that there is a gap in the provision of scientific advice on biodiversity to policy makers at the global level. We have also been conscious that there are already multiple players in the biodiversity sphere and that there is a need to ensure that any mechanism to fill this gap encourages further coordination, and recognises existing strengths. We therefore welcome UNEP's leadership role in this endeavour.

New Zealand views the appearance of the Concept Note on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as a positive move to increase the level of science input and expertise to assessments on the fate of global biodiversity and related ecosystem services. It recognizes the intent to aggregate disparate and overlapping mechanisms under a singular and focused banner of the IPBES. The CBD struggles to legitimize many of its decisions which derive in most part from policy/legal representations, rather than being grounded in good science or equivalent evidence-based decision making. The potential to deliver improved policy-relevant information from all appropriate sources about the state, trends and outlooks of human-environment interactions, with a focus on the impacts of ecosystem change on human wellbeing, could be enhanced by the emergence of an effective IPBES. It is perhaps in the area of provision of a mechanism that will enable decision-makers, with support in the development of tools and methodologies, to translate scientific knowledge into good policy, that an IPBES will add greatest value.

It is critical that the activities of any IPBES are clearly focused, particularly during its first phase. As currently drafted the concept note sets out a range of objectives, but provides only limited detail on how these objectives might be achieved. It tends to imply a suite of activities in service of each of these objectives and attempts to accommodate the aspirations of all stakeholders involved in the development process. From a New Zealand perspective the intent of an entity like the IPBES should be to provide a global level solution to a gap already identified at the global level and that is a very poor process to capture scientific analysis and use it to inform policy. Results at regional and national levels will come from leveraging the IPBES’s ability to fill this key global gap. Conversely, if the IPBES is not successful in filling that gap, its broader objectives are also unlikely to be met (note that there are already a number of agencies working in a number of these areas).

Recently the world has been ignited by the findings on climate change delivered by the IPCC. This highly credible collection of the world’s best climate scientists has been responsible for waking governments up, redirecting economies and galvanizing action at the individual level. It has done this because it has relied extensively on accurate and verifiable data, internationally gathered to agreed standards and with analyses, interpretations and conclusions submitted to detailed peer review. While a small number of countries contribute to global assessments of (some but not all) ecosystem services, by way of assessments of process, drivers of ecosystem services change, conditions and trends, responses, scenarios community assessments and reflections and lessons learned, no such opportunities exist currently to report on the status, trends and outlooks of global biodiversity. It is for this reason that the initiative to establish an IPBES is so welcome.

The Rationale is laudable and sub-item d) indicates what the expected outcome of an IPBES will be, viz. “provide credibility, salience and legitimacy ….” There is nothing within the Rationale, however, that will enable this outcome. The singular element that is the cornerstone of the IPCC success is validation and standardization of indicator measurements. Global temperatures are measured with calibrated thermometers; CO2 and other greenhouse gases are measured with sophisticated instruments to high orders of accuracy and the results validated across global networks of recordings. In order for biodiversity and ecosystem services to be recorded at such accuracies, will require the development and endorsement of what is being measured.

New Zealand is embarking on implementation of a landmark prioritization process called Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS) which is a nationally consistent suite of tools based around defined inventory and monitoring protocols. These will provide national snapshots of species, population and ecosystem variables (including ecosystem services) designed to indicate trajectory changes in ecological (asset) integrity. The role of the inventory and monitoring programme is to set measurement standards for collection, supply and curation of the data needed to implement a reporting framework on biodiversity and attendant ecosystem services and progress towards defined biodiversity outcomes. It should be recognized that the science around standards and measurement of a number of ecosystem services and their contribution to ecological integrity and human well-being, is in its infancy. New Zealand contends that a priority action for the IPBES will be the negotiation and agreement of a consistent set of robust measures that can be applied to all elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services identified for reporting and decision-making purposes.

Perspectives and values regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services, particularly intrinsic natural values, are notoriously subjective and incapable of comparative assessment against economic values which are readily quantifiable and form the base of cost/benefit analysis. One response to this conundrum might be to consider the concept of “net biodiversity gain.” That is to say that gaps in what remains of the full range of biodiversity will not be widened (ie, no net loss) and that the long-term survival chances of all affected biota (subspecies to ecosystems) will be improved. With net biodiversity gain as the target, the weighing up of costs and benefits of resource decisions is neatly avoided; there is no trade-off to be made between market and non-market assessments, rather, trade-offs between biodiversity values at one place and another. Embedding an ecosystem services approach into policy-making will require changes to governance, attitudes and perceptions, as well as, quite obviously, the scientific and technological underpinnings needed to successfully implement this approach. IPBES might measurably assist this process by highlighting case studies where countries have successfully applied this model. Ecosystem services are becoming increasingly important to policy making in New Zealand and there exist a number of initiatives where agencies have developed modeling approaches for ecosystem valuation. To date, though, there has been a primary reliance on economic assessment of the value of ecosystem services, with other aspects such as social, environmental and cultural interpretations remaining in their infancy. It is gratifying to see the IPBES considering further development of market and non-market instruments.

Communications. It will be important, as with IPCC, for each step along the tech transfer pipeline, to have formal sign-off points to ensure the science advice is effectively and transparently taken up and implemented.

Phase 1 Objectives are seen by New Zealand as comprehensive and well aligned to the purpose of an IPBES. The first Objective (line 16-19) will, however, benefit from the addition of language as “Continue to negotiate and agree a consistent set of robust measures that can be applied to all elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services and to build ……” Without this, comparability of status and trends will not be achieved. It is noteworthy that the Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 focal area and headline indicators are not applied consistently across national and regional assessments, with the consequence that the global error term is significant, rendering such assessments, in part, anecdotal.

New Zealand sees “Disseminating decision-support tools and methods” to be a key undertaking of Phase 1. What these are, where, how, how frequently and over what sampling intensity the methodologies can be negotiated and agreed, should form a large part of the agenda at the initial (and likely subsequent) intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting(s).

The Scientific Steering Group has a role to guide the development of tools, guidelines and methodologies for assessments. But a prior process of definition of the most appropriate tools and methodologies to be used in particular circumstances will be a significant negotiated process. New Zealand suggests that this discussion should also form part of the agenda at the initial intergovernmental meeting. Defining the tools, methodologies and measures goes hand in hand with “Overseeing the peer review process to ensure the highest levels of scientific quality and credibility for all products delivered by the Platform” (page 15, lines 36/37). They are merely at opposite ends of the value chain!