1. 1 Creating an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Dr Andrew Stott Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK andrew.stott@defra.gsi.gov.uk

2. 2 No sub-target completely achieved Most indicators negative No government claims success Direct pressures constant or increasing The 2010 Biodiversity Target has not been met

3. 3 Source: WWF/ZSL 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 Source: WWF/ZSL

4. 4 Amazon loss slowing in Brazil Source: INPE

5. StatePressureResponse Source: Butchart etal 2010

6. 6 From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

7. 7 Business as usual Carbon tax including land use Carbon tax on fossil fuels and industry only Global scenarios for land use Source: Wise etal 2009

8. 8 Tipping Point – Amazon dieback 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 Current Path Alternative Path Keep deforestation below 20%-30% of original forest area Minimize use of fire for clearing Keep global climate warming below 2-3 degrees

9. 9

10. 10 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 world- wide network of experts…’ Jacques Chirac, Paris, January 2005

11. 11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports

12. 12 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

13. 13 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 Enhanced understanding and application of science Improved access to peer reviewed scientific results Evidence gaps which require further scientific work

14. 14 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Evaluation Evaluations completed in 2007 concluded: Lack of significant direct impact on policy Lack tools/models to be used by policy- makers Further research to fill knowledge gaps Sub-global assessments not fully developed Lack of awareness amongst key stakeholders

15. 15 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!

16. 16 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.

17. 17 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

18. 18 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

19. 19 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.

20. 20 CBD COP10 - Nagoya Welcomed outcome of Busan meeting and its conclusion that IPBES should be established Encouraged UN General Assembly 65 th 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

21. 21 UN General Assembly 65 th Session Meeting this afternoon in New York! Will decide whether to establish IPBES and the modalities for its first plenary meeting.

22. 22 Thanks for listening Dr Andrew Stott Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK andrew.stott@defra.gsi.gov.uk

23. 23

24. 24 regional networks Secretariat Executive Board/Bureau IPBES Plenary Body (Governments and observers) Outputs – assessments, reviews, tools Conventions, IGOs, NGOs WG1 Assessments WG2 Capacity building/ Catalysis/outreach data Inputs – infrastructure investment/ research funding Scientists/ Knowledge holders Governments One possible Model of an IPBES structure