IPBES aims to tackle head-on the accelerating worldwide loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem service by bridging the gap between accurate, impartial and up to date science and policy-makers. Although many organizations and initiatives contribute to improving the dialogue between policy-makers and the scientific community in this field, IPBES is established as a new platform, recognized by both the scientific and policy communities to address the existing gaps and strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services. “Today, biodiversity won”, said the chair of the meeting, Sir Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom. “Over 90 governments successfully established the science-policy interface for all countries. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are essential for human wellbeing. This platform will generate the knowledge and build the capacity to protect them for this and future generations,” he said.

Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, said, “The creation of IPBES, just a few weeks away from the Rio+20 Conference, is a strong signal, and I congratulate this significant progress towards the conservation of biodiversity.” “I hope that this body will allow biodiversity to be better taken into account in sustainable development strategies, as did the IPCC for climate change over the last 20 years. Biodiversity loss is a key indicator of the changes which are affecting our planet”. She added that IPBES “will provide a more efficient coordination tool between researchers and decision-makers in order to rise to this challenge. UNESCO has supported this process since its inception and will do everything to bring its long experience and to mobilize its scientific networks in the fields of water, oceans and biodiversity in the service of IPBES,” she added.

IPBES will respond to requests for scientific information related to biodiversity and ecosystem services from governments, relevant multilateral environmental agreements and United Nations bodies, as well as other relevant stakeholders. A core trust fund will be established to receive voluntary contributions from governments, United Nations bodies, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), other intergovernmental organisations and other stakeholders, such as the private sector and foundations.

The core functions of IPBES will encompass the following areas:
• To identify and prioritise key scientific information needed for policymakers and to catalyse efforts to generate new knowledge;
• To perform regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interlinkages;
• To support policy formulation and implementation by identifying policy-relevant tools and methodologies; and
• To prioritise key capacity-building needs to improve the science-policy interface, and to provide and call for financial and other support for the highest-priority needs related directly to its activities.

IPBES’s role, mandate and key principles are:
• To collaborate with existing initiatives on biodiversity and ecosystem services, including multilateral environmental agreements, United Nations bodies and networks of scientists and knowledge holders, to fill gaps and build upon their work, while avoiding duplication;
• To be scientifically independent and ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy through the peer review of its work and transparency in its decision-making processes;
• To use clear, transparent and scientifically credible processes for the exchange, sharing and use of data, information and technologies from all relevant sources, including non-peer-reviewed literature, as appropriate;
• To recognise and respect the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems; • To provide policy-relevant information, but not policy-prescriptive advice, mindful of the respective mandates of the multilateral environmental agreements;
• To integrate capacity-building into all relevant aspects of its work according to priorities decided by the plenary; • To recognise the unique biodiversity and scientific knowledge thereof within and among regions, and also recognise the need for the full and effective participation of developing countries and for balanced regional representation and participation in its structure and work; • To take an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach that incorporates all relevant disciplines, including social and natural sciences;
• To recognise the need for gender equity in all relevant aspects of its work; • To address terrestrial, marine and inland water biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interactions;
• To ensure the full use of national, subregional and regional assessments and knowledge, as appropriate.

More information is available at: http://www.ipbes.net/

From Nagoya to Nuclear Catastrophe and from Organic Shade Grown Fair Trade Coffee to the Tea Party – in One Season

At the end of 2010 we reported in the Policy Insider and the Newsletter on the considerable progress that SCB’s delegation had made in the meeting in Nagoya, Japan, contributing to and improving the strategic plan and other elements of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s next ten years of implementation.

We also reported on initial attempts in the US Congress to curtail the application of the Endangered Species Act and other bedrock environmental laws, initially by removing gray wolves in two or more states from the endangered and threatened lists.  (For more details on these and other issues see the Policy Insider at www.conbio.org/resources/policy.)

It almost seems as if the new members of Congress used our December Policy Insider and Newsletter as a guide to the most important conservation standards they could block.  They have failed in four narrow votes so far to block the application of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases. President Obama felt he would be blamed by the public for a government shutdown, so he chose to accept some objectionable outcomes rather than veto a bad bill at the last minute. In this brinksmanship, the new House majority managed to:

1. delist the gray wolf in all Northern Rocky Mountain states except Wyoming;
2. block an order that would have preserved the wilderness character of those Federal lands in the west that had not yet been so degraded that they could not still be designated as wilderness;
3. block the formation of a new climate program in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration;
4. block, on the last day of the previous Congress, a bill that would have protected those who disclose the suppression of science in Federal agency decisions, (now reintroduced) and
5. Reduce funding for most conservation agencies further than many other agencies were cut.

