The “EU Expert meeting - Peer review procedures in IPBES[1] and procedures for election of authors, editors and reviewers in IPBES” was held on January 19th-20th at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark[2].
The meeting was organized by the Danish Ministry of the Environment in the context of the Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 2012. The goal of this EU Expert meeting was to discuss a common EU position regarding the procedure for the peer-review and selection of authors, editors and reviewers for the IPBES process.
The EU Expert meeting[3] was attended by approximately 30 participants, most of whom were government representatives, with the remainder made up of scientists, biodiversity experts and professionals in the field of science publishing.
Belgium was represented by Hendrik Segers, biodiversity expert from the Belgian Biodiversity Platform and Belgian delegate to the IPBES.
During the meeting, attendees discussed on the procedure for IPBES peer-review process. Were they provided with background information?
Hendrik Segers: Yes, in preparation for the discussion on the IPBES peer-review process, attendees heard three presentations on the topic of peer-review. This included a presentation by Andrew Sugden, an editor of Science Magazine, who explained the scientific review procedures used in this scientific journal. Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, of the Danish Meteorological Institute gave a presentation on lessons learned from the peer-review procedure used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Ivar Baste, a consultant from the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management presented how peer-review procedures were applied in the preparation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA).
And how would you describe the results of these discussions?
Hendrik Segers: Well, following these presentations, attendees proceeded to discuss the topic in groups during a breakout session. A number of issues were raised, including one that a classical scientific peer-review system might not be adequate for IPBES process. Indeed, the goal of the IPBES is legitimize scientific results for use in government policy. It is clear that, in order to enable this, governments should be involved in the peer-review process.
Another topic on the agenda of this meeting was the procedure for the selection of authors and editors of IPBES assessments. Could you elaborate on information attendees were provided with on this issue? Hendrik Segers: Attendees heard two presentations related to the selection of authors and editors. The first one was given by, again, Ivar Baste who presented the procedure to nominate and elect authors, editors and peer reviewers in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. The second presentation was given by Marie Kvarnström from the Stockholm Resilience Center on the possibility of using traditional and local knowledge in carrying out assessments.
Did the attendees come to a conclusion on this topic?
Hendrik Segers: Following these presentations, a number of issues were raised, but the debate mainly focused on the issue of how to incorporate traditional knowledge (TK) in scientific assessments conducted by the IPBES. Attendees to the meeting agreed that the IPBES should incorporate any kind of relevant knowledge in its assessments, as long as it can, in some way or another, be referred. This implies that grey literature (that is non peer-reviewed) can be used, as long as the original source can be consulted and, eventually, validated. The main difficulty with TK, of course, is that much of it is restricted to the oral tradition and, hence, is not registered. Countries that are members of the IPBES may want address the issue by promoting research on traditional knowledge.
What are the next steps? Will these issues be discussed with all IPBES members?
Hendrik Segers: Well, the results of these discussions will be presented to the government representatives of EU member states, who will meet several times in the coming months at meetings of the Working Party on International Environment Issues (WPIEI)[4]. In this way, EU Expert meetings serve as a preparation for the WPIEI meetings. Ideally, a common EU position on a number of matters will be agreed upon during the WPIEI meetings, and this position will serve as baseline for negotiations with other government delegates during the upcoming second session of a plenary meeting on IPBES, to be held on 16-21 April 2012 in Panama.
Interview made on the 31st January 2012 by Angélique Berhault, Communication Officer for the Belgian Biodiversity Platform.
[1] IPBES stands for ‘Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, an initiative that aims to become for biodiversity and ecosystems what the IPCC is for climate change.
[2] The EU Expert meeting was preceded by a workshop organized by the European Platform on Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) entitled “EPBRS - The thematic content of the first IPBES work programme” on 16-18th January 2012.
[3] IPBES EU Expert meetings refer to informal discussions between experts to give input to EU governments and research institutions on the rules of procedure of upcoming IPBES assessments. Individuals from EU ministries of environment, along with EU research institutions participate in these discussions.
[4] EU affairs are prepared in working parties consisting of Member State officials. The frequency of working party meetings varies depending on the nature and complexity of matters under preparation. The Working Party on International Environment Issues (WPIEI) main responsibility is to negotiate and coordinate environmental issues within the framework of international negotiations and processes conducted in the area of the environment