Comments

The IPBES proposal is the result of combining the MA follow-up initiative that emerged as a response to the recommendations of two independent evaluations of the MA and the request made by the CBD to substantially increase the impact of the MA, with the consultative process towards an IMoSEB that set out to establish a permanent high-level science-policy interface with a strong orientation towards an IPCC-like structure (Loreau and Oteng-Yeboah, 2006). The concept note outlining the IPBES builds primarily on the MA follow-up strategy, which sketches a detailed strategic, light and pragmatic and mainly sub-global approach for ‘turning knowledge into action’ (MA follow-up, 2008), and the final statement of the IMoSEB consultative process, which, reflecting the general consensus for the need to further strengthen the interrelations between science and politics as well as fundamental points of divergence regarding the differences on 'vision' or 'positioning' of an IMoSEB within the framework of the governance of biodiversity (IMoSEB, 2008, §57), recommends the consideration of the establishment of a means and enhancement of existing institutions interrelating science and decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services in general terms.

In principle, merging the MA follow-up initiative and the outcomes of the IMoSEB consultative process could provide a fruitful base to establish a truly novel and effective multi-level science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The IPBES brings together a broad range of functions and approaches that goes beyond a mere assessment exercise. It shows in many ways a more holistic approach to interfacing the various domains of the science-politics intersection and has the potential to address many of the challenges to current biodiversity governance (see e.g. CBD, 2007; or Koetz et al, 2008). Most importantly, however, the IPBES provides a unique opportunity to explicitly interlink global and sub-global processes towards creating a truly integrated multi-level science-policy interface. As outlined in the concept note and the background document from which it draws (in particular the MA follow-up strategy), the IPBES could provide for much of the procedural innovations in science, politics, governance and the interactions among them called for to ensure the “constant translation back and forth across relatively well-articulated global and local knowledge-power formations” (Jasanoff and Martello, 2004, p. 5) that is crucial for effective multi-level governance.

The concept note outlining the IPBES proposal, however, remains unclear and/or unveils weaknesses regarding crucial normative principles and the structural features which are key to the saliency, credibility, and legitimacy of a multi-level science-policy interface. The rules, processes and structures outlined in the concept note do not sufficiently reflect the nature of the multi-level institutional network of which it is comprised and do not provide for the cross-scale/level interactions necessary to integrate across scales. Instead of making the effort of developing a conceptual and institutional framework to truly integrate knowledge-power formations across levels and scales, the IPBES proposal seems to merely plant a purely global governance structure on top of a diverse sub-global network of institutions and programmatic activities without providing these with the necessary opportunities and authority to represent their interests and perspectives. The IPBES proposal presents an inconsistent picture of a rather globalocentric and top-down organised construct based on a loosely connected and integrated diverse sub-global network of institutions and programmatic activities – raising the question whether such an institutional setup might provide for the ramification to “ensure the timeliness, relevance, quality and quantity of information flows to decision-makers at appropriate levels” (IPBES, 2008, §6e).

Coming to more concrete recommendations, I suggest promoting and supporting the establishment of regional platforms/networks. Cases of effective organisation of the complex and multi-level intersection between science and politics have often shown to be constituted of networks of a range of science-policy interfaces of different institutional types, functions and focus with complex, partly redundant, and layered institutional arrangements (Cash et al., 2003; Dietz et al., 2003; Goerg et al., 2007). Only through such collaboration, it is argued, is it possible to effectively bolster salience, credibility, legitimacy, and the tradeoffs among them. The creation of forums and platforms across different levels, regions and sectors of governance for negotiation, conflict resolution, decision making, trust building, and joint action is key to bridge scales and knowledge systems (see also Berkes et al., 2006; and Cash et al., 2006). Breaking up a science-policy interface into parts across different levels of governance enables variation in design and practice across parts and dialogue among these parts (Miller and Erickson, 2006), and would allow better understanding and addressing the challenges of each scale and their interrelations. Multi-level representation is also crucial, since much of the legitimacy of such a science-policy interface comes from the discursive interactions and not just from the endorsements of governments (Lebel, 2006; Dryzek, 1997).

