UK Questionnaire on the possible scope of the IPBES Work Programme

24 October 2011

To learn more about IPBES visit:

To learn more about the Joint Nature Conservation Committee:

To learn more about the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra):

UK Questionnaire on the possible scope of the IPBES Work Programme

The first Plenary of IPBES, in October 2011, considered options for implementing the four functions of the Platform (papers UNEP/IPBES.MI/1/INF3 to INF6/Add.1). The Plenary agreed to further develop the Work Programme before the next Plenary meeting in April 2012, and agreed that submissions on its possible scope should be made to UNEP by 15 December 2011. To support the development of an EU position on the possible scope of the Work Programme the European Commission has subsequently requested proposals from EU Member States.

UK Stakeholders are invited to contribute to this process and this questionnaire is designed to facilitate responses; it can be downloaded and edited as an alternative, or in addition, to commenting on the EU table of options and activities.

Section 1: General questions relating to all four functions

  1. What do you consider to be the highest priorities for the IPBES Work Programme and why?
  1. What do you think should be the essential outputs and achievements for the next 5 and 10 years?
  1. What benefits and disadvantages are there from undertaking activities at particular scales (global, regional or sub-regional)?
  1. How should the four functions work together?
  1. What are the benefits of embedding activities to deliver one function within those from other functions, and are these benefits different at different scales?
  1. How should IPBES add to or integrate relevant activities under other Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs) to ensure an efficient and effective range of global biodiversity and ecosystemservices activities?
  1. Which ways of working will allow IPBES to maintain policy-relevance and yet allow for independent knowledge assessment?

Section 2: Specific questions relating to each of the four functions

Knowledge generation:

(see UNEP/IPBES.MI/1/INF/3)

  1. How frequently should IPBES aim to undertake assessments of policy-relevant knowledge needs, and should this be different at different scales?
  1. Should IPBES take a thematic approach to assessing policy-relevant knowledge needs and if so what should the short-term thematic priorities be?
  1. What mechanisms at what scales are required to support IPBES in identifying and prioritising policy-relevant knowledge needs?
  1. Which existing mechanisms do you think have proven cost-effective in identifying and prioritising policy-relevant knowledge needs?
  1. How might IPBES most effectively engage funders of knowledge generation to promote the needs that it has identified?
  1. What role should IPBES have in improving capacity to capture and generate knowledge for policy use, and what do think would be the most effective methods?

Assessments:

(see UNEP/IPBES.MI/1/INF/4)

  1. What are the priorities for assessments in the short-term and at what scales?
  1. How much flexibility should there be within the scope of any IPBES assessments, especially in relation to effective use of existing assessments undertaken atglobal, regional and sub-regional scales?
  1. What benefits would thematic assessments bring and what should be prioritised at what scales in the short-term if thematic assessments are taken forward?
  1. How should uncertainty be evaluated and communicated, and are there effective approaches already available that could be adopted by IPBES?
  1. What role should IPBES have in improving capacity for the capture, collection and sharing ofdata for assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services?

Policy support:

(see UNEP/IPBES.MI/1/INF/5)

  1. Should IPBES produce policy support tools and if so what are the highest priorities at what scales for short-term development?
  1. What kinds of mechanisms could IPBES adopt to effectively identify and develop policy support tools?
  1. How can IPBES engage the right range of expertise to develop mainstreaming tools?
  1. Should IPBES monitor the impacts of its activities and outputs on policy, and what methods might be effective?
  1. What role should IPBES have in improving capacity for policy development and implementation?

Capacity building:

(see UNEP/IPBES.MI/1/INF/6)

  1. What and where are the key priorities for capacity building in support of knowledge generation, assessments and policy developmentto achieve global and regional targets for biodiversity and ecosystem services?
  1. What role should IPBES have in improving capacity compared with other existing mechanisms, i.e. how can it add value?
  1. What are the most effective mechanisms that could be adopted to support capacity building in knowledge generation, assessments and policy development?
  1. When influencing funders to support capacity development what methods should IPBES adopt to provide evaluation of options and priorities, for example in relation to impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services?
  1. How could IPBES monitor the effectiveness of its role in capacity building?

JNCC/IPBES/UK Stakeholder Group/Consultations/Work Programme/Questionnaire/24Oct_4Nov2011