It feels to some in Washington that we are facing a crisis in three key areas of the planet –  nuclear melt-downs and large radiation releases in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, revolutions across northern Africa; and an earthquake and tsunami in policy orientation in the U.S. Congress.

The key for us is to recognize, in each area, the two faces of crisis, just as the Chinese character for crisis does by including the simpler characters for both in one – danger and opportunity.  No opportunity should make us disrespect the real pain or death inherent in a crisis, but no opportunity should make us blind to the chance to transform mistakes into a more enlightened way forward.

In Japan, and beyond, scientists and policy makers must publicly determine the possible effects of the several different kinds of radiation on terrestrial and marine life and on up the food chain and take appropriate precautionary response at the reactor site and worldwide.

In Africa, as states reorganize themselves, the protection and public use of conservation science, its process and its practitioners must be an integral part of new constitutions and aid programs.

In the US, a large new contingent endorsed by an informal network called the “Tea Party” is virtually steering the House of Representatives, demanding both cuts in spending that will hobble enforcement of laws they dislike and the elimination of many health and conservation standards.  The slim Democratic majority in the Senate and President, mindful of the removal by the Supreme Court of most limits on corporate campaign contributions, are doing their best to cooperate in the reorienting of the budget, but still differentiate, if not distinguish, themselves.

Citizens, with the help of scientists, must also seek the truth from a variety of sources and then act

Despite a mid-January letter from SCB, the Wildlife Society, the Ecological Society and the National Council on Science and the Environment, on protecting the scientific integrity of the listing and delisting process, the Congress and White House accepted the legislative delisting of all gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains except Wyoming.  This will lead to open hunting seasons which are planned to reduce substantially the populations that have arisen over the past twenty years or so in the Northern Rocky Mountains. SCB and its allies have spent a considerable amount of time seeking to educate the new Congress and the Administration about the benefits and nuances of the ESA, Clean Air Act and other basic laws.  As threats to the Clean Air Act arose, we also reminded the Majority Leader’s office, the US Trade Representative, and key members of the European Parliament and our Ana Section Policy Committee member that if Congress were to suspend the Clean Air Act it could be a violation of recent free trade agreements. Congress last year suspended regulatory authority over greenhouse gases from livestock operations.  These could be prima facia violations of recent free trade agreements, such as the Central America Free Trade Agreement that require each nation that is a party to the agreement to enforce its environmental laws so as not to create a cheap and illegal competitive advantage against products of countries that are enforcing their environmental laws.

But new times call for new tactics and strategies as well as a rallying cry.  To help us move forward with that vision, expert volunteers have risen to the call to work with our Policy program and to help lead task forces in each of these areas.  The task forces will gain momentum and numbers as we reconstitute our on-line expert data base and contact those who have volunteered to serve already.  For now, the SCB Policy Director will serve as a co-chair of each task force along with the other co-chairs.We feature the short form of an article by Kyle Gracey, co-chair of the Treaties Task Force, in the next section. (For more see the Spring 2011 Policy Insider. )

Donation Pledged for a Policy Fellow

In response to a pledge to cover the full cost of a generous policy fellowship, SCB has posted an announcement calling for applications from those with graduate degrees in law and conservation policy and science. The selection committee will include the anonymous donor as well as Smith Fellows Director and former Chief Forester, Mike Dombeck, Tim Greyhavens, Carlos Carroll of Klamath Center for Conservation Research, and Anne Hummer and John Fitzgerald of SCB (see the SCB policy page and job board).

SCB Board Approves International Policy Initiative, Meets with Senior Congressional Staff and Scientific Societies Concerned with Climate Change

At the SCB Board of Governors’ Meeting in Early March, 2011, President Luigi Boitani asked for and received a vote of support for an initiative advanced by Policy Committee Chairman Jeff McNeely to seek substantial, long term foundation support for a senior international policy position as soon as possible to enhance SCB’s participation in the implementation of major conservation treaties.The day after the meeting on March 7th, SCB Board members representing several continental sections briefed the staff of the minority and the majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on developments in international conservation law and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Ecosystems and Biodiversity (IPBES).  That morning, in the Congressional Visitors Center, as arranged by House Natural Resources Committee minority staff, Board members Dominick DellaSala, Paul Beier, Jeff McNeely and Policy Director John Fitzgerald presented a colorful briefing of slides, charts, examples, and statistics for key committee staff, Congressional Research Service, NGOs and others on the human benefits afforded by the Endangered Species Act.

