Search

Poster presented at the 2nd Networking Meeting of the S4D4C project ‘Towards a European Science Diplomacy Roadmap’ held October 10, 2019 in Berlin

Poster presented at the 2nd Networking Meeting of the S4D4C project ‘Towards a European Science Diplomacy Roadmap’ held October 10, 2019 in Berlin &nbsp

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

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an expert institution expected to transform the governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES expands on previous initiatives and positions itself as a knowledge-policy interface open to different ways of knowing biodiversity. In this contribution, we analyze how the principles of regional, gender, and disciplinary balance that were adopted by IPBES have been applied to the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP): the body of experts responsible for the scientific and technical functions of IPBES and embedded in its knowledge-making practices. In doing so, we compare the selection of the interim MEP in 2013 with the new MEP in 2015 and find a small improvement in gender and disciplinary balance that varies across the United Nations regional groupings. According to the ambition of IPBES, there is significant room for improvement, but "opening-up" expertise in an intergovernmental setting proves challenging.

Science Diplomacy in the Making: Case-based insights from the S4D4C project is a volume of compiled results of the nine case studies, researched and developed by mixed teams of researchers from the project partners, and edited by Mitchell Young (Charles University), Tim Flink (DZHW) and Elke Dall (ZSI). These case studies are at the empirical heart of the S4D4C project (Horizon 2020 grant agreement No 770342; Using Science for/in Diplomacy for Addressing Global Challenges), informing many other parts of the project such as the work on a governance framework and training materials for science diplomats. Each case study provides an overview of the case and its background, context and governance arrangements, further providing a description of the stakeholder landscape and a discussion of governance practices. They look at the EU level as well as selected examples from the national level that vary case to case. The case studies examine the use of knowledge, the relations between governance levels and provide a discussion on how the case improves or changes our understanding of science diplomacy., Project website: https://www.s4d4c.eu/science-diplomacy-in-the-making-case-based-insights-from-the-s4d4c-project