Back to ANNOUNCEMENTS

Up to Table of Contents

A FIELD REPORT FROM THE IMOSEB MEETING IN MONTREAL

President Jacques Chirac and the French government are supporting a new international initiative on biodiversity. They are funding a series of regional consultation meetings to gather input on needs and options for an International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB). I attended the first consultative meeting, which was held 30-31 January in Montreal. Essentially, the initiative stems from a belief that biodiversity knowledge is not effectively reaching decision makers. In other words, science does not influence policy simply by existing.

To address how science can better inform decision making, an international steering committee organized an initial meeting in Paris in December 2006 to launch the process. Subsequently, the IMoSEB Executive Committee identified the following needs to be considered at subsequent consultation meetings.

-- Transfer biodiversity information from science and other forms of knowledge to decision makers
-- Provide independent scientific information to support international conventions and treaties on biodiversity
-- Build capacity to predict the consequences of biodiversity loss
-- Provide scientific advice on emerging threats to biodiversity and provide support to those concerned about or trying to ameliorate potential threats
-- Communicate biodiversity science to relevant audiences
-- Provide scientific support to assessment and monitoring efforts
-- Reduce the lag time between publication of scientific results and their incorporation into decision making

Four options were identified to address these needs.

-- Develop a partnership with existing institutions or mechanisms, such as the United Nations Environment Programme or Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), operating as their information carrier
-- Create a new institution, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that would be devoted to assessment and communication of biodiversity knowledge
-- Propose that the IPCC develop a biodiversity branch
-- Enhance existing networks of scientists and other knowledge communities to disseminate information

Substantial discussion at the consultative meeting focused on these needs and options. The general sentiment was that something must be done to stem the high rates of biodiversity loss worldwide, and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is not doing its job. Some attendees were more sympathetic to the CBD, noting that countries are still struggling to implement the CBD and need more time. Most meeting attendees expressed their belief that the impediment to slowing rates of biodiversity loss is not a lack of science, but realizing action on the science. In other words, the nature and causes of biodiversity loss are known, but gaps in information
and institutional imperatives hinder efforts to mitigate the losses.

Within this context, it was apparent to many meeting participants that an appropriate niche has not yet been identified for IMoSEB. There was much concern that IMoSEB's work would overlap with activities already being conducted by the IUCN or the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice to the CBD. Some attendees speculated that the biodiversity community is envious of the attention attracted by the work of the IPCC. Others pointed out that biodiversity in fact garners considerable attention and press, and that we must acknowledge our successes. In this regard, there was a great deal of discussion about the role that IMoSEB should play. It appears that IMoSEB has a name without a mandate.

Further common concerns voiced at the meeting related to identifying the appropriate scale at which IMoSEB should concentrate, bearing in mind that costs increase as resolution increases. Many practitioners pointed out that site specific, local scale information is needed to make effective biodiversity decisions. In this regard, a global assessment like the IPCC for biodiversity issues is inappropriate and not useful. However, IMoSEB cannot communicate with decision makers in millions of local management areas around the world. Stemming from this observation, some suggested that IMoSEB adopt a wiki model of organization, with a global, internet based community of experts, expertise, and knowledge that would be easily accessible to decision makers at all levels.

Meeting participants also perceived a need to incorporate other actors into the biodiversity community. Such actors include those with traditional ecological knowledge as well as large, powerful corporations, such as International Paper and Cargill, that make decisions affecting biodiversity on large scales. In addition, the issue of economic valuation was discussed at length. Many claimed that a greater number of economists need to be brought into the biodiversity field. Other attendees emphasized that disciplines such as sociology, engineering, and political science are equally important for action on biodiversity.

In the end, one question echoed in my mind. Which scientific questions about biodiversity require international oversight, and which are best addressed at local scales? This question was not answered definitively, and IMoSEB will remain without a mandate until some consensus on the answer to this question is achieved.

The next IMoSEB consultation meeting will be held in late February in Cameroon. Subsequent meetings are planned in Europe, Asia, Oceana-Pacific, Latin American, and the Caribbean.

More information is available at www.imoseb.net

Jon Rosales

Back to ANNOUNCEMENTS

Up to Table of Contents