[ECA] Planning for PESC-4

Estelle BALIAN estelle.balian at naturalsciences.be
Mon Apr 3 15:32:59 CEST 2017

Dear Agnès

Thanks a lot for sharing the concept note and for all the preparatory work
of this challenging endeavor!!

We discussed with Hilde and Angélique, and we wanted to highlight some key
aspects/issues that should maybe be further discussed by the organizers and
the IPBES Secretariat:

*1- regarding the participation of the NFPs* and the fact that no other
opportunity will be given to governments to discuss the documents (i.e. no
separate regional consultation as originally scheduled for July):

Most governments/NFPs are not aware that this will be the "main
consultation" and might not register or be prepared on time for the PESC-4.
As you said this is more IPBES Secretariat's responsibility but this might
also create high expectations on the PESC meeting that will be tough to
meet. The fact that the registration for PESC-4 is already closed
(correct?) may add to this problem.

*2- Review comments and documents*
In the best case scenario, you might have one out of 10 delegates who will
have screened through the chapters and maybe 2 who will have read the SPM.

We think it would be maybe more efficient to have 2 different foci and
announce them in advance to participants rather than a open discussion on
all the documents:

*Focus 1: For chapters: *
Ask the authors or each chapter to highlight in their view the main
difficulties they had and what they feel is still incomplete/in need of
further work.
Participants could then focus only on these questions to help try to
address them.

Avoid tedious line by line comments during the meeting. If some people are
very motivated, they should do it online in the review system.

*Focus 2:* Have a clear focus on the SPM (maybe even give some time at the
beginning of the groups to read it) but with targeted questions like:
1- How do you assess the overall quality of the SPM/policy recommendations
hererin/ confidence level etc.?
2- Then work with the "star" working method
What should be deleted?
What should be kept as it is?
What should be increased?
What should be reduced?
What new elements should be added?

Overall, we are concerned about the help/guidance that is supposed to be
provided by the IPBES Secretariat - knowing they are under strong pressure
already + they have to simultaneously deal with the other regional
assessments that are likely of lower quality. Therefore, we feel we have to
anticipate and come up with a solid proposal ourselves.

We hope this will help the further development of the working sessions. We
are happy to support the facilitation of working groups if needed.

