Capacity Building for IPBES:
Needs and Options
A scoping paper prepared at the UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre for the Norwegian Directorate for
Nature Management
9 May 2011
The purpose of this document is to support and generate discussion. The contents of the document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, the Government of Norway, the Norwegian Directorate for
Nature Management, or any other organization that has contributed to it.
Capacity building for IPBES: Needs and options
Contents
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2. The potential form and function of IPBES ........................................................................................ 5
3. Identifying the capacity building need ............................................................................................. 7
3.1 Identifying the range of potential capacity building needs ................................................... 7
3.2 Identifying the priority capacity building needs .................................................................. 10
4. Activities which address capacity building needs .......................................................................... 12
5. Identifying who can contribute to IPBES capacity building............................................................ 14
6. Issues in developing an IPBES capacity building function .............................................................. 20
6.1 Possible options for delivery of a capacity building function .............................................. 20
6.2 Key cross-cutting issues to address ..................................................................................... 21
6.3 Work programmes, strategies and action plans .................................................................. 22
6.4 Key issues for the involvement of other organizations, networks and programmes .......... 23
6.5 Discussions on development of a capacity building node to support IPBES ....................... 23
6.6 Possible strategic partnerships for capacity building – the “low hanging fruit” ................. 25
6.7 Relationships with other assessment processes ................................................................. 26
6.8 Relationship with other bodies and processes involving governments .............................. 26
7. Potential for others to provide leadership and influence .............................................................. 28
7.1 What is the potential for Government influence?............................................................... 28
7.2 What are the key considerations with respect to future links to IPBES? ............................ 29
7.3 Are there other questions to consider at an early stage? ................................................... 30
7.4 How might a new capacity building initiative supporting IPBES work? ............................... 31
7.5 How might initial areas and issues to focus on be identified? ............................................ 32
7.6 How might partners in “recipient” countries be identified? ............................................... 32
8. Next steps and options for follow up ............................................................................................. 34
8.1 With respect to IPBES in general ......................................................................................... 34
8.2 For organizations considering playing a focal role in support of IPBES ............................... 35
References and notes ............................................................................................................................ 37
Annexes
1 – Capacity building needs already identified during IPBES discussions
2 – Relevant capacity building needs identified in NCSAs
3 – Capacity building activities in various global assessment processes
4 – Types of organizations that potentially address capacity building needs already identified during
IPBES discussions
5 – Examples of relevant capacity building activities of multilateral organizations, IGOs and
processes, international organizations and programmes, , and bilateral donors
6 – Examples of national organizations supporting capacity building activities in other countries
7 – CBD National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
8 – Examples of major collaborative projects testing methods for improving the science -policy
interface
Executive summary
In recent years significant attention has been given to ways and means to improve the manner in
which science is used to inform policy setting and decision making with respect to biodiversity and
ecosystem services. While a wide range of individuals and organizations had been considering this
issue for some time, over the last three years, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
has been facilitating discussion on a proposed Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES),12 during which time it has convened three intergovernmental and multi-
stakeholder meetings.
The third and final intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on IPBES took place in Busan,
Republic of Korea, in June 2010. In the ‘Busan Outcome’ annexed to the report of the meeting,5
representatives of Governments concluded that an IPBES should be established to strengthen the
science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services “for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human wellbeing and sustainable development”. In
reaching this conclusion Government representatives also agreed a range of characteristics of a
future IPBES which are identified in the Busan Outcome. In December 2010, through resolution
65/162, the UN General Assembly asked UNEP to convene a plenary meeting to determine the
modalities and institutional arrangements necessary for fully operationalizing the platform.
Calls for capacity building during the intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meetings
At each of the three IPBES intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meetings, capacity building has
been a prominent issue in discussions, and it is widely recognised that it will form an essential
component of IPBES. However how exactly IPBES will address this issue has yet to be identified.
In the gap analysis that guided discussion at the second meeting in Nairobi, Kenya,3 it was found that
“Numerous institutions and processes are helping to use science effectively in decision-making at all
levels. Further efforts, however, are required to integrate multiple disciplines and knowledge systems
to produce relevant knowledge effectively; to translate knowledge into policy action and to
coordination these processes; and to build the capacities of developing countries to use science more
effectively in decision-making and to participate fully in the science-policy dialogue”. The last of
these issues was also the focus of an information document introduced by Brazil on behalf of
GRULAC which listed key capacity building needs.4
Informed by these and other information documents and discussions, the third meeting in Busan,
Republic of Korea, explicitly concluded with respect to capacity building that “The new platform
should prioritize key capacity-building needs to improve the science-policy interface at appropriate
levels and then provide and call for financial and other support for the highest-priority needs related
directly to its activities, as decided by the plenary, and catalyse financing for such capacity-building
activities by providing a forum with conventional and potential sources of funding”.
However the reports of the IPBES meetings also recognised the potential contribution of existing
organizations, networks, programmes and processes to IPBES-related activities including capacity
building, and in the Busan Outcome concluded that the platform should collaborate with existing
initiatives in order to “fill gaps and build upon their work, while avoiding duplication”. This issue was
more fully addressed in an information document prepared for the third IPBES meeting with the
support of the Nordic Council of Ministers.7
1
Scoping paper on capacity building for IPBES
In order to consider these issues further with a view to helping to support the development of
capacity building activities in the context of IPBES, the Government of Norway has commissioned a
scoping paper on the issue, to which this is the executive summary. This scoping paper, which is
supported by eight annexes, addresses the following key elements:
o Summary and annotated list of the capacity building needs identified during IPBES discussions
(including in supporting documents), supported by information on capacity building elements of
other assessment processes, and other assessments of capacity building needs.
o Overview with examples of a range of existing organizations, networks and programmes that are
already addressing one or more of these needs, whether at national or international levels, and
which could form part of any coordinated response to addressing capacity building in the context
of IPBES.
o Identification of some of the key Issues to be addressed in developing and implementing an IPBES
capacity building function, in anticipation that highlighting these issues may help facilitate further
discussion on mechanisms for delivering capacity building in particular.
o Identification of some of the key issues that governments and others interested in leading and
influencing capacity building in the context of IPBES might want to also take account of in their
planning, including areas where governments can potentially influence the actions of others in
improving the science-policy interface.
Next steps and options for follow up
A number of suggestions are made concerning potential follow up on the issues raised in the scoping
paper, and the ways in which these might be addressed in the lead up to the plenary meeting. These
suggestions include:
o workshop(s) on IPBES and capacity building in advance of the IPBES plenary
o wider peer review of the scoping paper to validate and expand on its current content
o preparation of information papers based on the scoping paper for the plenary
o consideration of a potential broader strategy for capacity building with respect to IPBES
o further review of opportunities to link to the capacity building efforts of other assessments
o identification of potential ‘quick wins’
This is followed by section on the potential for others to provide leadership and influence with
respect to capacity building, looking in particular at the potential for government influence, and
some key considerations for governments and organizations who may want to help improve delivery
of capacity building in the context of IPBES.
2
1. Introduction
In recent years significant attention has been given to ways and means to improve the manner in
which science is used to inform policy setting and decision making with respect to biodiversity and
ecosystem services. While a wide range of individuals and organizations had been considering this
issue for some time, significant impetus was given to these discussions in 2005 when the then
President of France, Jacques Chirac, called on the international community to consider how we could
achieve for biodiversity the scientific consensus that has been achieved for climate change by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This led directly to the consultation on needs for
an International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB)10 which took place
between 2005 and 2007, and coincided with completion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA)11 and consideration of MA follow up activities.2
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has facilitated discussion on a proposed
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) since
2008,12 during which time it has convened three intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meetings.
The third and final ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on IPBES took place 7-
11 June 2010 in the Republic of Korea with the aim of negotiating and reaching agreement on
whether to establish a new mechanism. Agreement was reached with the Busan Outcome,5 and a
recommendation for establishment of an IPBES was put before the UN General Assembly. On 20
December 2010, the UN General Assembly requested UNEP to convene a plenary meeting in order
to fully operationalize IPBES.1 This request was addressed at the 26th session of the UNEP Governing
Council, which, in addition to deciding that UNEP should proceed with convening the plenary
meeting, explicitly requested that UNEP cooperate with UNESCO, FAO and UNDP in convening the
plenary meeting, and also asked UNEP to continue to facilitate any ensuing process to implement
the platform until such time as a secretariat was established.18
These activities have generated a significant amount of discussion about the issue of improving the
science-policy interface, and although this discussion has been focused on global and regional
assessments and how they inform the policy dialogue, there has also been significant attention paid
to the need to improve the ways in which science is used to inform decision making at national
levels. It is therefore perhaps useful to note that, whatever the final form and function of IPBES, the
increased international focus on this issue in recent years will in all likelihood lead to improvements
in science-policy interfaces at all levels.
It should also be noted that there are other ongoing intergovernmental discussions directly relevant
to the improvement of the science-policy interface, including the steps being taken to establish the
“Global Marine Assessment” that was called for at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
2002,13 and the recently published review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC.9 It is valuable
to recognise, that in whatever way IPBES is established, and in whatever ways improvements in the
use of science in decision making take place, there is a clear expectation that the actions taken
would build on existing experience, and on the existing landscape of organizations, networks,
programmes and processes working to improve the use of science in policy development and
implementation. This is necessary in order to learn from past experiences, to take advantage of
potential synergies, and to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The Norwegian Government sees IPBES as essential for improving understanding and decision-
making for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and anticipates that UNEP, FAO, UNDP and UNESCO
will cooperate and contribute to making IPBES a success. They have also noticed that capacity
building has been identified by many Governments as a key issue during the intergovernmental and
multi-stakeholder meetings on IPBES, and one in which IPBES could play a major role. The
3
Norwegian Government is therefore ready to give technical and professional support to capacity
building for IPBES, and wishes to consider further the most effective means for doing so.
With this in mind, the Norwegian Government have commissioned this scoping paper as a basis for
exploring the needs and options for capacity building for IPBES, and helping to formulate both the
international response, and a Norwegian response. This scoping paper has been prepared by the
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre working in cooperation with the Norwegian
Directorate for Nature Management. Its preparation has been supported by the Norwegian Ministry
of Environment.
Throughout this report the term “capacity building” has been used, as this is the term largely
used in the discussions on IPBES at the plenary meetings in Putrajaya, Nairobi and Busan, and is
included in the reports of those meetings. However the term “capacity development” - as used by
UNDP and the World Bank, for example - may be more appropriate for what is described here.
4
2. The potential form and function of IPBES
To facilitate discussion and planning to support the capacity building elements of a future IPBES, it is
necessary to anticipate to some extent the future form and function of an IPBES. Although this may
change in the light of future discussions and agreements, in the Busan Outcome5 participants at the
third intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on IPBES recommended that IPBES should:
a) be established as an independent intergovernmental body with its own governance processes,
financial arrangements and secretariat, administered by one more of the existing UN
organizations, agencies, funds or programmes;
b) be responsive to the needs of governments within the context of priories set by the plenary,
including those needs expressed by multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), while also
taking into account inputs and suggestions from other relevant stakeholders;
c) identify and prioritize key scientific information needed for policymakers at appropriate scales,
and catalyse efforts to generate new knowledge through dialogue with key scientific
organizations, policymakers and funding organizations;
d) deliver global, regional, sub-regional and thematic assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem
services as required, including on new issues identified by the plenary, using appropriate and
widely understood processes and methodologies;
e) promote and catalyse support for the implementation of sub-global assessments at regional,
sub-regional, and national levels, helping to ensure common methodologies and frameworks,
and including the maintenance of a catalogue of relevant assessments;
f) support policy formulation and implementation by identifying policy-relevant tools and
methodologies which can support decision-makers (such as those arising from assessments),
and, where necessary, promote their further development; and
g) identify the key capacity building needs necessary for improving the science-policy interface at
appropriate levels, providing and calling for financial and other support for the highest priority
needs, and catalyzing additional support through convening a donors’ forum.
In carrying out this work participants at the Busan meeting foresaw that IPBES would:
a) collaborate with existing initiatives including MEAs, UN bodies, and networks of scientists and
knowledge holders, both to build upon their knowledge and experience, and to avoiding
duplication;
b) be scientifically independent and ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy through the peer
review of its work and transparency in its decision-making processes;
c) use clear, transparent and scientifically credible processes for the exchange, sharing and use of
data, information and technologies from all relevant sources, including non-peer-reviewed
literature;
d) take an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach that incorporates all relevant
disciplines, including both social and natural sciences;
e) recognize and respect the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services;
f) provide policy-relevant information, but not policy-prescriptive advice, mindful of the
respective mandates of the multilateral environmental agreements;
g) recognize the value and importance of full and effective participation of all countries and
regions in a balanced manner in its structure and work, and of ensuring gender equity;
5
h) ensure the full use of the data, information and knowledge arising from national, sub-regional
and regional assessments, as appropriate; and
i) integrate capacity-building into all relevant aspects of its work according to priorities decided by
the plenary.
The participants agreed that IPBES work with and through a wide range of organizations and
individuals. In doing so IPBES would draw on existing experiences, interests, capacities and
strengths, many of them already supported by Government investments. With this in mind, in a
previous paper commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers,7 UNEP-WCMC explored what it
was that IPBES could do itself, what it could task others to do on its behalf, and what activities IPBES
could promote, facilitate and/or catalyse (either directly or indirectly. This discussion is not
presented here, but the box below lists the activities that were identified in that paper (although
presented slightly differently here).
o Identifying needs and priorities
o Building constituencies
- understanding who is doing what
- engaging relevant stakeholders
o Promoting, coordinating and delivering assessments
- global
- regional and sub-regional
- national and sub-national
- thematic
o Compiling and synthesising information on new/emerging issues
- models
- tipping points
- scenarios
- horizon scanning
o Identifying and addressing knowledge gaps
- increasing access to data and information
- improving observation and monitoring
- coordinating research strategies addressing gaps
- influencing research policy, funding and practice
- increasing interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research
o Identifying and addressing functional gaps
- funding and other resources
- capacity building
- coordination
o Providing support tools
- methodologies and processes
- identification and definition of consistent metrics
- guidelines
- tools for sharing experience
o Communicating the results of assessments
o Building capacity in all areas identified above
6
3. Identifying the capacity building need
This section is based on a review of three sets of documents and activities, each of which is set out in
more detail in one of the annexes. These cover:
a) IPBES discussions (see Annex 1): Review of the documents and information documents already
prepared as part of the IPBES preparatory meetings, the most significant with respect to
capacity building needs being the IPBES Gap Analysis,3 the paper submitted by GRULAC
specifically on capacity building needs,4 and the capacity building paper prepared for the third
IPBES meeting.6
b) National Capacity Self Assessments (see Annex 2): Review of NCSA reports with respect to
improving the science-policy interface, drawing on the NCSA review completed last year8 and
augmenting material already included in Annex S of the IPBES Gap Analysis.3 The NCSA
programme is a broad capacity assessment process which represents one of the main pillars of
the GEF Strategic Approach on Enhancing Capacity Building.
c) Other assessment processes (see Annex 3): Review of the capacity building activities that have
been included in other assessment processes, noting also the most recent recommendations on
improving the IPCC processes,9 and also drawing on the Assessment of Assessment report
carried out in the context of the GRAME Regular Process.13
3.1 Identifying the range of potential capacity building needs
What follows is an annotated list of all capacity building needs identified in the documents and
discussions referred to above and reviewed in more detail in Annexes 1-3. It is anticipated that
addressing these needs will lead to an approach to using science in policy development and
implementation that is more credible, legitimate and relevant, strengthening ability at all levels to
plan and carry out assessments, and use the results arising from them.
This list is not prioritized, nor is it assumed that IPBES, or any initiative supporting it, will necessarily
address all of these needs. However it does provide a useful framework for further discussion.
Cluster Identified needs
Institutional culture Planning and strategy development: Create an expectation and requirement that
scientific expertise and knowledge is employed in the processes that lead to the
Ensuring that development of strategies, plans and policies
governance and
funding arrangements Decision making processes: Create an expectation and requirement that decision
recognise and respond making processes seek out and take appropriate account of available information
to the importance of and knowledge
ensuring the effective Resource allocation: Move towards a situation where resource allocation
and transparent use of processes and decisions bear in mind scientific findings, prioritizations and needs
science in decision
making Regulatory frameworks: Create an expectation and requirement that appropriate
scientific expertise and knowledge is employed in processes leading to
amendment, development and enactment of laws/regulations
Monitoring and evaluation systems: Ensure that performance assessment involves
scientists and incorporates scientific findings as it seeks to inform policy processes
of the impacts of previous decisions and policies
7
Cluster Identified needs
Institutional setup: Ensure that research institutions have the mandates, culture
and budgets necessary for delivering the research and information necessary to
support policy processes
Partnerships: Develop a culture of building partnerships, developing co-
management mechanisms, and increasing cooperation in tackling issues of
common interest in the science-policy arena
Funding: Build institutional capacity to raise funds (from government, business and
elsewhere) for research projects and programmes, for individual and institutional
capacity building, and for knowledge production
Education needs Education: Consolidate education in science and technology from primary to
tertiary, to nurture talents and produce the number of graduates needed by
Ensure the necessary institutions and the community at large
future manpower
Build an adequate scientific cadre: Build a sufficient level of individual scientific
manpower to document and supply data, knowledge and information on
biodiversity and natural resources, and to communicate it effectively
Access to existing Information on who’s who: Create/maintain searchable databases of scientists,
knowledge research groups, research projects and research institutions, so as to increase
Consolidating and recognition and understanding of who is working on what
expanding access to Access to publications: Create/maintain online portals providing free access to
data, information and international scientific journals and other relevant publications, and open access
knowledge on to all countries of national scientific journals published elsewhere
biodiversity and
ecosystem services Access to “grey” literature: Create/maintain open-access repositories of relevant
non-published literature, including theses, dissertations, government reports and
so on, with appropriate search tools
Access to data: Promote the wider development of open-access databases which
deliver geo-referenced data on biodiversity and ecosystems, and associated socio-
economic data, in a manner which supports decision making and policy setting
Repatriation of data: Ensure that all countries have full and complete access to
data, information and knowledge collected in their countries, and to the results of
research conducted in their countries
Building the knowledge Information management: Build adequate data and knowledge management
base capacities, including coordination mechanisms, networks, and identified roles and
responsibilities, so as to support planning and management at all levels
Capacity for effective
production of scientific Interdisciplinary research: Actively encourage and build capacity in applied
knowledge relevant to interdisciplinary research involving both social and natural sciences, in order to
policy needs better inform the brokering of knowledge, and decision making
Incorporating indigenous and local knowledge: Strengthen capacity to integrate
scientific research and indigenous and local knowledge in appropriate ways for
informing policy development and decision making
Assessments: Build capacity in all aspects of planning and implementing
assessments, ensuring full stakeholder involvement, and improved understanding
of the relevance of biodiversity and ecosystem services
Monitoring: Build capacity to monitor relevant aspects of biodiversity and
ecosystem services and their value, so as to better understand change over time
and the impacts of different drivers and pressures
8
Cluster Identified needs
Indicators: Increase ability to develop and use metrics, indicators and indices that
are meaningful for monitoring achievement of national targets, both individually
and in meaningful combinations.
Modelling: Access to modelling tools to analyse the status, trends and values of
biodiversity and ecosystem services, with the consideration of drivers of
biodiversity use and loss
Early warning: Establishment of horizon scanning and early warning systems, to
inform decision making and policy development processes of potential and actual
environmental problems
Research needs Identifying research gaps: Build institutional capacity in assessing research gaps
(including monitoring and information gaps) in an ongoing way for actual and
Helping to ensure that future knowledge and information needs for effective policy-making
research addresses the
needs of those taking Research frameworks: Create and strengthen frameworks and processes that
management decisions, guide and prioritize research programmes, and the funding for them, ensuring that
and setting policy they have clear objectives, and properly address identified research gaps
Good practice in research: Ensure that research is carried out in a manner that
ensures its credibility and legitimacy to those involved in policy and decision
making processes
Stakeholder coordination: Establish clear coordination mechanisms between
knowledge producers and knowledge users in order to better support policy-
making processes
Communication of Create capacity in policymakers to grasp scientific issues: Build capacity of policy-
knowledge makers to understand environmental issues and key concepts sufficient to more
effectively use scientific information in their deliberations
Capacity for effective
communication of Improve communication skills of knowledge producers: Build capacity of
knowledge to decision knowledge producers (including those working with traditional knowledge) to
makers and decision communicate effectively their findings to policy makers
making processes, and Brokering knowledge: Build capacity to present clear policy alternatives, that
to the public at large systematically outline the implications of taking different policy options based on
available knowledge and scientific understanding
Public awareness: Increase the awareness of the public on the need for policy
setting and decision making to take account of all available information and
knowledge, including that derived from scientific and other sources
Communication tools: Facilitate access in appropriate formats, and on appropriate
timescales to the knowledge and information necessary for supporting decision
making
International processes Tools, standards and methods: The development and promulgation of tools,
standards and methods for carrying out assessment processes, and for using and
Capacity for full and sharing the results
effective participation
in transnational and Training and workshops: These can take the form of face-to-face sessions, but can
international also include e-learning opportunities (for example with GEO).
assessment processes Technical support: Provision of support carrying out various aspects of assessment
for the purpose of processes, based on standard methodologies, and experience elsewhere.
improving the science
base for policy Engaging stakeholders: Broadening stakeholder involvement and understanding
formulation at all levels with respect to the importance and value of increasing the knowledge base on
which decisions and made and policy set
9
Cluster Identified needs
Fellowship programmes: Programmes to allow professionals from developing
countries to work for international assessment secretariats, and alongside
professionals elsewhere, increasing their own experience
Facilitation of meeting participation: Finding resources to ensure that ecosystem
assessment practitioners from every country are able to participate fully in
relevant international meetings and workshops
Prioritizing participation: Finding and prioritizing resources to ensure that
ecosystem assessment practitioners in every country have sufficient time available
to fully participate at national and international levels
Networks Building practitioner networks: For sharing experience between practitioners, and
for sharing knowledge, fostering peer-to-peer support and learning, and
Establish the necessary identifying opportunities for collaboration
networks to promote
and facilitate Cooperation between countries: Promote cooperation between and among
improvements in the countries, including North-South and South-South cooperation, through networks,
science-policy interface, exchange and fellowship schemes, and the like
and the sharing of International network of IPBES focal points: Develop an international network of
knowledge and IPBES focal points in partnership with existing initiatives, including focal points in
experience all regions and major sub-regions to coordinate and provide technical support
National IPBES focal points and networks: Establish national IPBES focal points in
all countries to support institutional capacity-building on science-policy interface
at the national level, and to support the elaboration of national assessments
Coordination Coordinate donors: Ensure that donors work together as effectively as possible in
seeking ways to coordinate their activities with respect to support for building the
Establish the necessary science-policy interface
processes for improving
the coordination of Coordinate agencies: Ensure that there is effective collaborating between those
capacity building agencies from outside a country involved in capacity building, so as to avoid
activities overlaps, and identify gaps and potential for synergies
Coordinate practitioners: Ensure that the international experts involved in building
capacity within countries are effectively coordinated so that they are working in
harmony with each other, and seeking synergies where possible
Questions have been raised as to the extent to which it is possible or appropriate for IPBES to
address some of these activities. For example many of the activities listed under “institutional
culture”, or those under “education needs”, may seem a little far removed from what IPBES might
actually do. This specific question is not addressed here, as all have been legitimately raised in IPBES-
related discussions, however it is worth noting out that even if IPBES does not address these
particular activities directly, it can, and perhaps should, provide the impetus for a culture where
these things are supported and do happen.
3.2 Identifying the priority capacity building needs
As is clear from the Busan Outcome,5 IPBES is expected to play a role in identifying the key capacity
building needs necessary for improving the science-policy interface at appropriate levels. It will
therefore need to develop a good understanding of what those needs are, drawing on the goals and
objectives of IPBES, and a clear understanding of what IPBES is expected to deliver. It will also need
to understand where those needs are greatest, so that they can be responded to more urgently.
Information on both will be necessary for IPBES to be able to promote and, as appropriate, facilitate
10
improvements. This is likely to be an ongoing exercise, working in consultation with national and/or
regional experts and other stakeholders.
As yet there is no mechanism defined for identifying priorities, but these might include, for example,
the potential mechanisms for supporting IPBES implementation identified in the paper submitted by
GRULAC on capacity building needs4 (which is summarised in Annex 1), and in particular:
o improved access to biodiversity and ecosystem service data and information, through online
tools and repatriation of information
o improved access to technologies and experience, through training and other opportunities
for scientists in developing countries
o development of a network of IPBES focal points to improve coordination and access to
technical support
Alternatively, the priorities might be organized more directly around supporting the various other
components of the IPBES work programme (while recognising that these will be many of the same
activities as covered by the previous paragraph). While the work programme has yet to be agreed, it
is anticipated that it will cover, in addition to capacity building:
o knowledge generation, including aspects ranging from research to data access
o assessment, including interdisciplinary approaches with multiple stakeholders
o policy support, including aspects ranging from means of communication to use of tools
Finally, capacity building needs relevant to improving the science-policy interface were also
considered during a review of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) for the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This review was carried out by the United Nations
University Institute of Advanced Studies, and is described in Annex 7. The findings reinforce in
particular:
o the need for the integration of science into planning processes
o improvement of the knowledge base with respect to planning and implementation
o more effective communication between scientists and planners
These latter observations on the need to improve the science-policy interface are particularly timely
as parties to the CBD begin to consider revision of their strategic plans following the 10th meeting of
the Conference of the Parties in October 2010.
11
4. Activities which address capacity building needs
In the previous section a broad range of capacity building needs was summarised from a number of
documents and activities, with 46 specific needs listed in nine clusters. In practice these needs can
largely be addressed by a rather narrower range of capacity building approaches and types of
activity. The approaches and types of activity relevant to the identified needs are listed in the
following table. Note that while the currently favoured term “technology transfer” is not used
explicitly, it is achieved through many of the identified activities.
Approach Type of activity
o Participation in plenary meetings, working groups and assessments
Supporting full participation in
o Fellowships and other opportunities to contribute
IPBES
o Networking and sharing of experience
o Sharing of information via online portals, publications, databases, etc.
Increasing access to data and
o Delivery of information in context for use by decision makers
information
o Repatriation of data
o Bringing together, supporting and facilitating meetings and workshops
Facilitating wider engagement o Setting up scientific exchanges and networks
and networking* o Supporting establishment of partnerships and ongoing collaboration
o Promoting North-South and South-South cooperation
o Lessons learnt and case studies
Promoting and facilitating the o Location of others with relevant experience
sharing of experience* o Networks of practitioners working on similar issues
o Establishing twinning programmes
o Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools
Providing tools, standards and
o Establishing/promulgating common standards, methodologies, protocols
guidance
o Manuals, guidelines and associated training materials
o Formal training in use of specific tools and approaches
Delivering formal training and
o Workshops to build particular capabilities
workshops
o Educative training
o Outside experts working alongside local scientists and practitioners
Providing “on the job” training o Secondment of researchers/officials and exchange programmes
and assistance o Scholarships and fellowships
o Mentoring
o Coordination and prioritization, including identifying gaps
Influence on the actions of o Communication and awareness-raising activities
others o Leading by example and demonstration
o Finance, co-finance, matching funding and in kind support
* Note that it has been suggested that the rows on “facilitating wider engagement and networking” and “promoting and
facilitating the sharing of experience” overlap and should perhaps be combined. This has not been addressed, as any
changes here would have had implications for the organization of two of the annexes.
It is important to recognise that different organizations and programmes involved in capacity
building not only employ different combinations of these activities, and place different emphases on
them, but they also focus on different needs out of those identified in the previous section. So, for
12
example, while one organization might focus on all of the activities identified above and only deal
with biodiversity indicators, another might be focused on modelling and scenarios, and only be
concerned with networking and access to data and information.
While this list may not be comprehensive, it provides a basis for discussion, and will also potentially
further support discussion on the prioritization of needs. This list is also used in a number of the
annexes in organizing the description of the relevant capacity building activities of organizations
used as examples.
13
5. Identifying who can contribute to IPBES capacity building
As with the earlier discussion on identifying needs, the summaries and text in this section draw on
review of a range of documents and activities, each of which is set out in more detail in one of the
annexes. In addition to the annexes introduced in Section 3:
a) IPBES discussions (see Annex 4): Review of the documents already prepared as part of the IPBES
process, the most significant being the IPBES Gap Analysis,3 the capacity building paper
prepared for the third IPBES meeting,6 and the paper prepared by UNEP-WCMC for the Nordic
Council of Ministers on the relationship between IPBES and other organizations.7
b) Examples of organizations and activities (see Annex 5): Review of available information on the
relevant capacity building activities of bilateral and multilateral organizations, and
intergovernmental organizations and processes. This draws on the questionnaire returns used
in preparation of the capacity building paper prepared for the third IPBES meeting, and on the
detail in the annexes of the paper prepared by UNEP-WCMC for the Nordic Council of Ministers
on the relationship between IPBES and other organizations.
c) Examples of major national organizations providing support (see Annex 6): Review of the
relevant activities of members of the CBD’s Consortium of Scientific Partners on Biodiversity as
case examples. Essentially these organizations were chosen as examples because they are
already part of an international network and this seemed a non-controversial way of identifying
a range of examples to consider further.
In addition, Annex 3, which was referred to in the needs section, identifies the capacity building
activities already being carried out in the context of other assessment processes. Note that both
Annex 5 and Annex 6 use the capacity building approaches identified in the previous section as a
means of organizing examples of capacity building activities relevant to IPBES.
While many organizations are described in more detail in the annexes (including their mandates and
further examples of their capacity building activities), in the following table generic types of
organizations and programmes are identified, with examples. It seems likely that different types of
approaches might be needed for ensuring the appropriate involvement of each type of organization
or programme in IPBES. Again the information in this table is indicative, but hopefully sufficient to
inform further review and discussion.
The types of organizations and programmes listed in the table are inherently overlapping, with
different organizations involved in a range of activities, partnerships, collaborations, networks and
programmes. This reflects reality, and it is likely the manner in which collaborations in supporting
IPBES capacity building activities are, depending on which types of organization and programme are
involved.
We have attempted with the examples identified here and in the annexes to illustrate the full range
of organizations and programmes, covering different ecosystem types, different types of
biodiversity, different approaches, and addressing the needs of different sectors. This is because of
the importance of ensuring the relevance of IPBES and the capacity building associated with it across
a broad range of sectors and interests.
14
Examples of types of organization and programme
These organizations have multiple normative and practical activities relevant to building
capacity for improving the science-policy interface, ranging from increasing access to data
and information to on-the-ground projects in specific countries.
o The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) provides leadership and encourages
partnership in caring for the environment.
o The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a
primary focus not only on education, science and culture, but also on information and
UN bodies
communication.
o The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) aims to improve
levels of nutrition, increase agricultural productivity, better lives of rural populations and
contribute to economic growth.
o The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UN's global development
network, advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and
resources to help people improve their lives.
The activities undertaken in the context of development assistance by multilateral or
bilateral organizations either already include substantial elements of improving the science-
policy interface or should do so, generally as a broader package of development across
multiple sectors in the context of addressing the Millennium Development Goals.
o The World Bank has a primary focus on poverty alleviation, helping people help
themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building
Multilateral and capacity and forging public and private sector partnerships.
bilateral
o The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides incremental costs to help countries ensure
development
global environmental benefits with respect to biodiversity, climate change, international
assistance
waters, land degradation, the ozone layer and POPs.
organizations
o Additional support, particularly on poverty alleviation and associated issues, comes from
the four regional development banks, and from bilateral development assistance
organizations and agencies in most developed countries and the European Commission.
o The bilateral development assistance organizations work together through the OECD
Development Assistance Committee, leading to the potential for a more coordinated and
focused approach to aid delivery.
There are a number of intergovernmental programmes and processes that have the
potential to contribute significantly to addressing some of the identified needs, whether
through providing access to data and information, or through building capacity to make
better use of the data and information that is already available.
o The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) enables free and open access to
biodiversity data online to support, inter alia, scientific research and decision making
Key
processes, and includes strong elements of capacity building including access to tools,
intergovernmental guidance, data and support.
programmes
o The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) is coordinating efforts to build a Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), including strengthening the ability of countries to
use Earth observation data and products and to contribute to GEOSS.
o The developing GEO Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO-BON) will incorporate
capacity building into its activities, both to support organizations and countries in
contributing data that they hold, and increasing the ability to use observation data.
15
Examples of types of organization and programme
A number of regional organizations and programmes established by countries are very active
in increasing access to data and information, and promoting its effective use in decision
making processes.
o The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) is concerned with creation
and promotion of infrastructure for managing and exchanging biodiversity information,
and addresses training, network development, and provision of tools and guidance.
Regional o The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is an intergovernmental centre facilitating
environmental cooperation and coordination among ASEAN member states, including coordination of
organizations and information sharing, and facilitating capacity building and technology transfer.
programmes
o The European Environment Agency (EEA) and its European Environment Information and
Observation Network (EIONET) is very active in increasing access to data and information
across the European region, and in providing the tools, standards, guidance and networks
necessary for improving both access and use.
o The Observatory for the Forests of Central Africa (OFAC) is an initiative of the Congo Basin
Forests Partnership (CBFP), which aims to pool the knowledge and data necessary to
monitor the ecological, environmental, and social aspects of Central Africa's forests.
Each of the planned and existing international assessment processes includes elements of
capacity building, as is described in Annex 3, and these activities are directly relevant to
IPBES both as examples of what can be done, and as activities which would be better
integrated with IPBES to the extent appropriate.
o While the Regular Process for GRAME has not yet started, there is recommendation that it
Existing
include capacity building for both the assessment process itself, and how the results of the
international assessment are synthesised and used, as well as tools and guidelines for supporting this.
assessment
processes o Capacity building is part of the Global Environment Outlook process, bringing together
diverse stakeholder groups from all regions with the aim of facilitating interaction between
science and policy, supported by guidelines, tools, and active partnership/collaboration.
o Capacity building is vital to the Forest Resources Assessment, focusing on capacity to carry
out national forest assessment which contributes to global assessment, while building
national capacity for monitoring and assessment, and using the resulting information.
A number of international scientific networks and programmes have a strong focus on
improving science at all levels, including through increased multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary research, and in increasing the use made of science in decision making.
o The International Council for Science (ICSU) provides international guidance and
leadership to scientific organizations, and in particular through its members which include
Scientific
the national academies of sciences in many countries.
networks and
programmes o DIVERSITAS is an international programme of biodiversity science, bringing together
scientists to synthesize existing knowledge, identify gaps and emerging issues, and
promote new research initiatives, with particular focus on policy implications.
o The International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change
(IHDP) is concerned with understanding and addressing the effects of individuals and
societies on global environmental change, and how such global changes affect humans.
16
Examples of types of organization and programme
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a global partnership
supporting 15 research centres focused on reducing poverty and hunger, improving human
health and nutrition, and enhancing ecosystem resilience through international agricultural
research, partnership and leadership. A key part of their focus is increasing access to the
knowledge necessary to support decision making.
o The Centre for International Forestry Research carries out policy relevant research on
forests, with a focus on developing country regions, and helping policy makers and
Consortium of practitioners to improve forest management and address the needs of people whose
CGIAR Centres livelihoods depend on forests
o Bioversity International carries our research on agricultural biodiversity, and provides
policy information and analysis to improve the decision making necessary for helping to
ensure that agricultural biodiversity delivers sustainable solutions.
o The WorldFish Centre carries out research-for-development with the aim of making small
scale fisheries more resilient and productive, and supporting the adoption of sustainable
aquaculture that specifically benefits the poor.
For a range of specific issues, like-minded organizations are already working in partnerships
or less formal associations to deliver on specific capacity needs in a more coordinated
manner, and it is likely that these initiatives will to be involved in some manner in the future
implementation of capacity building in the context of IPBES.
Networks of like- o The Biodiversity Indicators Partnership is working to increase access to data and
minded information, to provide the necessary guidance for work on indicators, and is supporting
organizations workshops at the national level
working on o Building on experience with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a number of
specific capacity organizations are working together to promote and support the network of sub-global
building needs assessments, with a particular focus on sharing experiences and building capacity for
ecosystem assessments at local-regional scales
o The Conservation Commons is a group of organizations working together to actively
promote increased access to data and information, including concerted efforts to identify
and overcome key barriers to making data more available and more accessible
Because of the nature of the organization and its role in helping to identify pragmatic
solutions to the most pressing environment and development challenges, IUCN has a wide
range of activities relevant to supporting IPBES and building capacity for more effective use
of science in decisions making. Examples include:
o The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is valuable both as a source of information on
International threatened species, and as an assessment process, with widely accepted guidelines,
Union for categories and criteria.
Conservation of o The Species Survival Commission (SSC) and the World Commission on Protected Areas
Nature (WCPA) are both networks of professionals and other experts, which provide guidance,
and access to knowledge and expertise to supported improvements in their respective
areas of interest.
o More than 800 members of the Commission on Education and Communication (CEC)
volunteer their professional expertise in learning, knowledge management and strategic
communication to help build capacity to help address environmental challenges.
17
Examples of types of organization and programme
There is a range of internationally active NGOs with substantial experience in particular areas
of work or particular aspects of biodiversity, that are potentially able to contribute
information and experience, and in some cases their own networks of experts.
o BirdLife International works with national partner organizations in country to, inter alia,
Internationally use evidence based on the status and distribution of birds in order to protect sites of
active non- importance for biodiversity, sharing experience in doing so within the network.
governmental o The World Resources Institute is an environmental think tank working with governments,
organizations companies and civil society to help them identify and build solutions to urgent
environmental challenges.
o NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programmes are a major source of
information about species and ecosystems, and substantially involved in building capacity
to manage and use data and information
Various programmes, networks and consortia have been established by MEAs in order to
support parties in implementing the convention concerned, with an essential focus on
building capacity. Three examples from the CBD are included here.
o The Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) network was established to promote scientific and
technical cooperation, and has resulted in a range of bilateral activities developing
opportunities for sharing information and experience.
MEA-related
initiatives o The Consortium of Scientific Partners on Biodiversity was established to leverage the
expertise and experience of a range of national institutions in order to implement
education and training activities to support developing countries to build scientific,
technical and policy skills in the area of biodiversity
o At the request of its Conference of the Parties, the CBD Secretariat is currently compiling
information with a view to establishing a Biodiversity Technology Initiative to promote
and support the effective access to and transfer of relevant technology among Parties
Various other organizations and networks play specific roles in using science to inform policy
makers, and in doing so each addresses one or more of the needs identified earlier. These
organizations and networks also have experience that can be drawn on in building capacity
at the national level. Examples include:
Other o The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) coordinates and promotes
marine research in the North Atlantic in order to advance the scientific capacity to give
internationally
advice on human activities affecting, and affected by, marine ecosystems
active
organizations and o The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is fairly unique in having
networks working a mandate and mission to increase the use of data, information and knowledge in decision
making while retaining a non-advocacy position, and in carrying out this role provides
to support
guidance, training, and access to information tools, as well as facilitating national
decision making
workshops and providing experts to support national activities
o A Long-term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network (ALTER-Net) was
established in 2004 to integrate research capacities across Europe in assessing changes in
biodiversity, analysing the effect of those changes on ecosystem services, and informing
policy makers about this.
18
Although it is only touched on in passing here, there is also likely to be experience in other sectors
that is potentially relevant and valuable, including in the commercial sector (for example the Online
Access to Research in the Environment initiative, in which a wide range of commercial publishers are
involved), as well as in a number of consultancy organizations that have been involved in capacity
development programmes (such as Mott Macdonald, Nippon Koei and Deltares).
Also relevant are a wide range of national organizations that have experience and impact outside
their own countries, for either information management and access, or for training and expert
support (a number of examples of which are included in Annexes 6 and 9). These include:
o In Colombia, the Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, which aims
to influence decision making and public policy through research programmes and delivery of information
and data relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
o In Costa Rica, the Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio), which is a private research and biodiversity
management centre supporting efforts to gather knowledge on the country’s biological diversity and
promote its sustainable use
o In Germany, the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ),which is the federal technical
agency responsible for supporting capacity building in the countries supported by the German
Government
o In Mexico, the Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) promotes,
coordinates, supports and implements activities which build knowledge on biodiversity and its
conservation and sustainable use, serving as a bridge between academia, government and society
o In Norway, the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), which aims to be a leading research
institution in the production of applied scientific knowledge that can serve as a basis for sound
management and utilization of natural resources
o In South Africa, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is one of the leading scientific
and technology research, development and implementation organisations in Africa, undertaking directed
research and development for socio-economic growth
o In the United Kingdom, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which provides a wide range of education,
training and skill-sharing in areas of plant diversity, science and research, collections, conservation,
environmental sustainability and horticulture
o In the United States of America, the Smithsonian Institution, which has a significant programme of both
research and training in association with developing countries, and has run programmes for field
collectors and parataxonomists for many years
19
6. Issues in developing an IPBES capacity building function
In order to build improved capacity for the effective use of science in decision making with respect
to biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to fully contribute to the implementation of IPBES, it is
likely that three levels of activities will need to be considered:
a) Improving coordination and focus of capacity building that is already taking place
b) Promoting/facilitating new capacity building efforts addressing identified and prioritized gaps
c) Ensuring full and equitable participation of all countries in all IPBES activities
In addressing options for an IPBES capacity building function, and the issues surrounding building on
the capacities and experience of existing organizations, networks and programmes, the discussion in
this section is based on:
a) the Busan Outcome and inferred modus operandi of a future IPBES
b) documents, information documents and discussions at the three IPBES meetings
c) experiences from other assessment processes
d) considerations arising in the previous sections of this paper and the associated annexes
Although it is not explicitly discussed further in this section, there is an additional point that should
be borne in mind, which is that there is the potential for IPBES-related capacity building to also
contribute to other national and international processes. Such synergy should be sought out when
planning and implementing activities, partly because of the potential for cost savings, but more
significantly because of the greater efficiency that such consideration is likely to lead to.
6.1 Possible options for delivery of a capacity building function
In the previous three sections we have compiled information on the capacity building needs
identified during the IPBES discussions (Section 1), identified the main activities which are likely to
be used to address these needs (Section 2), and reviewed the types of organizations and networks
that can contribute to addressing the identified capacity building needs (Section 3).
While this has not been discussed substantially in any of the IPBES meetings to date, one can build
on the previous discussions and infer the following possible options for delivery of capacity building
in the context of IPBES, whether delivering the priority needs that IPBES is expected to address
according to the Busan Outcome5 or other activities necessary for building the science policy
interface. This list is not necessarily comprehensive, and the options are not intended to be mutually
exclusive:
o directly implemented by IPBES
o subcontracted by IPBES for others to implement
o carried out by others as an explicitly agreed or widely accepted part of the IPBES process
o carried out by others as a direct contribution to achieving the aims and objectives of IPBES
o carried out by others as it is already a part of their programmes of work
Again, while the detail has not been discussed to date, one can infer a number of potential working
mechanisms through which IPBES could consider organizing and implementing a capacity building
work programme, including, but not limited to:
o dedicated secretariat support for capacity building
o task forces for addressing specific capacity building issues
o a donor forum for catalysing funding for key capacity-building needs
o an ad hoc or permanent working group on capacity building
o a technical support unit for either task force or working group
20
In addition one could anticipate that the IPBES process (the secretariat, and whatever governance
and advisory bodies are established) would help deliver capacity building in partnership with other
organizations though providing, directly or indirectly:
o mandates for specific areas of work, including identification of priorities
o access to resources that support work being undertaken
o coordination of existing activities
o promotion and facilitation of new activities and initiatives
o communication of the importance of the issue
It is in the context of these sorts of issues that a number of organizations, networks, programmes
and processes are considering how they could most effectively contribute to supporting IPBES in
general, and IPBES capacity building activities in particular. With this in mind it may be possible to
divide capacity building activities into three groupings or categories reflecting how they will be
addressed:
a) Capacity building activities that could qualify entirely for IPBES support as they are directly
related to IPBES activities, and in particular to the implementation of other parts of the agreed
work programme.
b) Capacity building activities that can be catalysed by IPBES decisions and mandates as they are
broadly important for building the science-policy interface, but for which additional resources
would need to be found (for example through the proposed donor forum).
c) Other capacity building, which may be important for IPBES (such as institutional building), but
which is essentially beyond its mandate and is widely addressed by other organizations and
processes.
6.2 Key cross-cutting issues to address
There are three major issues with respect to capacity building that will need to be addressed either
directly or indirectly by IPBES. In each case they will almost inevitably draw from and build on other
existing activities.
a) Understanding and prioritizing capacity building needs: As is clear from the Busan Outcome, if
IPBES is to have a major impact on building capacity it must have a good understanding of what
the capacity building needs are, and where those needs are greatest, so as to be able to
promote and potentially facilitate improvements. This is likely to be an ongoing exercise,
working in consultation with national and/or regional representatives, and may be required as a
basis for both prioritization and reporting. A draft paper on needs – consolidated from previous
discussions, and reviewed with key stakeholders – could be a significant input to the first IPBES
plenary, and could be based on Section 3 (and the associated annexes) of this paper and the
discussion that arises from it.
b) Coordination in addressing capacity building needs: The IPBES Gap Analysis3 identified that
there was both a need for coordination in the capacity building support that was being
provided, and that that increased coordination would also provide opportunities for more
effective use of resources (financial and otherwise). However it seems optimistic to think that
there could be strengthened coordination across all capacity building relevant to improving the
science-policy interface at this stage, and the following more modest approaches might be
more effective, at least in the first instance:
21
o identify specific capacity building needs or issues, where increased coordination could
make a valuable impact, building on existing experience; and
o identify where similar organizations or groups of organizations could be encouraged
and/or facilitated to work together more effectively.
c) Building awareness of capacity building needs: Greater awareness of what could be done to
improve the use of science in decision making could itself lead to improvements, if done in a
planned manner. For example, the preparation and dissemination of guidelines on how to
incorporate improving the science-policy interface into development assistance, or case studies
on demonstrating the value of increasing access to data, information and knowledge. A
communications strategy could be valuable here, as would the proposed donors’ forum.
Between them, these three cross-cutting issues address particular concerns highlighted in the IPBES
Gap Analysis3 and reiterated in Annex 1, where the analysis of existing capacity-building efforts
suggested that the gaps related to capacity for building and effectively using science in policy setting
and decision making rest at least in part on: a lack of focus and priority; insufficient long-term
capacity building strategies; and a lack of coordination among existing capacity building efforts.
6.3 Work programmes, strategies and action plans
In preparation for the plenary session in October 2011, it is expected that UNEP will prepare an
information document on the capacity building component of the IPBES work programme, which will
sit alongside information documents on the other anticipated work programme components:
knowledge generation; assessment; and policy support. It is expected that the substantive discussion
on the work programme will take place at the second plenary session, and the information
documents will likely be reviewed and revised between the two sessions.
The information document on the capacity building work programme has yet to be drafted, and it is
anticipated that it will be substantially informed by the discussions that will take place at the
international expert meeting in Trondheim at the end of May 2011, in particular as they relate to:
o Needs – identification of needs and priorities
o Mechanisms – most effective mechanisms for addressing the identified needs
o Cooperation – ways to involve existing organizations, networks, programmes, processes
o Support – means for catalysing additional support
However, depending on the scope of the IPBES work programme and how it is developed and
agreed, there will potentially be a range of activities that fall outside it. It may therefore be worth
also considering drafting a broader capacity building strategy that address both what IPBES will do,
and what it is desirable for others to do in the context of IPBES to improve the science-policy
interface at all levels. For example, such a strategy might address:
o Vision – Where do we want to be?
o Problem statement – What are the problems that we are seeking to address?
o Strategies – What strategies will we use to address these problems?
o Objectives – What specifically are we aiming to achieve?
o Risks – What might prevent us reaching our objectives, and how are we addressing this?
o Evaluation – How will we assess whether we have achieved our objectives?
o Reporting – Who do we have to report to when on progress?
If it was thought useful, this could then lead to preparation of an action plan to implement the
strategy. A possible outline of action plan might include:
o Reiteration of objectives – Taken directly from strategy
22
o Actions and outputs – What are we going to do by when in order to achieve this objective?
o Roles and responsibilities – Who is responsible for each objective, action and output?
o Monitoring and evaluation – How will we track progress in implementation?
o Reporting – Who do we have to report to when on progress?
6.4 Key issues for the involvement of other organizations, networks and programmes
As is clear from earlier discussion, there is significant capacity and experience amongst existing
organizations, networks and programmes that could, and should, be built upon in supporting
capacity building relevant to IPBES. The key questions would therefore appear to be how to
recognise, organize and coordinate these contributions, and how these contributions might relate to
the IPBES process. For example, questions that might be asked include whether an organization
participate:
o directly – or indirectly through a third party
o individually – or in collaboration with others
o in a planned and coordinated manner – or ad hoc
o through existing programmes – or through developing new activities
With these questions in mind, it is important to recognise that each of the potentially interested
organizations and networks already has its own mandates and governance arrangements, and that
their working arrangements may vary widely depending on both their history, and on the particular
mandates that they hold. This may affect the arrangements that are ultimately made in order to
work with them. It will be equally important to factor in possible transaction costs that may arise
from attempts to align the work of existing organisations and institutions with the work of the IPBES.
At the same time, these organizations and processes are more likely to want to participate if the
reason for, and the value of, doing so are sufficient clear. There need to be clear benefits to both
parties in a partnership or collaboration, and this will need to be considered as the IPBES capacity
building approaches are developed further.
There are several projects and initiatives underway that are exploring options for how science-policy
interfaces work, and how to ensure the appropriate contributions of multiple organizations. Four of
these are described in Annex 8, and it would be valuable to look at the lessons these projects are
learning as the IPBES capacity building function develops. The four initiatives, which were all funded
by the European Commission at some point, are: Science Policy Interfaces: Research, Action and
Learning (SPIRAL); A Long-term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network (ALTER-
Net); Developing and knowledge network for European expertise on biodiversity and ecosystem
services to inform policy making economic sectors (KNEU); and the European Platform for
Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). All are working with multiple organizations.
6.5 Discussions on development of a capacity building node to support IPBES
While no formal discussions have taken place on this issue, and obviously cannot until the IPBES
modalities and institutional arrangements have been agreed, interest has been expressed publically
by at least the Norwegian Government in establishing a capacity building node to support IPBES.
Assuming that such an approach is appropriate and welcome, and irrespective of who might take the
lead, any new initiative will have to take account of the existing landscape of interested
organizations, networks and programmes in defining its role. In this regard it is obviously best if the
new initiative is seen as facilitating and even promoting the work of others, rather than competing
with it. The following are examples of the types of roles that such an initiative could take in building
on and using the existing landscape.
23
a) Provide a technical support unit to support and coordinate the work of any capacity building
task force or working group established by IPBES, in a manner analogous to those supporting
the IPCC task forces and working groups. In the IPCC model the developed country co-chair
assumes primary responsibility for resourcing the technical support unit.
b) Create a service or support unit, independent of the IPBES secretariat and processes, but
supportive of them and responsive to requests coming from the IPBES plenary with respect to
capacity building. The service unit would support existing organizations and initiatives, helping
them to be more effective in addressing IPBES-related priorities.
c) Lead a cluster of organizations, of which an example might be the CBD Consortium of Scientific
Partners on Biodiversity. This consortium works with the CBD Secretariat to organize and deliver
capacity building workshops back-to-back with CBD meetings, and something similar could be
organized to support IPBES, working back-to-back with not only IPBES meetings, but also other
major meetings at international and regional levels.
d) Build a series of strategic partnerships, focusing on identified needs and the organizations best
placed to address those needs. For example a partnership with the Biodiversity Indicators
Partnership to support indicator development, and collaboration with MA follow-up process in
supporting sub-global assessment.
e) Build a federated network, along the lines of BirdLife International, with partners and/or
associated in each country. Focus on building the capacity of the partners through a variety of
means, while they further build capacity within their own countries based on the experience
that they are gaining through the network.
f) Become a broker or ‘matchmaker’, playing a role in reviewing and identifying specific needs,
and then identifying other relevant experience and who might be able to provide support.
There are also possible ‘spin-offs’ with this role with respect to providing leadership on
identifying needs, and also potentially coordination of response.
g) Facilitate and promote increased coordination, with review of who is doing what already, and
identification of opportunities for coordination, synergy and harmonization (noting that if this is
combined with the previous role it would also identify the gaps).
h) Convene the donor forum with conventional and potential funders referred to in the Busan
Outcome, with the aim of catalysing additional resources for priority capacity building activities
identified by IPBES.
i) Research and provide guidance materials, including working with others to deliver guidelines
and training materials, case studies and lessons learnt, expert database (potentially linked to
the case studies and lessons learnt), and so on.
j) Lead a network of training institutes, providing modular training, workshops, stand-alone
training courses, distance learning (including online learning opportunities), and so on, drawing
on a wide range of organizations and individuals, and where appropriate leading to recognised
qualifications.
24
k) Convene a body of experts, rather like an IUCN commission, who are able to support many of
the activities either directly or indirectly through contribution of their expertise and in some
cases also their time.
l) Build networks and processes to share experience, learning lessons, both positive and negative,
from the work of others, and sharing case studies, documents and personal experience in a
coordinated and accessible manner.
It is worth noting that these approaches are still relevant if led by IPBES itself rather than by a
separate organization or initiative working under the auspices of IPBES or in support of it.
6.6 Possible strategic partnerships for capacity building – the “low hanging fruit”
Depending on the issues that are to be addressed most urgently (which will depend of the priorities
identified by the IPBES governance and advisory processes), the mechanism that can potentially
yield tangible results most quickly is through building strategic partnerships on key issues. Criteria
for identifying who those partnerships might be with include:
o Leadership and/or strength in a key issue to be taken forward
o Obvious added value of such a partnership or collaboration
o Ability of the organization to draw on other partners and stakeholders
o Track record of delivery
o Legitimacy
For example, the Working Group on Sub-global Assessments established as part of the MA follow up
process,2 aims to coordinate, support and provide a clearing-house for the network of completed
and ongoing sub-global assessments. Those involved with this group include key players such as
UNEP (including UNEP-WCMC), the UNU Institute of Advanced Studies, the Cropper Foundation,
IUCN, WRI, DIVERSITAS and IHDP (see Annex 5). Ongoing and planned activities include:
o Encourage and support the emergence of new sub-global assessments, particularly in under-
represented regions
o Develop capacity at the sub-global level for undertaking assessments among all major
stakeholders
o Promote the exchange of information and lessons learnt on methodologies and approaches
for undertaking sub-global assessments
o Develop a comprehensive base of findings from the assessments at multiple scales, as a
basis for supporting future global assessments
Here is an existing working arrangement that is already delivering results directly relevant to IPBES
and to capacity building needs identified in Section 3. If this existing process could be clearly linked
to IPBES in an appropriate manner this has the potential both to speed up delivery of capacity
building in the context of IPBES, and provide additional support to an existing process.
Other examples could be quickly identified, and might include the capacity building activities of the
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership,14 the Online Access to Research in the Environment (OARE)
consortium which provides access to publications,15 the support and guidance provided by the IUCN
World Commission on Protected Areas with respect to the decision making on the establishment
and management of protected areas and protected area systems,16 or the work of the Global
Observing System – Biodiversity Observation Network in increasing access to biodiversity data.17 The
examples chosen are deliberately very different one from another, with the intention of generating
debate on the idea.
25
An alternative way to address this would be to create a new strategic partnership to bring together
organizations working on a specific issue where no obvious partnership or coordinating body
currently exists. Examples of issues might include development and use of horizon scanning and
early warning systems, development of monitoring programmes for particular issues, or improving
understanding and use of scenarios. In each case there are key players who might welcome a more
coordinated approach to supporting others.
6.7 Relationships with other assessment processes
There is clear logic in the capacity building efforts of different assessment processes being mutually
reinforcing, and potentially even coordinated (see Annex 3 for a summary of current approaches and
associated recommendations). This not only reduces the potential for duplication, but might also
serve to underline the importance of cross-sectoral approaches. For example:
a) Regular process: As the capacity building activities of the Regular Process for the Global
Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including socio-economic
aspects13 are developed, it seems appropriate to liaise closely on this with DOALOS who will
provide secretariat support to the Regular Process, as well as the other agencies involved which
include UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission), UNEP, the International
Maritime Organization and FAO.
b) FAO-led assessments: There is substantial capacity building associated with the Forest
Resources Assessment, focused on supporting national forest assessment and involving a range
of activities of broader relevance including capacity building in data collection, management
and use, remote sensing, and so on. Meanwhile, following the review of the State of the
World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the establishment of an ‘information
sharing mechanism’ on implementation specifically aims to build capacity (although not
exclusively on the science-policy and assessments). In both cases there may be lessons directly
relevant to IPBES capacity building, and potential for cooperation.
c) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The IPCC has benefited from a recent review by
the InterAcademy Council,9 and a number of the comments and recommendations made on
capacity building should also be taken close account of by IPBES. These are summarised in
Annex 3, but should be explored further.
Opportunities for cooperation and potentially collaboration are worth further exploration, although
detailed review is beyond the scope of the current paper. What may be appropriate is a more
detailed review of the capacity building activities of each, the development of a draft strategy for
more coordinated action as a basis for further discussion, and then convening a workshop with an
appropriate group of stakeholders and other experts. The results of such work could in fact be an
input to the plenary meeting. This is addressed in Section 8.
6.8 Relationship with other bodies and processes involving governments
To some extent how this is addressed will depend on the ultimate form and governance of IPBES,
and the form of the relationship between IPBES and other organizations working with IPBES to
organize, coordinate or deliver capacity building functions. The following is therefore indicative, and
will need to be explored further:
b) UN bodies and MEAs: It is clear that building capacity for more effective use of science in
decision making is relevant to many of the activities of UN bodies, MEAs, and other multilateral
26
processes. Examples might include the capacity building that is already embedded within the
UN REDD programme, or within the development of NBSAPs for CBD implementation. At the
same time, there are opportunities to influence the programmes of these organizations and
processes so that the importance of improving the science-policy interface is accorded greater
importance.
c) Development assistance agencies: While development assistance, whether from multilateral or
bilateral sources, is not going to be coordinated by IPBES with respect to building the science-
policy interface, it is conceivable that IPBES could advise and/or influence priorities and actions
in some manner. Most appropriate may be communication of the importance and value of
improving the science-policy interface (in essence mainstreaming the concept), and providing
guidelines on how this can be achieved within development assistance projects.
d) Intergovernmental programmes, and other programmes with strong governmental support:
There are a number of these programmes that have a potential to be very relevant to IPBES
capacity building initiatives in one way or another, in some cases directly addressing needs
identified in Section 3 (for example the work of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility in
addressing issues relating to improving access to data, repatriating data, and improving data
management). It is unlikely that these programmes will be substantially changed by IPBES, but
there is certainly potential for their priorities and work plans to be influenced by the needs of
countries in addressing IPBES priorities and concerns.
Note that many of the same points apply to regional bodies and programmes involving
governments, and those regional bodies and programmes could be encouraged to work with IPBES
in a similar manner to the suggestions already made above.
27
7. Potential for others to provide leadership and influence
Within this section the first subsection addresses what Governments can do generally with respect
to capacity building in the context of IPBES, while the subsequent subsections are concerned with
key questions for any organizations and/or governments who may want to help improve delivery of
capacity building in the context of IPBES. The whole section is based on identifying key questions and
the issues that are likely to be important in identifying the answers.
7.1 What is the potential for Government influence?
The following table indicates the potential for Government action and influence with respect to a
number of the types of organization and programme identified in Section 5. The potential for
Government influence identified is perhaps indicative rather than comprehensive, but is sufficient to
inform further review and discussion. Note however that it is not assumed that every Government
can necessarily address every potential for influence, as this depends on both capacity and
experience.
Generic types of organization Potential for Government influence
o Support for inclusion of science-policy activities within priorities,
Multilateral development programmes and projects
assistance organizations o Provision of technical support to projects on building the science-policy
interface, wherever this is feasible and appropriate
o Support for inclusion of science-policy activities within priorities,
UN bodies
programmes and projects
o Influence bilateral donors (and potentially other donors such as
Bilateral development foundations) by example (donor countries)
assistance organizations o Influence bilateral donors (and potentially other donors such as
foundations) through prioritization of needs (recipient countries)
o Recognise the importance of the science-policy interface in national
planning and priority setting
National governments and o Work to ensure that other national governments are aware of the
their agencies importance of science in decision-making
o Support projects underway to build the science-policy interface within the
country and elsewhere
o Support for inclusion of science-policy activities within priorities and
programmes
Multilateral organizations and o Influence based on example of what governments are doing,
processes communicated through intergovernmental fora and to countries directly
o Provision of technical and other support to relevant activities on building
the science-policy interface, where this is feasible and appropriate
International organizations o Collaboration in building programmes, projects and activities that support
the development of the science-policy interface at all levels
and programmes, including
o Provision of technical and other support to relevant activities on building
internationally active NGOs
the science-policy interface, where this is feasible and appropriate
28
Generic types of organization Potential for Government influence
o Collaboration in building programmes, projects and activities that support
Research organizations and the development of the science-policy interface at all levels
academic institutions o Direct support to improving the science base for supporting decision
making, and to the ability of scientists communicate to policy makers
o Influence through the example of what national companies are doing,
where this is relevant and appropriately communicated
Commercial sector
o Influence through the terms and conditions placed on companies
operating within the national territory
In addition there are two other areas of potential influence that are not included in the table as they
cut across all activities: support for the IPBES discussions themselves leading up to and following on
from the first plenary meeting; and the contribution of funding and other resources. It is also worth
noting the benefits likely to result from one or more Governments taking a strong interest in IPBES
capacity building issues and activities, and potentially playing a leadership role.
7.2 What are the key considerations with respect to future links to IPBES?
As the modus operandi of IPBES have still to be established it is not yet known how the relationship
between IPBES and any organizations and/or governments who may want to help deliver capacity
building might work, however the following issues will need to be carefully considered and
preparations made accordingly:
a) Communicating intentions: It is anticipated that the plenary session in October 2011 will set out
the process for selecting the location of the secretariat, and that the decision will be taken at the
second plenary session in early 2012. It is also anticipated that while the plenary session in 2011
will touch on the work programme, the substantive discussion will be at the second plenary
session. With this in mind, and while addressing the other considerations identified here, any
developing capacity building initiative will need to liaise closely with UNEP to ensure that they
keep the necessary people aware of their intentions. It may also be valuable to communicate
intentions to a range of key stakeholders, including those organizations and Governments
known to be interested in hosting all or part of the proposed secretariat.
b) Advance preparation: If the role of any existing or newly developing capacity building initiative is
to be recognised officially in any manner, then this will require significant preparation ahead of
the second session of the plenary meeting, including working in collaboration with governments
so as to submit a proposal that is welcomed and seen as a construction and non-threatening
contribution (non-threatening in that it does not undermine what anybody else anticipates
contributing). This will require significant consultation, and potentially the establishment of
some strategic partnerships ahead of the plenary session. With this in mind it should be noted
that:
o capacity building is likely to be quite a “political” issue for the plenary, as the balance
between resources going on assessment and resources going on capacity building is likely
to be a key issue dividing government participants; and
o a number of governments have been calling for a standing working group on capacity
building, and any new capacity building initiative that is proposed will need to consider
how it might relate to such a body.
c) Part of IPBES, or a contribution to it: A significant consideration for any organization or country
considered development of a new capacity building initiative in the context of IPBES will be
29
whether the initiative is seen as being a part of IPBES, responding to it and acting under its
direction, or whether it will be a contribution to IPBES and addressing IPBES concerns and
interests, but acting independently, and with its own governance arrangements.
d) What if IPBES doesn’t happen as expected: Consideration should also be given as to whether,
and in what form, any developing capacity building initiative would go ahead if IPBES were not
established in the form and timeframe currently anticipated. IPBES may be a valuable “flag” and
driver, but is there sufficient interest and momentum for a capacity building initiative to build
the science-policy interface to go forward whatever happens to IPBES?
e) Capacity building strategy and action plan: IPBES clearly would not be able to address all
capacity building needs at once, and therefore early development of a capacity building strategy
and action plan for a supporting initiative might be appropriate. This would need to be clearly
linked to the IPBES work programme on capacity building.
Whatever the modus operandi of IPBES when it is determined, any programme supporting IPBES
with respect to capacity building will need to relate to the programme and priorities of IPBES as set
out by the IPBES governance and advisory processes, working with the IPBES Secretariat, and with
any other bodies established by the Plenary. Therefore, when the plenary documents relating to
options for IPBES governance and operation are prepared, it will be necessary to consider and plan
for how any new capacity building initiative might work in the context of each of these scenarios.
This work could be begun now based on scenarios implied by current discussions and previous IPBES
meeting documents, but could not be completed until the plenary documents were available.
7.3 Are there other questions to consider at an early stage?
As any new capacity building initiative takes shape, there will inevitably be a number of questions
that will need further consideration. Some of the issues are listed below, but there will inevitably be
others as the discussions continue.
a) Objectives: Given the potential breadth of the initiative implied by the needs identified earlier,
it may be sensible to define some clear objectives as the discussions continue, to help guide and
focus those discussions. For example, is the primary focus on improving the ability to carry out
ecosystem assessments that both inform national policy making and contribute to global and
regional assessments?
b) Action/promotion of action: Thought needs to be given to the extent to which organizations
and governments promoting the initiative will be involved in every capacity building programme
and project, and the extent to which the proposed initiative will promote the work of others,
and catalyse the need for such work. It is assumed that it will be a combination, but
consideration of this issue is needed.
c) Long term/short term: In planning work it is important to consider its aims and objectives in the
context of how long one anticipates the programme, project or relationship to last.
Consideration must be given as to whether we are planning capacity building programmes with
a fairly long life span (and potentially a number of projects within them), or relatively short one-
off projects for specific purposes. It is generally accepted that capacity development over a
longer period of time benefits from longer term relationships, while recognising that that
relationship may change over time. For example, early on a significant amount of training and
expert assistance might be required, while later guidance and mentoring may be more
appropriate.
30
d) Scope: It is essential relatively early on to review the list of potential capacity building needs
identified in Section 3, and the extent to which any developing capacity building initiative will
respond to those needs. In all likelihood this will not just be a “yes/no” exercise, but will include
consideration of whether something is addressed through communication and/or influence, or
through practical action, and so on. The potential for this could be explored further now as a
paper exercise, or through a dialogue with interested governments and organizations.
e) In situ/ex situ: What is the anticipated balance between in situ (in country) capacity building,
and ex situ training based in organizations in other countries? The working assumption is that as
far as possible and appropriate capacity building will be in situ, although for a number of
individuals this will be supported by training and exchange programmes placing them for a time
in other countries. Even if this assumption is correct, the issue needs to be kept on the agenda
throughout discussions with other organizations so that this position is clear.
f) South-south cooperation: While leadership may come from one country or organizations, it is
important to promote south-south cooperation and support in particular, and mechanisms for
achieving this should be built into programmes of work and communication about them.
g) Other assessment processes: Consideration needs to be given as to whether the focus of any
developing capacity building initiative is entirely on IPBES, or also on supporting other
assessment processes, such as the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the
State of the Marine Environment, including socio-economic aspects,13 where capacity building is
also seen as a major element (see Annex 3).
This list is inevitably incomplete, and more work needs to be put into identifying other issues that
need to be considered. For example, these are not touched on here, but what about financial issues,
accounting and reporting, and governance arrangements?
7.4 How might a new capacity building initiative supporting IPBES work?
Earlier sections in this paper have identified ways in which capacity needs might be addressed in the
context of IPBES, and these are directly relevant to development of any new capacity building
initiative. In particular the follow are dealt with in more detail:
a) Section 4 identified the following sorts of approach and activity:
o increasing access to data and information
o facilitating wider engagement and networking
o promoting and facilitating the sharing of experience
o providing tools, standards and guidance
o delivering formal training and workshops
o providing “on the job” training and assistance
o influence on the action of others through demonstration, communication and coordination
b) Section 6.2 identified three cross-cutting issues on capacity building in the context of IPBES
which had been highlighted in the IPBES Gap Analysis being of particular concern:
o understanding and prioritizing capacity building needs
o coordination in addressing capacity building needs
o building awareness of capacity building needs
31
c) Section 6.4 identified a number of types of role that could be played by a capacity building
initiative, building on existing landscape of interested organizations:
o provide a technical support unit
o create a service or support unit
o lead a cluster of organizations
o build a series of strategic partnerships
o build a federated network
o become a broker or ‘matchmaker’
o facilitate and promote increased coordination
o convene a donor forum
o research and provide guidance materials
o lead a network of training institutions
o convene a body of experts
o build networks and processes to share experience
The next stage may be to identify which of these approaches are areas that are not of interest to any
evolving capacity building initiative, and which are areas where any proposed initiative can add
value.
7.5 How might initial areas and issues to focus on be identified?
While it is widely recognised that there is work to do in building capacity everywhere to improve the
use of science and knowledge in decision making, it is impractical to try to address everything at
once. Within any new capacity building initiative it is important to consider whether all capacity
building needs will be addressed in all places, or whether there will be a focus on particular needs,
and or particular regions, at least in the first instance. Criteria for identifying such opportunities
might include:
o identified needs that correspond with a recognised strengths
o supporting delivery of sub-global assessments that contribute to IPBES assessments
o obvious partnerships that can be formed with international organizations/programmes
o “low hanging fruit” that can yield results quickly
o needs where a small investment could yield a significant return
o countries/regions with which countries or organizations concerned have good relationships
o activities that lead to further action through demonstration or leverage
Indeed some of these could be pilot exercises that are built on over time as lessons are learnt, and as
capacity and experience increases to support capacity building elsewhere – including through
sharing the lessons learnt from one country to another.
7.6 How might partners in “recipient” countries be identified?
Clearly capacity building within countries has to be carried out together with national partners, and
most likely in collaboration with a number of local stakeholders independently or in partnership
(noting also that collaboration with many stakeholders could be achieved acting through a single
national partner).
There are too many countries and organizations to review at this stage, therefore it seems more
appropriate to set criteria for how local partners would be identified. These criteria might be based
on issues such as:
o existing knowledge and capacity
o current activities in appropriate areas (for example sub-global assessment)
32
o legitimacy, based on the roles and responsibilities within the country concerned
o demonstrated ability to involve stakeholders appropriately
o capacity to manage projects and budgets to an appropriate standard
o previous experience with the organization concerned
The methods to be employed as part of the capacity building project or programme might then
depend on the existing level of capacity, and on the skills that need to be developed or improved,
and this would be explored through some form of scoping exercise or preliminary review, carried out
jointly with the national partner.
Note that it would not necessarily be the same national partner for every capacity building project,
as this would depend on issues such as the roles and responsibilities of organizations within the
country concerned, and on existing capacity and where it lies. This needs to be understood by
national partners from the start, so that there are not problems later.
33
8. Next steps and options for follow up
The following are a series of activities that may help in developing and delivering an IPBES capacity
building agenda that addresses needs identified during previous IPBES discussions. This is not
intended to be prescriptive, and not intended to be fully comprehensive, but it should generate
further discussion on the actions that might be taken.
8.1 With respect to IPBES in general
Note that the following only deals partially with the political issues that will surround preparation for
discussion of capacity building at the IPBES plenary, and there will also need to be parallel
consultative meetings to work towards consensus. The primary focus here is on technical issues.
a) Workshop (or workshops) on IPBES and capacity building: Following preparation of the first
draft of the scoping paper the Norwegian and Brazilian governments decided to convene an
international expert meeting where a number of invited stakeholders could discuss a range of
the issues raised. However there is potential for further workshops, depending on the outcome
of the international expert meeting. For example, workshops could be convened in one or more
countries, working in collaboration with interested governments, or back to back with regional
meetings (such as ASEAN and IABIN), or with particular interest groups (for example IUCN or
DIVERSITAS). These workshops could explore particular issues, and/or provide opportunity for
regional consultation.
b) Wider peer review of scoping paper: Depending on whether the scoping paper is thought to
have further value after the international expert meeting it could be redrafted to take account
of discussion at the meeting, and subjected to review by a wider range of potential
stakeholders, to seek improvement in the document, and to elicit new ideas. This could be
supplemented by consultations with identified key individuals either through telephone
discussions or face to face meetings to discuss some or all of the issues being considered, either
with sharing of drafts in advance, or at least some information and guidance based on those
drafts (such as a series of questions). This could be done in conjunction with preparations
leading up to the first plenary meeting, and also support preparation of information documents
for the plenary itself (see below).
c) Information paper (or papers) for the IPBES plenary: The current paper, augmented (and
potentially substantially modified) by review and further discussion could form the basis for an
information document (or a series of information documents) at the IPBES plenary, supporting
discussion on issues extracted from the paper and included in conference documents. This
could be supported by other relevant information documents, including those
suggested/implied in the following paragraphs, but might cover in particular:
o Annotated and prioritized list of needs to ensure that there is full understanding of what is
meant by capacity building in the context of IPBES during discussions
o Options on how those needs might be addressed in the context of IPBES, so that the
implications are more clearly understood when capacity building is under discussion
Alternatively the current paper and associated discussions could be drawn on when preparing
an information document on the capacity building work programme, and not used separately.
d) Strategy: In order to deliver capacity building effectively in the context of IPBES, it will be
important to clarify what it is that IPBES will do, and what it is desirable for others to do in the
context of IPBES in order to improve the science-policy interface at all levels. This discussion will
need to continue in the context of development of the information document on the work
34
programme. It may be possible to prepare a broader draft capacity building strategy, but this
has a number of implications and it may be better to wait until there is agreement on the work
programme.
e) Other assessment processes: There is clear logic in the capacity building efforts of different
assessment processes being mutually reinforcing, and potentially even coordinated. This is
worth further exploration, and a more detailed review of the capacity building activities of each
may be appropriate, with the development of a draft strategy for more coordinated action as a
basis for further discussion, followed by a workshop with an appropriate group of stakeholders
and other experts. The results of such work could also be input to the plenary meeting.
f) Identifying and promoting ‘quick wins’: As suggested in Section 6.5 there are opportunities to
build on existing activities which could lead to ‘quick wins’ in certain areas of capacity building.
This could then benefit the discussions at the IPBES plenary meeting if progress is seen in these
areas. These could be explored further and an information document or series of information
documents produced. The most obvious example is the Working Group on Sub-global
Assessments, and a paper on this process and how it could be linked to delivery of IPBES and
associated capacity building could be relatively easily prepared. Other papers could be
produced on other issues, such as on science capacity building (ICSU, DIVERSITAS and IHDP),
development and use of indicators (UNEP-WCMC and the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership),
access to publications (UNEP and OARE), and so on. This would be supplemented by more
tangible expressions of offers such as that made by the Norwegian Government to establish
some sort of capacity building node.
8.2 For organizations considering playing a focal role in building capacity in support of IPBES
The is significant potential for a government or organization to play a supporting role either in
directly supporting implementation of an IPBES work programme, or in other capacity building
activities that are relevant to IPBES. The following options for follow up address those activities
where external support might be useful or required, and assumes that other meetings and
exploration of ideas will also be taking place within the organization or country developing the
initiative. Note that there is potentially a degree of overlap between what is suggested here and
some of the suggestions made in the previous sub-section, and there may be opportunities for
synergies if they are addressed together in some cases.
a) Further elaboration of ideas: Using the scoping paper as a basis, and working with a range of
the interested organizations, brainstorm on the different questions, ideas and concepts in order
to further develop thinking on how any developing capacity building initiative could be
developed and implemented. This would be an essential further stage before making a concrete
proposal, and might use external support in presentation of the questions and ideas and
rationale behind them, and as a ‘reality check’ for some of the ideas and discussion arising.
b) Advance preparation: If the role of any developing capacity building initiative is to be
recognised officially in any manner, then this will require significant preparation ahead of the
plenary meetings, including working in collaboration with governments so as to submit a
proposal that is welcomed and seen as a constructive and non-threatening contribution (non-
threatening in that it does not undermine what anybody else anticipated contributing). This will
require significant consultation, and potentially the establishment of some strategic
partnerships ahead of the first plenary.
35
c) Wider consultation: This would have two benefits, both exploring in more detail what the needs
and expectations are, and raising the profile of any developing capacity building initiative
amongst interested parties. This could be done through email, telephone conversation or
individual face-to-face meetings, or in workshops or consultation meetings.
d) Strategy, action plan, programme: Development of a strategy, action plan and/or programme,
for any new capacity building initiative, preferably at least in part in parallel with development
of an overall IPBES capacity building work programme, will help focus planning, and will support
preparation of a workable proposal. This is probably important early on so that implementation
can begin as soon as is practicable, which will be important in ensuring the support of
governments.
e) Proposal and associated communication materials: Although it is unclear exactly how
contributions to the establishment of IPBES implementation arrangements will be sought, it is
assumed that any new initiative will need to be explained in some form of proposal, and that a
process will have to have been established by IPBES and/or the plenary meeting to review such
proposals (something that will need to be considered as the operationalization of IPBES is
discussed and agreed). This will probably need to be supported by various communication
materials for the different stakeholder groups, and also potentially by presentations. Of this the
issue that may be most complicated to address is the relationship to other organizations and
networks involved in relevant capacity building activities, which needs to be addressed both
through consultations and appropriately oriented communication materials.
f) Considering the relationship to IPBES: Whatever the modus operandi of IPBES when it is
established, any activities supporting IPBES with respect to capacity building will need to relate
to the programme and priorities of IPBES as set out by the IPBES governance and advisory
processes, working with the IPBES Secretariat, and with any other bodies established by the
Plenary. Therefore, when the plenary documents relating to options for IPBES governance and
operation are prepared, it will be necessary to consider and plan for how any new initiative
might work in the context of each of these scenarios. This could be partially done now, based
on scenarios implied by current discussions and previous IPBES meeting documents. The biggest
difficulty would likely be in trying to work out how an IPBES working group on capacity building
might operate.
36
References and notes
A/RES/65/162 Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on
its eleventh special session
2
UNEP/CBD/COP/9/INF/26 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Follow-up: A Global Strategy for
Turning Knowledge into Action
3
UNEP/IPBES/2/INF/1 Gap analysis for the purpose of facilitating the discussions on how to
improve and strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services
4
UNEP/IPBES/2/INF/6 Capacity-building in an intergovernmental science-policy platform on
biodiversity and ecosystem services
5
UNEP/IPBES/3/3 Report of the third ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on
an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services
6
UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/3 Analysis of capacity development for biodiversity and ecosystem services
7
UNEP/IPBES/3/INF/11 Potential relationship between the intergovernmental science-policy
platform and existing institutions
8
Bellamy, J-J and Hill, K (2010). National Capacity Self-Assessments: Results and Lessons Learned
for Global Environmental Sustainability, Global Support Programme, Bureau for Development
Policy, UNDP. (See www.adaptationlearning.net/sites/default/files/NCSA-SR-web-100913.pdf)
9
InterAcademy Council (2010). Climate change assessments: Review of the processes and
procedures of the IPCC. (see www.interacademycouncil.net/ipccreview)
10
The IMoSEB website seems to be no longer live, so see the final meeting report on the IISD
website at www.iisd.ca/ymb/sdims/html/ymbvol132num6e.html
1
See www.millenniumassessment.org
2
See www.ipbes.net
3
See UN General Assembly A/64/88 and A/65/358, and also www.unga-regular-process.org and
www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/global_reporting.htm
4
See www.bipnational.net
5
See www.oaresciences.org
6
See www.iucn.org/wcpa
17
See http://www.earthobservations.org/geobon.shtml
18
Decision 26/4 in the Decisions adopted by the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment
Forum at its twenty-sixth session
37