That afternoon, President elect Paul Beier, Dominick DellaSala, Anne Hummer and myself met with leaders of numerous scientific groups to begin a coalition on climate change policy. We plan to develop our common agenda in monthly meetings from now on but SCB will continue its own active work as well. Not long after that SCB delivered a formal statement on IPBES to the UNEP meeting that moved its creation one more step forward (see policy web pages).

Several Symposia Bringing Science to Policy Approved for ICCB-2011

As we went to print, we learned that the New Zealand Meeting, like the Marine Section with its special section on CITES, will have several symposia devoted to bringing science to policy and management.  These will include forest issues, treaty implementation and other topical and neo-topical topics, including discussion of what to do about species on the brink of extinction, like the mascot of this conference.

Policy Task Forces Launched,  Co-Chairs Named

SCB has five main policy priority areas, listed below, and we have been waiting until we had sufficient staff to work with task force leaders and until we were sure we had a group of expert members and friends of SCB to help lead them.As it appears that we will have a paid Policy Fellow for two years and perhaps a policy intern as well in the next few months, we have taken the next step. For task force members, we have a number of SCB members who have indicated interest in serving on task forces, and we have chapters to draw on at universities.  We purposefully chose to invite people whose knowledge is not narrow, but who understand at least a large part of other areas beyond their own primary expertise. Thus some of our initial co-chairs serve on two task forces to facilitate cooperation between them.

These task forces cover issues that are both international and domestic, as even the treaties task force is concerned with how the agreements are implemented by each party.  For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity led Canada to protect vast areas of woodland caribou habitat and treaty task force might review how different parties are implementing specific obligations under the CBD or CITES. SCB members from any section are welcome to volunteer to work with any of the global task forces and the task force leaders will ensure that initiatives affecting different sections will be developed in cooperation with the appropriate section leaders. SCB also has a policy committee of the board with broad expertise and it is that committee and the Policy Director that will review the proposed comments or testimony, etc. of the task forces before any final approval, unless it is an adaptation of an already approved policy statement, and even those will be released in cooperation with the Policy Director.Those interested in volunteering to serve on a task force can write to me at jfitzgerald (at) conbio.org.  Please use the following subject line only—“Policy Task Forces”.  Thank you.

Policy Task Force Co-Chairs

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Dominick DellaSala, Jim Barrett, Carlos Carroll

DellaSala is the North America Section President whose new book Temperate and Boreal Rainforests of the World sets out carbon sequestration and other values of these non-tropical ecosystems; He testified for SCB in Congress on Climate Change and Public Land Management in 2009.

Carroll is NA Policy Chair and a newly elected member of the Board of Governors who is active in a wide array of science-policy analyses.

Barrett is a Ph.D. Economist, former senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, former head of Redefining Progress, a group that reevaluated resource stewardship measures, and co-author of a seminal paper in 2002 on the effectiveness of reorienting public investments toward renewables and efficiency.  Barrett led the climate and investment workshop session in the 2008 SCB ICCB in Tennessee. Barrett has taken his academic expertise in economics and valuation of stewardship to the market and now identifies environmentally friendly projects in need of capital and partners.

Scientific Integrity – In wildlife conservation law, protecting the science and the scientists: Francesca Grifo, Carlos Carroll, Dominick DellaSala

Grifo is a Ph.D. biologist who heads the Scientific Integrity Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists and has led workshops at SCB conferences on protecting the integrity of science.- DellaSala blew the whistle on politically motivated interference with science in the Endangered Species Program and testified with Grifo in House Natural Resources Committee Hearings on the subject in 2007 and 2008.

Biological Security (e.g., Invasives and Trade in Illegally Harvested Products): Peter Jenkins

Jenkins is a lawyer who specializes in invasive species policy and related international trade controls.  Early on he worked on Mexican wolf recovery and other western US conservation issues. He is the former international program director for Defenders of Wildlife and former government affairs director for Conservation International.

Investment and Procurement – (from Multilateral Bank Investment to Greening Private Investment): Jim Barrett

Treaties and Agreements Affecting Conservation: Kyle Gracey, Peter Jenkins

Gracey is a consultant with the Gade Environmental Group. He was recently an Energy and Climate Fellow at the Worldwatch Institute and worked in the Speechwriting office of U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden. He a current board Director of the sustainable development policy organization SustainUS and has been delegate to more than 10 United Nations negotiations on climate change, social development, and sustainable development. He has B.S. degrees in Ecological Economics and Biochemistry/Biophysics, and an M.S. in Physical Sciences and Public Policy. He serves on the Board of SCB’s Working Group on Ecological Economics and Sustainability Science.