ePeerReview: Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Comments

Found 7 items (out of 590 total)

Reset Your search: Netherlands | Round 1

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): Issue: Supportive of content	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

Generally, the Dutch government feels positive about the new initiative. The proposed integration of IMOSEB and MA may help to overcome the shortcomings of both separate initiatives. In particular we welcome: • Focus on linkages between biodiversity knowledge and application in policy. • Support for policy by advising on policy measures, application of ecosystem services • Instrument for broad communication and dialogue with society and political environment • Focus on (sub)regional assessments rather than global activities

Response: Appreciated.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 5 Line(s): 16-32 Issue: Other	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

The goals are fine but we would like to read more about the concrete approaches, products and actions

Response: The detailed work programme is presented in working document UNEP/IPBES/1/3.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 7 Line(s): 4-14 Issue: Role of IPBES	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

The Netherlands underlines the view that assessments are most effective on a subglobal/regional scale. This element may be further stressed, along with the need to develop policy responses, future response scenarios, models etc, as a contribution to the needed dialogue on best policy solutions. The preliminary results of the MA regarding response options should play a key role in the work of IPBES.

Response: Noted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 7 Line(s): 15 Issue: Role of IPBES	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

We would like to see more emphasis on products than directly facilitate policy dialogue, ploicy development and policy measures in braod sense. There are other policy fields than the economic instruments that deserve to be included

Response: Policy component streamlined. Defining specific outputs at this early stage is premature. Discussions on specific outputs on the various components will be deliberated at a later stage.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 9 Line(s): 14 Issue: IPBES and other ongoing processes	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

This paragraph should be further elaborated to describe the role of IPBES in the entire UNEP-framework, also including other for a such as IPRM. A clear vision on the role of IPBES vis-à-vis GEO and other activities is desired. The Netherlands is keen to reduce duplications.

Response: The discussion of IPBES within the framework of UNEP is a bit premature as this is still at an exploratory stage. UNEP will assure that no duplication will emerge if IPBES is established.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 10 Line(s): 25 Issue: Institutional arrangements	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

Further elaboration of the composition of the SG is desirable. In order to target the real causes of biodiversity loss it is of great importance to have broad participation of the scientific world (including social, legal, cultural and economic disciplines) as well politics, policy, business and civil society

Response: Various options on the governance structure are presented in working document UNEP/IPBES/1/4.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 11 Line(s): 15 Issue: Clarity of text	Peter Bos Government (p.w.bos@minlnv.nl) Netherlands

We seek clarification of the term “co-sponsoring agencies” . as a preparation for the intergouvernemental consultation more insight into the options for funding is needed

Response: Institutional arrangements will be one of the key issues to be discussed at November meeting. Concept note should refrain from prejudging outcomes.