Best regards
Estelle, Hilde and Angelique

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Agnes HALLOSSERIE <
agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Thank you for all the feedback provided regarding the organisation and
> content of PESC-4, that is very helpful!
> Please remember to register on this address if you plan to attend the
> conference so that we have the number of people right: http://www.
> fondationbiodiversite.fr/fr/fondation/evenements/divers.html
> Regarding the review work on the draft assessment and SPM, it will need
> good preparation indeed. We got a proposal by the IPBES Secretariat to join
> forces and to include the regional capacity-building workshop targeting
> NFPs for reviewing and preparing the approval of SPM in 2018 within PESC-4,
> since our objectives are well in line. This would be a form of partnership
> between IPBES and PESC, and a nice way to acknowledge PESC contribution to
> the implementation of IPBES work programme, including its rolling plan for
> capacity-building. The Secretariat highlighted that they are very keen to
> work with us on that regional matter, especially since the Plenary at its
> 5th session recalled several time that they should really build on and
> partner with existing initiatives.
>  They will be able to provide us with support on how to conduct best the
> review for NFPs, and we could adapt from there to work with the other
> participants. We could have designed more general info sessions running in
> parallel with the break-out groups but I am afraid that it would scatter
> the group too much, with only a handful of participants per group. Instead,
> I suggest to design the break out sessions in an incremental fashion. As we
> have 3 sessions of 1.5 hours each, we could take some time in the first
> session to present the draft versions, identify key issues and challenges
> and therefore guide more closely the input from and discussion with
> participants, with the help of the assessment co-chairs and CLAs.
> We definitely have learned some lessons from last year (both in terms of
> reviewing the draft documents and discussing stakeholders needs) and we
> should keep it in mind when designing the sessions. If there is an issue or
> session you are particularly interested in, and if you would like to take
> over the organisation of that session, please let me know as soon as
> possible so that we can share the work! Note that there is a new session in
> the concept note about the organisers of the meeting, and if you intend to
> contribute more actively in the organisation of PESC but have not let me
> know yet, please shout :-) We will close registration after a last reminder
> next week and we will then look at the registered participants we can
> support for travel. We are still looking for additional funding to support
> travel for participants from Eastern Europe and Central Asia so please let
> me know if you can contribute, even if this is a small amount, it can allow
> one or two persons to attend.
> You can find attached the updated version of the concept note, with some
> changes following what happened at IPBES-5 and the discussions we had with
> IPBES Secretariat as mentioned above. *Could you please let me know if
> you have specific feedback by COB Friday 24 March (apologies for the short
> delay!)* so that the concept note can be submitted to the ECA assessment
> management committee when they meet next week? They will need to decide
> whether they can go ahead with the option of the capacity-building workshop
> being integrated within PESC-4.
> Thank you very much in advance and all the best,
> Agnes
> De : <hr.eggermont at gmail.com> on behalf of hilde eggermont <
> h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>
> Répondre à : "h.eggermont at biodiversity.be" <h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>
> Date : mercredi 1 mars 2017 13:23
> À : "elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de" <elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de>
> Cc : Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>, "
> gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu" <gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu>, "
> baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu" <baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu>, "
> molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu" <molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu>, "
> eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com" <eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com>, "
> palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu" <palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu>, "
> torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu" <torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu>, PERIANIN
> Laurence <laurence.perianin at iucn.org>, "Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de" <
> Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de>, "hans.keune at inbo.be" <hans.keune at inbo.be>,
> "p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be" <p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be>, "
> amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch" <amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch>, "eca-network at bebif.be"
> <eca-network at bebif.be>
> Objet : Re: [ECA] Planning for PESC-4
> Dear Agnes, Dear all
> First of all great thanks for the efforts!
> As for the options on the target audience, not easy indeed. With Option 1
> - you may get more input with regard to the actual review of the SOD (from
> both knowledge holders & end-users), whereas Option 2 is likely the most
> inclusive. As regards the latter, I agree with Lisa that the format will
> need to be adapted accordingly (i.e. allow space for more generic
> discussions). At the same time, we have to avoid running in circles (don't
> duplicate previous PESC meetings and pre-plenary Stakeholder Days)... That
> said, I think either option could work, as long as we have sufficient
> end-users on board. (my preferred option would be 1)
> I also agree that the organization of the review will require sufficient
> reflection and preparatory work. At EU level, MS are even considering to
> spread workload - so we should be realistic on what we can actually achieve
> during a 2-day meeting, knowing that (very likely) most won't have read the
> docs...
> Finally, I am also happy to confirm that both Estelle Balian and Angélique
> Berhault will attend the PESC4 meeting on behalf on the Belgian
> Biodiversity Platform. They can also provide helping hands for the
> facilitation and act as resource persons for the ECA-network
> <http://www.eca-ipbesnetwork.org/> and NPF-activities. Probably, I won't
> attend myself but remain available for input & preparations,
> Best wishes, and hope to see most of you in Bonn!
> Hilde
> 2017-02-10 12:16 GMT+01:00 Elisabeth Marquard <lisa.marquard at ufz.de>:
>> Dear Agnès, dear all,
>> thank you very much your email and the concept note. This looks like a
>> very interesting program. And I am very excited about the fact that PESC
>> goes on!! Thanks for your efforts and the 'friendly takeover' by France and
>> Hungary!!
>> Just some thoughts from my side:
>> Regarding the desired composition of participants: I don't know which of
>> your 'scenarios' may work better but I always think that involving people
>> from the administrations of different sectors could be fruitful since they
>> are one of the main target groups of IPBES products, aren't they? Maybe
>> they could contribute their view on how the ECA assessment or its SPM might
>> be received more effectively? This would perhaps rather address the later
>> dissemination and outreach than the SOD itself....
>> In any case, the audience will probably be a mixture of people that are
>> fairly well acquainted with IPBES and people that are newcomers to the
>> process (unless you deliberately chose only IPBES-experienced experts?).
>> And this remains a serious challenge, in particular when it comes to the
>> 'reviewing exercise'. So I wonder whether it might be worth considering
>> running the 'reviewing break-out groups' in parallel with some other
>> break-out group that does not require familiarity with the SOD. You could
>> e.g. have break-out groups for the Chapter 1-4 in parallel with one that
