ePeerReview: Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Comments

Found 7 items (out of 590 total)

Reset Your search: Finland | Round 1

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): Issue: Supportive of content	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

The government of Finland welcomes the establishment of an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In our view, this kind of platform is needed to improve the science-policy interface on biodiversity related issues.

Response: Appreciated.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): Issue: Supportive of content	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

We find that the IPBES as an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services to strengthen relations between knowledge holders on biodiversity and ecosystem services and actors involved in decision/policy making processes corresponds well with the aim of our negotiations on international environmental governance (IEG).

Response: Noted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 0 Line(s): Issue: IPBES and other ongoing processes	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

Finland supports a strengthened UNEP in the arena of scientific assessment, monitoring and early warning capacity. UNEP should continue to be the leading agency within the UN system for the analysis of the state of the global environment and the assessment of global and regional environmental trends. In order to carry out this overarching role it is of vital importance that UNEP interacts and bases its activities on the competence of scientific subsidiary bodies of MEAs. We also support a more holistic approach to gathering and disseminating such scientific knowledge wherefore an international mechanism of scientific expertise on biodiversity seems a plausible way forward in that it provides that much needed broader platform.

Response: Noted.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 3 Line(s): 19 Issue: IPBES and other ongoing processes	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

Existing biodiversity networks such as Alter-net and EPBRS should be considered (especially lessons learned) when building the intergovernmental science-policy platform

Response: Noted and incorporated in revised concept note.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 6 Line(s): 9 Issue: Other	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

Phase I is well outlined, however, it is unclear whether phase I is only a trial period before phase II and why phase I should only last 4 years.

Response: The intention for the phased approach is to make sure that phase II activities would be designed based on the evaluation of phase I.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 9 Line(s): 24 Issue: Other	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

The funding and size of the operational structures should be further analyzed

Response: Institutional arrangements will be one of the key issues to be discussed at November meeting. Concept note should refrain from prejudging outcomes. Various options on the possible governance structure have been presented on the working document, UNEP/IPBES/1/4, to be used as a basis for deliberations at the meeting.

Concept Note
1. Concept Note Page(s): 11 Line(s): 21 Issue: Other	Johanna Karhu Government (Johanna.karhu@ymparisto.fi) Finland

Phase II needs to be planned further.

Response: It would be premature to establish the main targets of phase II. The targets of phase II will be developed based on the evaluation of phase I.