Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise the cases of the IPCC and the IPBES

The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation

Towards a national ecosystem assessment in Germany

We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding

Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitspolitik unter Corona

Zu Beginn der Corona-Krise wurde schnell klar, dass sie allumfassend auf Gesellschaften und damit auch auf die Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsagenda wirkt. Dies kommt zu einer Zeit, in der zunehmend deutlich wird, dass wir erhebliche Anstrengungen brauchen, um die Nachhaltigkeits- und Klimaagenden tatsächlich umzusetzen

Biodiversity data provision and decision-making - addressing the challenges

Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) are measurements required for study, reporting, and management of biodiversity change. They are being developed to support consistency, from the collection to the reporting of biodiversity data at the national, regional and global scales. However, "EBV stakeholders" need to strike a balance between 'doing innovative research' and 'having positive impact' on biodiversity management decisions. This paper reports on a workshop entitled Identifying joint pathways to address the challenges of biodiversity data provision and decision-making and presents the main workshop’s output, a “researcher’s brief” entitled Guiding principles for promoting the application of EBVs for current and future needs of decision-makers. These guiding principles are: Speak with a common voice; Clearly define what is an EBV and how it relates to indicators; Engage beyond the research world; Be realistic about what can be done now and later; Define criteria for good EBVs; Use EBV as a clearing house; Convey the limitations of EBVs; Clarify what impact EBVs should have; Be salient, credible, legitimate, iterative; Don't put an EBV skin on everything you do; Don't create too many EBVs; and Don't reduce EBVs to building blocks of indicators. This brief is of relevance to the wider GEO BON (Group on Earth Observation Biodoversity Observation Network) community, and in particular those scientists/researchers interested in the application of EBVs

Five years of IPBES : Reflecting the achievements and challenges and identifying needs for its review towards a 2nd work programme.

On 17 to 19th October 2017, twenty-four academics and practitioners with diverse inter- and transdisciplinary experiences gathered for a workshop to collectively reflect on IPBES’ work and performance. The workshop was held at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) in Leipzig. The workshop and this report represent an effort to proactively contribute to IPBES’ ongoing (external) review process. The external review process opens up a window of opportunity towards re-thinking the very purpose of IPBES and identifying new pathways to live up to its initial ambitions, such as to move beyond assessments. The workshop identified a spectrum of potential opportunities, provided visions for the future work of IPBES, and collected insights into how to cope with them. While the workshop focussed on identifying future challenges and possible solutions, all participants underlined the great achievements that IPBES has already accomplished. This report provides a synthesis of the workshop discussions. The main recommendations for the external review were:  - The external review should seize the opportunity to establish itself in a responsive and future-oriented way so that it not only assesses past performance but also facilitates learning and identifies new pathways for IPBES. It is important that the focus of the review is not just on the extent to which IPBES has fulfilled its ambitions but also on the efficiency with which it has done this, and on the potential unintended effects of decisions.  - For IPBES to achieve its initial ambitions, strengthening the (mainly global-scale) scientific knowledge base behind assessments is necessary but not yet sufficient. To meet its broader set of goals, it is required to pay critical attention to all aspects of policy support, knowledge generation and capacity-building, including the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and the incorporation of local and indigenous knowledge. This will require building synergies between knowledge systems, promoting the engagement of the social sciences and humanities, and addressing current challenges in the nomination and selection procedures for the identification of experts.  - The external review also opens up space to identify a full range of alternative options and choices that are available when reforming IPBES. The review should engage in real-world dialogues and liaise closely with partners from research, policy and practice as well as with national platforms and local actors.http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=38006</p

Towards a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany: A Plea for a Comprehensive Approach

We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding