4thPan(EuropeanIPBES Stakeholder!Consultation! …€¦ · · 2017-08-01paper* copy* if* they*...

4th Pan-‐European IPBES Stakeholder Consultation

(PESC-‐4)

Bringing together biodiversity stakeholders from Europe and Central Asia in support of the Intergovernmental Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

12-‐14 June 2017

Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany Vácrátót, Hungary

1

PROGRAMME

Day 1: Monday 12 June Chair: András Báldi (MTA-‐ÖK) Time Session Presenter 12.00-‐13.30 Registration and buffet lunch 13.30-‐14.00 Welcome András Báldi (MTA-‐ÖK) 14.00-‐14.30 Introductive session: IPBES functions,

objectives, work programme, structures and ‘landscape’ (TSUs, Task Forces, MEP etc.); links to other relevant processes (CBD/SBSTTA, SDGs)

Felice van der Plaat (IPBES Secretariat)

14.30-‐15.00 Introduction to the ECA assessment, the outcome of the first review process and what is expected from the 2nd review

Mark Rounsevell & Markus Fischer (ECA co-‐chairs)

15.00-‐15.30 Coffee break 15.30-‐16.15 Introduction to the assessment chapters,

structure and potential pending issues ECA co-‐chairs and CLAs

16.15-‐16.30 Organization of work at PESC-‐4 for 2nd review Participants will be asked to bring their own paper copy if they want to use this format; organizers will be able to provide a digital copy only. Participants will be expected to have read the chapter(s) they want to work so that the groups can focus on discussions of issues.

Agnès Hallosserie (FRB)

16.30-‐18.00 Break-‐out into groups Facilitators Group 1 Location: Carbon house Look at: SPM Participants: NFPs

Group 2 Location: Castle 1 Look at: Chapters 1-‐3 Participants: stakeholders

Group 3 Location: Castle 2 Look at: Chapters 4-‐6 Participants: stakeholders

19.00-‐21.00 Dinner at a nearby restaurant

2

Day 2: Tuesday 13 June Chair: Agnès Halloserie (FRB) Time Session Presenter 09.00-‐11.00 Break-‐out groups Facilitators

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 11.00-‐11.30 Coffee break 11.30-‐13.00 End of break-‐out groups. Comments to be

inserted in the review template. Facilitators

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 13.00-‐14.00 Lunch 14.00-‐14.30 Main conclusions from the review exercise,

quick insights of national coordination by countries to move ahead and submit comments to IPBES

Reporters from break-‐out groups

14.30-‐15.00 Integrating indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity assessments: challenges and opportunities

Axel Paulsch (Institute for Biodiversity Network e.V.) & Katja Heubach (GIZ)

15.00-‐15.30 Coffee break 15.30-‐16.00 Presentation on IPBES

work on stakeholders’ engagement

If need be: one group breaks-‐out to finalize work on review

Robert Spaull (IPBES Secretariat) & Laurence Perianin (IUCN)

16.00-‐17.00 Discussion with participants on their needs, and guidance for IPBES work on stakeholders’ engagement, based on the existing material or material under development, and close

17.00-‐19.00 Visit to Vác historic town 19.00-‐21.00 Dinner at Vác

3

Day 3: Wednesday 14 June Chair: Kristina Raab (NeFo) Time Session Presenter 09.00-‐09.30 Recap of Day 1 & 2 and proceedings for Day 3 Kristina Raab (NeFo) 09.30-‐10.00 Facilitating the uptake of IPBES pollination

assessment: BES-‐net trialogue in Eastern Europe and the Coalition of the Willing for Pollinators

Solène Le Doze (UNDP) & Astrid Hilgers (Ministry of Economic Affairs, Netherlands)

10.00-‐10.25 How can a country engage fully in the IPBES process: insights from science and policy stakeholders in Hungary

Ildikó Mándics (Ministry of Agriculture, Hungary) & Katalin Török (MTA-‐ÖK)

10.25-‐11.00 A two-‐way street : regional research and assessment in the broader IPBES context

-‐ The Nordic assessment of coastal Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: a subregional study inspired by the broader IPBES context

-‐ The forthcoming BiodivERsA/Belmont Forum Call on biodiversity scenarios: a contribution to fill the knowledge gaps identified by IPBES

Cecilia Lindblad (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) Frédéric Lemaître (BiodiVERsA)

11.00-‐11.30 Coffee break 11.30-‐12.00 EKLIPSE: first results of a European IPBES-‐like

initiative Zoi Konstantinou (University of Porto)

12.00-‐12.30 The ECA-‐network: an opportunity to engage with IPBES at the regional level

Angélique Berhault (Belgian Biodiversity Platform)

12.30-‐12.45 AOB and wrap-‐up Kristina Raab (NeFo) & Agnès Hallosserie

12.45-‐13.00 Close Katalin Török (MTA-‐ÖK) 13.00-‐14.00 Buffet lunch and goodbye

4

ABOUT PESC-‐4 Background "The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) aims at strengthening capacity for the effective use of science in decision-‐making at all levels" (www.ipbes.net). IPBES was established as a global science-‐policy interface in 2012 and it has the tasks to "synthesize, review, assess and critically evaluate relevant information and knowledge generated worldwide by governments, academia, scientific organizations, non-‐governmental organizations and indigenous communities" (ibd.). Its first two assessments, the thematic assessment on pollinators, pollination and food security and the methodological assessment on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services, were approved in 2016 during IPBES 4th plenary session, as well as their summaries for policymakers. IPBES expert groups are still working on the four regional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the assessment on land degradation and restoration, due 2018, and on the global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services due 2019. To implement the IPBES work programme and to make it relevant also for the regional, national and/or local level, on which many biodiversity-‐related problems need to be tackled, the global IPBES mechanism needs national and regional structures to build upon. Such structures can spread information about IPBES, enrich IPBES negotiations by feeding in diverse opinions, support the identification of experts relevant to the IPBES assessments, disseminate IPBES products, and help to meet urgent capacity-‐building and data needs. The Pan-‐European IPBES Stakeholder Consultation was put in place for the first time in 2013. It was organised by NeFo, the network-‐forum for biodiversity research in Germany, supported by several other European platforms for biodiversity. They have been organising PESCs together on a regular basis, this year 2017 being the 4th edition of PESC. The meeting aims to bring together a wide range of IPBES stakeholders coming from the region of the IPBES regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia. It provides a forum for discussing engagement in IPBES, therefore supporting the work of the Platform to mobilize stakeholders and provide inputs to the current programme of work of IPBES, such as the second draft of the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia. This also allows to share experience across countries and stakeholders about engaging efficiently with IPBES (through the national biodiversity platforms for example). PESC builds capacity through presentations from the IPBES Secretariat and experts involved in the work of the Platform, and also through learning by doing when working in groups for example.

Objectives of the PESC-‐4 meeting 1. Promote stakeholders’ engagement in IPBES work

-‐ by building capacities to provide inputs to IPBES deliverables (e.g. discussions between IPBES authors and stakeholders enabling learning from each other’s expectations and requirements; presentation of the ways to engage with IPBES)

-‐ by sharing experiences on how to coordinate national biodiversity work to promote it in the context of IPBES (e.g. workshop with French-‐speaking African countries on governance led by FRB in September 2016 could provide useful perspectives for Eastern Europe and Central Asian countries’ participation to IPBES; network of European platforms engaging in IPBES)

5

2. Strengthen collaboration on biodiversity research at the pan-‐European level, including central

Asia -‐ by providing room for discussion, meeting and networking between all stakeholders -‐ by presenting and fostering research initiatives aiming to fill gaps identified in the scenarios

and models and the pollination assessment -‐ by promoting the engagement of ILK and social science experts in IPBES work

3. Contribute to the preparation of IPBES products and develop capacities on the review process of IPBES reports

-‐ by promoting dialogue on the second order draft (SOD) and the first draft of the summary for policy makers (SPM) of the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia (ECA) to facilitate the provision of review comments by experts and governments during the external review phase

-‐ by developing capacities related to IPBES assessment process and the process of approval and acceptance at IPBES-‐6

-‐ by providing guidance to enhance stakeholders’ engagement in IPBES (e.g. based on the survey on stakeholder needs)

Background information on the key topics Capacity building Capacity building is one of the four core functions of IPBES and is therefore given special attention in its work programme for 2014-‐2018. A task force on capacity building, consisting of experts from around the world and supported by the technical support unit (TSU) provided by Norway (Norwegian Environment Agency), has developed the IPBES rolling plan for capacity building which was adopted at IPBES 5th plenary session (IPBES-‐5) in March 2017. The plan aims to address the priority capacity building needs agreed in plenary (see doc IPBES/3/18), related to scientific capacity to conduct assessments on one hand, and decision-‐makers capacity to use the assessments on the other hand. Several actions of the rolling plan for capacity building are implemented by the IPBES Secretariat through IPBES trust fund, such as the fellowship programme and expert training, and many activities rely on contributions from partners supporting IPBES work. PESC-‐4 is contributing to the general implementation of the plan, especially to Strategy 3: strengthening national and regional capacities and the promotion of national and regional platforms and networks on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Stakeholders’ engagement IPBES is an intergovernmental initiative at the interface of science, policy and society. To ensure a larger engagement, it aims to reach to a large panel of stakeholders, from local governments to research institutes to NGOs to businesses, among others. There are several entry points for stakeholders to engage in IPBES, such as (i) nominating experts when IPBES is forming an expert group (as agreed in the procedures for the preparation of Platform deliverables, 80% of experts are nominated by Governments and 20% of experts are nominated by stakeholders); (ii) sending inputs and suggestions for IPBES programme of work; (iii) providing comments on IPBES products to be addressed by the expert group in charge of the product; and (iv) disseminating and using IPBES findings in one’s everyday activities. Several challenges remain for a more meaningful participation of stakeholders in IPBES, such as constraints related to time availability, language or format of work. IPBES launched a first survey to identify stakeholders’ needs, whose results will be discussed at PESC-‐4 with the aim of finding

6

solutions to address those needs. To view the results of the survey go to http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/ipbes-‐5-‐inf-‐16.pdf IPBES regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia The regional assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia (ECA assessment) was initiated in 2015. A first draft was open for expert review in summer 2016, and subsequently the authors and review editors addressed the comments and started preparing a second order draft. One of the key issues identified in the first draft when examined by PESC-‐3 was the geographical imbalance between European Western countries and the rest of the region, including Eastern Europe and Central Asia. PESC-‐3 participants were able to point to useful sources and publications to try and address this lack of information on biodiversity and ecosystem services in these regions. The second order draft and the first draft of the summary for policymakers (SPM) will be open for review from 1 May to 26 June 2017. PESC-‐4 will look at this second draft and at the SPM and provide comments as an input to the review process.

Targeted audience Knowledge holders from Pan-‐Europe (spanning Western and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia, i.e. parts of the UN-‐regions WEOG, EEG, Asia-‐Pacific). These knowledge holders may be affiliated to governmental and administrative bodies of IPBES member states or non-‐member states, IPBES subsidiary bodies, scientific institutions, non-‐governmental organisations, other civil-‐society organisations, or the business-‐sector, dealing with issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Enhanced efforts will be dedicated to the participation of social science and ILK experts, and of biodiversity practitioners. Focal points of Eastern Europe and Central Asian countries will also be specifically targeted as relevant participants to achieve PESC-‐4 objectives.

Organisers and funders PESC-‐4 is co-‐organised by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB), the Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Centre for Ecological Research (MTA-‐ÖK) and the Network Forum for Biodiversity Research Germany (NeFo), in collaboration with the IPBES technical support units (TSU) for capacity-‐building and for the assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services of Europe and Central Asia, the Belgium Biodiversity Platform and the Swiss Biodiversity Forum. This meeting could not take place without the generous support of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Hungarian Centre for Ecological Research (MTA-‐ÖK), the Science and Policy Platform of the Swiss Academy of Sciences, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), and Governments who contribute to the IPBES trust fund.

7

PARTICIPATING IN THE REVIEW OF IPBES REGIONAL ASSESSMENT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA One of the main activities planned for PESC-‐4 is the discussion and review of the second order draft (SOD) of the IPBES regional assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia (ECA assessment) and its draft Summary for Policymakers (SPM), in order to provide comments as part of the IPBES external review process. The sessions at PESC-‐4 are designed to build your capacity to participate in the review process, and to stimulate thoughts through group discussions. However, you will need to submit your own review comments template (see example below) after PESC-‐4 meeting and no later than 26 June 2017 for your comments to be addressed by IPBES expert groups when preparing the final version of the assessment and the second draft of the SPM. The review comments template is to be sent to [email protected] and [email protected]

Participating to the review of IPBES draft assessment is entirely voluntary, so you can choose what chapter(s) or SPM you comment. You can look at specific sub-‐sections of the assessment only, depending on your own knowledge and expertise. All contributions from volunteer reviewers are welcome, if they are constructive and allow for improvements of IPBES assessment. Comments should be supported by published references where relevant. How to obtain the draft assessment/SPM A) Register or log in as a user on the IPBES website: http://www.ipbes.net/user/register?destination=sod-‐review B) You can then apply to become an IPBES external reviewer and select the documents you wish to review, after signing a confidentiality clause with which you agree not to quote, cite or disseminate the drafts. Website: http://www.ipbes.net/sod-‐review C) After validation by IPBES Secretariat (this can take up to 24 hours), you will receive an email with

8

the link to the webpage where you can access and download the draft documents and the review comments template. Overview of the chapters Summary for Policymakers Chapter 1: Setting the scene Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning nature’s contributions to people Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between Nature and Society Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision making across scales and sectors Guidance questions The following questions are meant to guide your reading and reviewing of the draft ECA assessment and are indicative only. Your comments are not expected to answer these questions specifically. While reviewing the SPM or one of the individual chapters of the assessment, I can think about… a) whether the chapter/SPM is capturing the challenges/issues and reflecting my knowledge about my region or thematic area; b) which actions are effective in my country to address the challenges and risks for biodiversity and ecosystem services. While reviewing the SPM, I can think about… a) whether the format and the wording of the SPM are appropriate to guide my action at home, whether it is too long, or too technical and how it can be shortened; b) which are the parts of the SPM that I do not understand; c) which are the parts of the SPM that I do not agree with, and why; d) whether the following policy-‐relevant questions from the scoping report are being addressed adequately in the SPM:

a. How do biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services contribute to the economy, livelihoods, food security, and good quality of life in Europe and Central Asia, and what are the interdependences among them?

b. What are the status, trends and potential future dynamics of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services that affect their contribution to the economy, livelihoods and well-‐being?

c. What are the pressures driving the change in the status and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services and good quality of life in the regions?

d. What are the actual and potential impacts of various policies and interventions on the contribution of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services to the sustainability of the economy, livelihoods, food security and good quality of life in the regions?

9

e. How can ecosystems that provide ecosystem services, such as those underpinning ecosystem-‐based adaptation to climate change and nature-‐based solutions to sustainable development, be protected through investments, regulations and management regimes for terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine systems?

f. What are the effects of production, consumption and economic development on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their contribution to human well-‐being? Does it assess the major links with other regions?

g. How can sectoral policies and new policy instruments make use of opportunities arising from the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services to human well-‐being?

h. What gaps in knowledge need to be addressed in order to better understand and assess drivers, impacts and responses of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services at the regional level?

e) whether the options for implementing change suggested in the SPM are relevant for my country/region, and if no, why so; f) whether the SPM addresses my policy-‐needs, and if not, what are my policy-‐needs; g) whether the SPM provides me with the information necessary for me to follow-‐up on the options for implementing change, as presented in the SPM, and if not, why so. While reviewing Chapter 2, I can think about… a) whether all key challenges related to nature’s contributions to people and how these underpin a good quality of life are reflected in the chapter, especially for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. If they are not, which ones are missing? Which published references (article in peer reviewed journals, technical reports…) refer to these missing challenges? b) whether the narration is coherent throughout the chapter, and across chapters (if I am reviewing several chapters); c) whether there are inconsistencies within the chapter (or across chapters); d) whether there is literature or reports that I know of, that could help fill the knowledge gaps identified in the chapter. While reviewing Chapter 3, I can think about… I should keep in mind that this is a regional assessment and it needs to address regional and sub-‐regional trends. Knowledge regarding Eastern Europe and Central Asia on ecosystems and species trends is particularly helpful as there may be literature available that has not been considered in the assessment yet. a) If I have knowledge of the following systems, I can focus on the relevant sections which were not part of the first order draft and therefore have not yet been reviewed externally:

-‐ 3.2.2.3.7 on wetlands – peatlands, mires and bogs -‐ 3.2.2.3.8 on urban ecosystems -‐ 3.2.2.1.4 on the Baltic Sea -‐ 3.2.2.1.6 on the Black and Azov Seas -‐ 3.2.2.1.7 on the Northwest Pacific Ocean -‐ 3.2.2.1.8 on the Deep-‐sea -‐ 3.2.3.3 on reptiles -‐ 3.3.3 on Future trends for Units of Analyses with sufficient information

10

I can think about whether these sections are complete, and if something is missing, what it is. I should provide references of published material (article in peer reviewed journals, technical report…) addressing the missing issues. b) whether there is literature or reports I know of, that could help fill the knowledge gaps (section 3.5) identified in the chapter; c) The following sections were mostly re-‐written for the second order draft or are still incomplete. If I have already provided comments on the first order draft in 2016, it would still be particularly good for me to review them. If I have not commented the first order draft before, it would be good if I could have a look at:

-‐ 3.2.2.1.3 on the Mediterranean Sea -‐ 3.2.3.4 on Amphibians -‐ 3.2.3.5.2 on Freshwater fishes -‐ 3.2.3.6 on Terrestrial invertebrates -‐ 3.2.3.7 on Freshwater invertebrates -‐ 3.2.3.8 on Vascular plants -‐ 3.2.3.11 on Fungi

I can think about whether these sections are complete, and if something is missing, what it is. I should provide references of published material (article in peer reviewed journals, technical report…) addressing the missing issues. d) whether I know of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) information relevant to the chapter and whether I can make suggestions, in particular additions and references; e) if I have knowledge on marine invertebrates, whether I can provide more information in addition to what is already included in the chapter; f) which parts are too general, which parts are too long and which parts need more synthesis work. While reviewing Chapter 4, I can think about…

a) whether I can provide critical feedback on the analysis of drivers, through an Eastern European and Central Asian perspective. The analysis made in the chapter is based mainly on grey literature, therefore the expert assessment of the information presented is crucial.

b) the approach to assess collected information across the European and Central Asian region as a whole, and at the level of sub-‐regions, and how it can be improved;

c) what is the most important thing to me in this chapter;

d) what is the least important to me in this chapter;

e) if I also review Chapter 2 or 3, I can think about whether the aspects of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people presented in chapter 4 overlap with Chapter 2 and 3, and suggest a way forward to avoid that overlapping. Chapter 4 analyses five groups of direct drivers (pollution, land use change, climate change, invasive species and natural resource extraction) of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

11

While reviewing Chapter 5, I can think about… a) whether the chapter achieves a good balance between having a small evidence base and trying to synthesize robust findings divided by indicator, subregion and scenario archetype. I can think about the points that should be improved and how it can be done. b) whether the chapter is too technical, and how it can be made more accessible to readers; c) whether I know of work on scenarios in Central Asia that is not reflected in the chapter yet. While reviewing Chapter 6, I can think about…

a) what I did like and find good about chapter 6 and what I recommend to keep. As the chapter is currently too long and text needs to be shortened, it would be helpful to know which topics/sections should not be reduced.

b) which parts I recommend to shorten or condense or synthesise better, because they are too descriptive or available elsewhere. I should provide major references if applicable.

c) what I think is still crucially missing. Since the chapter is already above the intended word count, only very important and essential topics may still be considered. I should provide major references when I suggest additions.

12

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Surname Last name Institution Country

Aghasyan Aram Ministry of Nature Protection Armenia

Aghasyan Levon Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydroecology, National Academy of Sciences Armenia

Akhobadze Sophiko Regional Environmental Center for the South Caucasus Georgia Arends Jeroen Ecosystem Services Partnership -‐ESP Serbia Baldi Andras Centre for Ecological Research Hungary

Baratova Adilia Scientific-‐research laboratory for nature protection Kyrgyzstan

Barudanovic Senka Faculty of science, University of Sarajevo Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bashta Andriy-‐Taras Animals Research and Protection Association "Fauna" Ukraine

Bela Gyorgyi Environmental social science research group Hungary Borgström Suvi Ministry of the Environment Finland

Borodin Oleg The Scientific and Practical Center of the National Academy of Sciences of Bioresources Belarus

Bušković Vasilije Environmental Protection Agency Montenegro Diem Thi Tran Hong IPBES TSU for capacity-‐building Norway

Dronova Maria Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Russian Federation

Ergeneman Candan Center for Development Research -‐ University of Bonn, Germany and International Association of Impact Assessment

Turkey

Fischer Markus University of Bern Switzerland Geschke Jonas Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, NeFo Germany Grant Hilary JNCC United Kingdom

Hakobyan Susanna Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology of Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydrobiology, National Academy of Sciences

Armenia

Hallosserie Agnès FRB France Hauck Jennifer UFZ & CoKnow Consulting Germany

Heubach Katja Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Germany

Hilgers Astrid Ministry of Economic Affairs Netherlands Karimov Bakhtiyor NGO "Scientific-‐consulting Center ECOSERVICE" Uzbekistan Kloos Julia German IPBES Coordination Office Germany

Konstantinou Zoi University of Porto/Interdisciplinary Centre for Marine and Environmental Research (Ciimar) Portugal

Kovács-‐Hostyánszki Anikó Centre for Ecological Research Hungary

Kujundzic Kristina GIZ Open Regional Fund for SEE-‐ Biodiversity Serbia Lemaitre Frederic BiodivERsA France Lindblad Cecilia Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Sweden

13

Surname Last name Institution Country Mándics Ildikó Ministry of Agriculture Hungary

Minchenko Natalya NGO "Bagna" Belarus

Mkrtchyan Arevik Foundation for the Preservation of Wildlife and Cultural Assets (FPWC) Armenia

Murodaliev Ismoiljon National Biodiversity and biosafety Center Tajikistan Novikova Elena Research Laboratory for Nature Protection Tajikistan Novitsky Ruslan Centre for bioresources NASB Belarus

Nozadze Salome Ministry of Environment an Natural Resources Protection of Georgia Georgia

Palotás Brigitta Centre for Ecological Research Hungary Paulsch Axel Institute for Biodiversity Network e.V. Germany Perianin Laurence IUCN Switzerland

Petrovych Olesya the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine Ukraine

Pokrajac Sanja IUCN regional Office Serbia Raab Kristina Helmholtz-‐Centre for Environmental Research Germany

Romero José Swiss Federal Office for the Environment Switzerland

Rotaru Ala Ministry of Environment Republic of Moldova

Rounsevell Mark University of Edinburgh United Kingdom

Schliep Rainer NeFo -‐ German Network-‐Forum on Biodiversity Research Germany

Schoolenberg Machteld PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Netherlands

Skorin Teuta Society for Conservation Biology Croatia Skryhan Hanna NGO "EKAPRAEKT" Belarus Smaranda Samad-‐John Ministry of the Environment Romania Spaull Robert IPBES Secretariat Germany Spehn Eva Swiss Biodiversity Forum Switzerland Susini Marie-‐Lucie Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Belgium Török Katalin Centre for Ecological Research Hungary

Torre-‐Marin Amor IPBES ECA TSU Switzerland van der Plaat Felicitas IPBES Secretariat Germany Vardhami Edit Ministry of Environment Albania Viestova Eva Ministry of environment Slovakia

Vik Nina Ingrid Norwegian Environment Agency Norway Visconti Piero University College London Italy

PESC-‐4 Partners

PESC-‐4 is sponsored by

4thPan(EuropeanIPBES Stakeholder!Consultation! …€¦ · · 2017-08-01paper* copy* if* they*...

Documents

Transcript of 4thPan(EuropeanIPBES Stakeholder!Consultation! …€¦ · · 2017-08-01paper* copy* if* they*...