Comments

The Government of Canada is pleased to see recognition of the need for expertise in social sciences and economics in this intergovernmental "platform". In our view, one of the main reasons that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) had policy impact was the inclusion of economic perspectives on the value of ecosystem services. IPBES could go one step further than the MA and examine different tools and strategies (market creation, positive and perverse subsidies, payments for ecosystem services, etc.) to address market failure in addressing the "positive externalities" of ecosystem services.

The term "platform" may not be ideal but is in our view preferable to "panel".

The platform should provide science-based findings and recommendations in a form that policy makers can understand and act upon readily. Active participation of policy makers will be essential for success in this initiative.

Generally, we see the relevance in strengthening the science-policy interface on issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but want to ensure that any future initiative is based on sound-science -- not advocacy science -- and is policy-relevant. To this extent, we would not accept the formation of this group without the suite of international organizations being fully engaged as equal partners (e.g., FAO, CBD, IOC, IMO etc.). Additionally, this group should have absolutely no role in decision-making as it relates to environmental issues for which we have multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and regulatory authorities (e.g., Regional Fisheries Management Organizations for fisheries) to make decisions. This would have to be made more explicit in the concept note.

There is no mention of UNEP's Environment Watch: Vision 2020. Canada supports strengthening the scientific base of UNEP and perhaps some of the objectives of this panel could be incorporated in the science strategy and related programmes of work. It seems that this work should be done by UNEP, but perhaps the proliferation of new panels/platforms is not the best way to solve the gaps.

The IPBES process shows some similarities with the Intergovernmental Panel on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources.

There is concern is that the panel/platform will be established, but the work won't be incorporated in to UNEP work programmes or CBD work plans or other conventions and organizations. The concept note needs to move from "this is nice and useful" to "we must incorporate this in our work".

There are other bodies -- including the Biodiversity Liaison Group and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) -- that have scientific, legal and policy support/expertise. Thus the logical question is whether we want to create something new, or modify or work with the existing institutions that we have.

The concept note needs to provide more rationale on how the IPBES will fit in the existing international governance/knowledge framework and define its niche better to avoid potential duplication and contribute in a meaningful way. While an extensive governance and operating structure will be required due to the scope of work and the different levels of functioning there is concern is that impact/objectives will be slow to arrive. A terms of reference for the new organization is a logical next step.

Assessing the status and trends in ecosystems and biodiversity should build as much as possible on existing internationally agreed systems and frameworks and draw from existing reporting mechanisms. There is already information available from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO), Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO), and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). In addition, GEO 4 specifically prepared a good policy makers summary (through an intergovernmental process) that accompanied the science document. For forests, the FAO FRA and internationally agreed criteria and indicator (C&I) frameworks should be used. It is unclear whether and how the sub-global assessments (SGAs) will differ much from these existing frameworks and reports.

As it relates to marine assessments, there is a global initiative already underway called the Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (GRAME), being co-led by IOC and UNEP. We see the formation of IPBES (as it currently stands) conflicting with the work of this group. Creating a new group to develop assessments for biodiversity may be appropriate for some sectors, but there is potential for duplication with other ongoing initiatives. GRAME itself was called for by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and is required to report to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2009. We would not support giving IPBES or UNEP an overarching role on marine assessments (i.e., or GRAME being subsumed by this larger IPBES process). Therefore, we would need to either exclude marine issues from the IPBES altogether, or in the very least ensure that IPBES defers to GRAME for marine assessments. We have to make every effort to avoid two bodies providing information on the marine environment.

More attention needs to be paid to the use of impact assessment (for projects) as well as strategic environmental assessments (SEA) for future policies, plans or programs drafted and approved by governments. In particular SEA can provide a larger basket of options to minimize further ecoservice functions through more sound planning decisions at higher levels of government. Much work is being done on SEA by the OECD, World Bank and similar international institutions.

The concept note does not specifically mention the use of traditional/local/ and indigenous knowledge as part of the platform. Doing so would respect more fully article 8j of the CBD. Traditional and local knowledge will be of very high value for the work ahead and must not be ignored.

The purpose of the 'platform' is to strengthen the relation between scientists (knowledge holders) and decision makers. This goal seems to be translated in doing more research to answer policy needs. It does not address the fact that this may provide more information still not being used or understood. It is hoped that this platform actually invests in doing more research in bridging the two worlds. To fill the gaps of scientific information to respond to policy requests is necessary but not sufficient. 'Knowledge brokering' could be a field of social research undertaken by this group. To ensure policy support, we need to have the right information, available in the right 'chewable' format, at the right time, at the right place, and to the appropriate person.

An assessment of the decision making structures is important to ensure that the decision-makers at appropriate levels are provided with relevant knowledge and tools. The concept note presents a great deal of emphasis on assessment - however assessment is of limited use without the science and tools to set goals/targets to serve as benchmarks for assessment (an area where the collective science community is currently extremely limited) . There is reference to 2010 biodiversity targets, however tools are required to translate global/national targets to planning/decision making relevant scales. Key components should include 1) synthesis of existing knowledge and decision support tools and communication of this information to decision makers; 2) development of common assessment protocols/methods that will allow scaling up of assessments from local to global and facilitate meta-analysis at multiple scales.

With the exception of a vague reference to a trust fund and existing processes, the concept note does not address financial issues. The note should include a description of where the funding will come from, an estimated amount required, a prioritized and budgeted work plan including when we could expect each accomplishment, and an oversight plan. Perhaps the identification of a funding mechanism(s) could be added to the objectives of phase one.

Rationale should be provided as to why the first meeting will take place in late November rather than the following February at the Governing Council meeting where governments and stakeholders will already be present.

Identifying outcomes/expected accomplishments for each phase of the process is a good approach for the concept note. It paints a comprehensive and easy-to-understand image of what is being considered and planned. However, many of the expected accomplishments that are suggested in the document are national matters. Many countries may see the idea that the IPBES will influence national policies directly as meddling in national affairs.

We recommend insertion of another sentence at the end of this paragraph indicating that the platform will harness networks of scientific experts across natural and social science disciplines, such as ecology, anthropology, economics (see p. 7, lines 15-16).

Policy support and capacity building related to understanding the monetary and non-monetary values of biodiversity and ecosystem services could be added here (see paragraphs 14 and 16).