Dear Alan,

your question will be answered by the mentioned initiatives towards implementation of the politically agreed indicators. For example, for Europe I referred to the IEBI2010 work. For each of the EU biodiversity headline indicators expert groups will assess issues such as data availability, reliability, suitability, links to pressures, value for communication purposes etc. For the specific indicator on species abundance and distribution (not species numbers) the issue of which taxa to use will be addressed as well. So in this case the politics (lists of indicators agreed by heads of state and government leaders) is brought back to experts to show how these can be used for measuring progress in achieving the 2010 target. This in turn will result in information for policymakers to act upon.

I hope this clarifies my point.

Regards,
Ben
...............................................
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 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)


-----Original Message-----
From: science-policy Listmanager
[mailto:listmanager@lawe.nerc-lancaster.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 November 2004 16:30
Subject: Re: Biodiversity indicators and the science-policy link


From: "Alan Feest"

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/




To reply: mailto:science-policy.6377@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/