A range of smaller sub-global, often national, self-organising forums of more temporary character conducting sub-global assessments and their coordination under the MA follow-up initiative has already been established. The IPBES further sets out to establish and/or support a permanent global platform. What is missing to be able to provide well-articulated global-local knowledge-power formations is a category of forums that would allow for a more permanent and self-organised coordination and representation of sub-global interest, perspectives and activities. In this context, the establishment of a set of self-organising regional forums or networks nested under a global platform has come to be seen as important structural element in creating such an effective multi-level network of science-policy interfaces (Miller end Erickson, 2006; Berkes, 2007; Berkes et al., 2006; CBD, 2005; IMoSEB EU and Latin American meetings; see also experiences made by the MA, the IAASTD, and ICSU). The CBD’s Working Group on Review and Implementation (WGRI), e.g., analysing the conventions’ processes, emphasises the significant role regional networks and mechanisms could play in addressing issues of efficiency, participation and capacity building, promoting and facilitating collaboration and knowledge sharing among national focal points, as well as the harmonisation of national biodiversity policies, legislation and action (CBD, 2005). The potential of regional networks to facilitate implementation of the Convention has been recognised by the CoP at several instances. Above all through Decision V/20, calling on Parties to participate actively in suitable sub-regional and regional activities, as well as the Executive Secretary, subject to necessary voluntary contributions, to facilitate the involvement in sub-regional and regional activities of developing country Parties; and Decision VI/27A encouraging Parties to develop sub-regional, regional or bioregional mechanisms and networks to support implementation of the Convention.

Some important developments towards a regionalisation of a science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services are already underway. Take for example the EU Mechanism for independent, authoritative research-based advice to inform implementation and further policy development on biodiversity, which is announced to be established by the European Commission’s Communication "Halting the loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond" (EC, 2006, Objective 10). Still in the process of conceptualisation itself, there are great potentials to harmonise efforts at European and global scales as to implement the first cornerstone towards more resilient multi-level knowledge-power formations on the issue at hand.

An IPBES should, therefore, use its first planning phase to also promote and support the establishment of a set of regional platforms/networks building on the various sub-global assessments and their coordination efforts, the provisions made in this regard by the EU, CBD and other international institutions, and on already existing regional structures, such as the regional offices of the ICSU established to promote the further development and strengthening of science in the context of regional priorities and bring the science of developing countries closer to ICSU. While being nested within the overall framework of a global science-policy interface, such regional platforms would form science-policy interfaces in their own right, allowing for the distribution of authority and responsibility and serving as the missing link in the cross-scale articulation of knowledge-power formations crucial for more effective multi-level governance. The establishment of such poly-centric network or science-policy interfaces would, among many other benefits, be an important step towards ensuring that activities and decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at higher level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at regional, national or local level (similar to the principle of subsidiarity in the EU).

Reference used include: Berkes, 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS, 104 (39), 15188–15193. / Berkes et al., 2006. Conclusions: Bridging scales and knowledge systems. In Reid et al., (Eds.). Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, D.C., Island Press, pp 315-331. / Cash et al., 2006. Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multi-level World. Ecology and Society 11(2): 8. / Cash et al., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100 (14), 8086-8091. / CBD, 2005. Review of processes under the Convention. UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/1/3, p. 20. / CBD, 2007. Updated synthesis of information contained in the Third National Report - Priorities, Challenges and Progress Towards Targets. UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/2/INF/1/Add.1. / Dietz et al., 2003. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science 302, 1907-1912 / Dryzek, 1997. Discursive Democracy. Cambridge University Press. / EC (2006). "Halting the loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well–being". COM 2006(216). / Goerg et al. (eds), 2007. International Science-Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity Governance - Needs, Challenges, Experiences; A Contribution to the IMoSEB Consultative Process. Report of a Workshop held in October 2-4, 2006, Leipzig, Germany. www.ufz.de/data/leipzigworkshopreport_final25406.pdf. / IMoSEB, 2008. Summary report. UNEP/CBD/COP/9/INF/34. / IPBES 2008, Concept Note for an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. UNEP/CBD/COP/9/INF/37/Rev.1. / Jasanoff and Martello, 2004. / Lebel, 2006. The politics of scale in environmental assessments. In Reid et al., (Eds.). Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, D.C., Island Press, pp 37-58. / Loreau, M., Oteng Yeboah, A., 2006. Diversity without representation. Nature, July 2006, 442 (20), 245-246. / Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) follow-up, 2008. A global strategy for turning knowledge into action. UNEP/CBD/COP/9/INF/26. / Miller end Erickson, 2006. The politics of bridging scales and epistemologies. In Reid et al., (Eds.). Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, D.C., Island Press, pp 297-314. / Koetz, T., Bridgewater, P., van den Hove, S., Siebenhüner, B. (2008). The role of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity as science-policy interface. Environmental Science and Policy, p. 505-516.