>> addresses some other topic (e.g. the national platforms or other forms of
>> national/regional coordination) and then later break-out groups for
>> Chapters 5-6 in parallel with one that addresses the next IPBES work
>> program. Otherwise, participants that have not prepared for reviewing a
>> chapter might be a little lost during the afternoon of day 1 and 2?
>> Regarding the organization of the review: One lesson that I learned
>> during PESC-3 was that we had not prepared the review of the individual
>> chapters sufficiently. I think you are already discussing this issue with
>> the TSU for the ECA assessment and you are now more experienced than I was
>> last year - so I am pretty sure that you will perform better than I did.
>> And I like the idea that a CLA will give an intro to a chapter. But just
>> some additional thoughts: Would it be possible to communicate some of 'what
>> is expected from the 2nd review' to the participants already before PESC-4?
>> Such as the degree of flexibility that still exists? Or to identify some
>> key aspects they should concentrate on? Or to give them some more
>> instructions such that each participant needs to fill in his/her own excel
>> sheet (if this is required by the TSU)? Maybe, the participants will ignore
>> this information but maybe it's worth a try? And, of course, as you know,
>> the accessibility of the documents was really an issue before PESC-3.
>> Regarding the stakeholder engagement and the discussion of stakeholder's
>> needs: I wonder how the material that has already been collected on this
>> issue could be used more effectively, i.e. how to avoid that the discussion
>> on the needs and barriers is more or less the same as at previous meetings?
>> I have not really a good idea how this could be done when there are many
>> newcomers at the table.... Maybe some more knowledge holders could be given
>> a voice? E.g. someone from the administration or some practitioner who is
>> actually contributing to or USING an IPBES product?
>> These are just some things that have come to my mind while reading the
>> concept note. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss
>> some of this further.
>> Best wishes
>> Lisa
>> --
>> Am 09.02.17 17:01 schrieb *Agnes HALLOSSERIE *<
>> agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>:
>> Dear all,
>> As you may have seen, we have released a save-the-date earlier this week
>> regarding PESC-4 next June. Please feel free to circulate the message
>> within your network, and let me know if you have not received it.
>> I send you here the concept note with some updates, with two main points
>> I would particularly like your feedback on:
>>    - I suggested two scenarios regarding the participants we would like
>>    to see at PESC-4 in order to achieve the meeting's objectives. What do you
>>    think would be best? Other combinations are possible so feel free to
>>    suggest one if you think it would fit the purpose better;
>>    - Regarding travel support for participants coming from Eastern
>>    Europe and Central Asia countries, we estimated based on previous PESCs
>>    costs that we would need a total budget of 18 000€ to cover travel,
>>    accommodation and food for eligible participants. The target of 30 funded
>>    participants (half of total participants number) is based on the ratio of
>>    funded participants from previous PESCs.
>> I look forward to getting your views on this or any other point related
>> to PESC!
>> Best wishes,
>> Agnès Hallosserie
>> Secretary of the French Committee for IPBES
>> Foundation for Research on Biodiversity
>> 195, rue Saint Jacques 75005 Paris
>> agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr
>> Tel : +33 (0)1 80 05 89 32 <+33%201%2080%2005%2089%2032>
>> http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/en/
>> De : Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>
>> Date : jeudi 26 janvier 2017 15:56
>> Objet : Planning for PESC-4
>> Dear all,
>> After some initial discussions with colleagues in NeFo and the Hungarian
>> Centre for Ecological Research, we would like to submit you the idea of
>> organizing the 4th edition of the pan-european stakeholders consultation
>> (PESC) in Hungary (specific location to be decided in the coming days). The
>> French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) would be happy to lead
>> the process for developing the meeting documents and organising the
>> logistics, with the support of the colleagues in Hungary who kindly agreed
>> to host the meeting around the dates of 12-14 June 2017.
>> You will find more details on the proposed work in the concept note
>> attached. I would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at the
>> concept note and send me feedback on the relevance of the topics,
>> objectives and programme for PESC-4, along with any thoughts or suggestions
>> you may have to make this meeting as useful as possible for the
>> stakeholders of the larger pan-European region. This is a very first draft
>> so feel free to share any of your thoughts!
>> I would also welcome any proposal for in-kind or in-cash support for the
>> organisation of the meeting. If there is a session or area of work you're
>> particularly keen to work on (facilitation, chairing, presentation etc),
>> please let me know! As for the in-cash contributions, you may remember that
>> PESC usually provides some financial support for participants coming from
>> countries where budget can be an issue, like in some Eastern Europe or
>> Central Asian countries. Please let me know as soon as possible if you
>> would have a small sum to put in the common pot so that I know early enough
>> how many participants could benefit from such a financial support.
>> Do not hesitate to get in touch if you have questions on the documents,
>> otherwise I look forward to receiving your first impressions on the concept
>> note!
>> All the best,
>> Agnes
>> Agnès Hallosserie
>> Secretary of the French Committee for IPBES
>> Foundation for Research on Biodiversity
>> 195, rue Saint Jacques 75005 Paris
>> agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr
>> Tel : +33 (0)1 80 05 89 32 <+33%201%2080%2005%2089%2032>
>> http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/en/
>> --
>> Dr. Elisabeth Marquard
>> Department Naturschutzforschung
>> Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ
>> Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH - UFZ
>> Permoserstraße 15 / 04318 Leipzig / Germany
>> Telefon +49 341 235 1835 <+49%20341%202351835> / Fax +49 341 235 1470
>> <+49%20341%202351470>
>> elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de / www.ufz.de
>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Leipzig
>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Leipzig, Handelsregister Nr. B 4703
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Wilfried Kraus
>> Wissenschaftlicher Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Georg Teutsch
>> Administrativer Geschäftsführer: Dr. Andreas Schmidt
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Netzwerk-Forum zur Biodiversitätsforschung Deutschland
>> www.biodiversity.de
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Eca-network mailing list
>> Eca-network at bebif.be
>> http://mailman.biodiversity.be/mailman/listinfo/eca-network
> --
> Dr. Hilde Eggermont - OD Nature, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural
> Sciences <http://www.naturalsciences.be>, Belgium
> Coordinator of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform
> <http://www.biodiversity.be/>
> http://vimeo.com/114955090 (data publication activities)
> http://vimeo.com/114955160 (science-policy activities)
> http://vimeo.com/114955193 (our general mission)
> _______________________________________________
> Eca-network mailing list
> Eca-network at bebif.be
> http://mailman.biodiversity.be/mailman/listinfo/eca-network
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.biodiversity.be/pipermail/eca-network/attachments/20170403/f584dbea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 170323_Concept_note_PESC4_clean_TK_HiE_EsB.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42915 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.biodiversity.be/pipermail/eca-network/attachments/20170403/f584dbea/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the Eca-network mailing list