Transcript Open

Creating an Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
Dr Andrew Stott
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK
[email protected]
1
The 2010 Biodiversity Target has
not been met
• No sub-target completely achieved
• Most indicators negative
• No government claims success
• Direct pressures constant or increasing
2
•
The global Living Planet Index
(LPI), has declined by more
than 30% since 1970,
•
The Tropical LPI has declined
by almost 60%.
•
The Temperate LPI showed an
increase of 15%, reflecting the
recovery of some species
populations in temperate
regions
3
Source: WWF/ZSL
Source: WWF/ZSL
Amazon loss slowing in Brazil
4
Source: INPE
State
Pressure
Response
Source:
Butchart
etal 2010
6
From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Global scenarios for
land use
Business as usual
Carbon tax
including land use
7
Carbon tax on
fossil fuels and
industry only
Source: Wise etal
2009
Current Path
Tipping Point – Amazon dieback
Alternative Path
•Widespread shift from forest to
savanna resulting from the Interaction
of deforestation, climate change and
fires
•Becomes more likely at 20%-30%
deforestation
•Self-perpetuating
•Regional rainfall and global climate
impacts, massive biodiversity loss
8
•Keep deforestation below 20%-30%
of original forest area
•Minimize use of fire for clearing
•Keep global climate warming below
2-3 degrees
9
Paris Conference: Biodiversity –
science and governance, 2005
‘… together with immediate action, we must deepen our
knowledge on biodiversity and establish premises
recognised by all scientists, so that the international
community can shoulder its responsibility.
Since 1988, the IPCC has brought about a scientific consensus
on the reality and significance of global warming.
We need a similar type of mechanism for biodiversity. I hereby
call on all scientists to join forces in order to set up a worldwide network of experts…’
10
Jacques Chirac, Paris, January 2005
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) assessment reports
11
First steps
• Paris Conference - Biodiversity: Science and
Governance, 2005
• International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise
on Biodiversity consultations
• 6 regional consultation meetings 2006-2007
• Multi-stakeholder participation, science-led,
including some governments
12
IMoSEB – Needs to improve interface
between science and policy
• Need for independent scientific expertise
• Scientific information to support Conventions
• Emerging global threats and horizon scanning
• Knowledge for local/national decision-making
• Need for more capacity
• Mobilisation of scientific expertise for local and national capacity
building
• Improved sub-global ecosystem assessments
• Need for improved communication
13
• Enhanced understanding and application of science
• Improved access to peer reviewed scientific results
• Evidence gaps which require further scientific work
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Evaluation
Evaluations completed in 2007 concluded:
• Lack of significant direct impact on policy
• Lack tools/models to be used by policymakers
• Further research to fill knowledge gaps
• Sub-global assessments not fully
developed
• Lack of awareness amongst key
stakeholders
14
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
Three intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meetings
convened by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP):
Putrajaya (2008) – unsure, need for gap analysis
Nairobi (2009) – new mechanism could add value, discussed possible
functions
Busan (2010) – concluded that an intergovernmental platform should be
established!
15
Busan outcome
• Who can join IPBES?
 All member states of the UN can participate in the Plenary
 Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) and other
stakeholders can be observers
• Who does IPBES work for?
 IPBES should respond to requests from Govts, MEAs, IGOs
and NGOs according to priorities agreed by Plenary
• Who pays?
 Voluntary contributions from Govts, UN bodies, private
sector and foundations. At Nagoya the UK (Defra and DfID)
announced funding of £2m over 4 years.
16
Busan outcome – IPBES functions
1. Generating new knowledge
Identify information needed for policy
Catalyse research and survey
2. Regular and timely assessments
Global, regional and sub-regional scales
Thematic and ‘new topics identified by
science’
Scientifically credible, independent and
peer reviewed
17
Busan outcome – IPBES functions
3. Support for policy formulation
Access to policy relevant tools and methods
4. Capacity building
Identify needs
Support highest priority needs
Catalyse funding
18
What will IPBES do for
me?
 Single, authoritative source of scientific evidence on global
biodiversity: status and trends, threats, possible solutions.
 Convincing arguments, including handling of uncertainty and
making the economic case.
 Strong focus and motivation for the scientific community;
 Mobilisation and co-ordination of investment in science and
capacity building, better data and understanding;
 Tools to support evidence-based decision-making.
19
CBD COP10 - Nagoya
• Welcomed outcome of Busan meeting and its
conclusion that IPBES should be established
• Encouraged UN General Assembly 65th Session
to consider establishment
• Emphasised need for IPBES to be responsive to
CBD
• Requested CBD Secretariat to consider how
CBD could make full and effective use of IPBES
20
UN General Assembly 65th Session
Meeting this afternoon in New York!
Will decide whether to establish IPBES and the
modalities for its first plenary meeting.
21
Thanks for listening
Dr Andrew Stott
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK
[email protected]
22
23
Governments
IPBES Plenary Body
(Governments and
observers)
Secretariat
Inputs –
infrastructure
investment/
research funding
Executive
Board/Bureau
WG1
Assessments
WG2
Capacity building/
Catalysis/outreach
regional
networks
data
24
Scientists/
Knowledge
holders
Conventions,
IGOs, NGOs
Outputs –
assessments,
reviews,
tools
One
possible
Model of
an IPBES
structure