Ben,
I have replied to Ferdinando by asking a series of questions and would like to know how indicators solve those questions. If the indicators are quantifiable and subject to standardised sampling then perhaps they might if they are presence absence data then they probably will not. Have these indicators been evaluated for reliability? Just to say that some big conferences have agreed something does not prove they have got it right.
Alan Feest

--On 22 November 2004 14:03 +0000 science-policy Listmanager
wrote:

> From: "Ben Delbaere"
>
> Alan Feest calls on us to agree a definition for biodiversity, which
> should be more useful than the one provided by the CBD as this tends to
> equate biodiversity to number of species. Although there is much to be
> said for using another term than 'biodiversity' for communication
> purposes, I feel we should not open up a discussion about what is
> understood by the term. The CBD clearly does not reduce biodiversity to
> number of species, but explicitly addresses ecosystems, species and
> genes. Also in terms of how to measure biodiversity the CBD process has
> led to a set of indicators that go way beyond species numbers.
>
> This set of indicators (8 for immediate testing and 13 for further
> development) was agreed at the 7th Conference of the Parties after a
> process of many years with an intensive iteration process between
> scientists (represented through SBSTTA or specific expert groups) and
> policymakers (COP). This process of agreeing a set of indicators
> illustrates what it takes to make the science-policy link work. One may
> have comments and criticism on the agreed set of indicators and it may be
> questioned whether the time investment to reach such set is justified,
> but the importance of having this set agreed is not to be underestimated.
>
> With the agreement at EU, pan-European and global levels to stop or
> significantly reduce the current rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010 and
> the adoption at these same levels of lists of indicators for measuring
> progress of the achievement of the 2010 target a strong stimulus is given
> to actually implement and test indicators for this purpose. Consultation
> processes are ongoing at various levels and with involvement of
> scientists, policymakers and other stakeholders, of how these indicators
> can be underpinned with data, how they can best be communicated and how
> the messages they convey can be linked to policy measures and their
> effectiveness. A case in point is the initiative on implementing European
> 2010 biodiversity indicators (IEBI2010) as coordinated by EEA with its
> ETC/NPB, ECNC and UNEP-WCMC.
>
> This is not to say that all problems are solved now and that the
> indicators will answer all our questions. Apart from the international
> implementation processes there is clearly a need, as indicated in this
> discussion, to share experiences on how the science-policy link can work
> better. The National Biodiversity Fora are clearly good vehicles to bring
> science and policy together at national level. At European level, though,
> I share Katalin Török's opinion that there is no need nor time to
> establish a new body (council or committee) to act as broker between
> science and policy. I'd think that the EPBRS does or should have this
> function, together with other initiatives, such as the Networks of
> Excellence and their links to policy. It would probably be more efficient
> to ensure that the EPBRS facilitates the interaction and consultation
> between European scientists and policymakers, if it doesn't do so now.
> The question therefore should focus on how this can be supported. For
> exam! ple, I would imagine that in Europe regular meetings of the EPBRS
> and other biodiversity groups with policymakers in European Council and
> European Parliament would be useful to discuss and present biodiversity
> issues.
>
> Ben Delbaere
> European Centre for Nature Conservation
> ...............................................
> Ben Delbaere - Senior Programme Manager on Biodiversity
> ECNC, PO Box 90154, NL 5000 LG Tilburg
> Tel.: +31-13-5944944, Fax: +31-13-5944945
> E-mail: delbaere@ecnc.org
> Visit our newly designed website at > href="http://www.ecnc.org">http://www.ecnc.org Journal for Nature
> Conservation: =http://www.ecnc.org/JournalForNatureCons/Index_36.html
> ECNC is a consortium partner in the ETC/NPB
> =(http://nature.eionet.eu.int) and in ALTER-Net
> =(http://www.alter-net.info)
>
>
>
>
> To reply: mailto:science-policy.6374@forums.ceh.ac.uk
> To start a new topic: mailto:science-policy@forums.ceh.ac.uk
> To login: http://forums.ceh.ac.uk:8080/~bioplatform/