An international consultation is underway to evaluate the potential for establishing an international expert body on biodiversity akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. BioNET’s Secretariat participated in the European regional consultation on the proposed "International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB)" in Geneva, 26-28 April 2007. The final report identifies ten needs for an IMoSEB; a possible structure to meet these needs; and goals and guiding principles for a strategy to communicate scientific information on biodiversity.
* See Earth Negotiations Bulletin for a report on the meeting.
* Contribute to the debate via the IMoSEB Website.
* Read the BioNET report on the Africa Regional Consultation.

European Regional Consultation of the Consultative Process Towards an International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) - Observations presented by Richard Smith, Director, BioNET, 26-28 April 2007

Consultation within BioNET’s network to date indicates a divergence of opinions on IMoSEB that broadly mirrors the thoughts expressed by participants in the European consultation meeting. A minority do not support the establishment of a new mechanism on biodiversity advice, arguing it duplicates existing mechanisms. Others are very supportive but stress the need to carefully define the niche for IMoSEB so it contributes to, rather than duplicates, existing bodies. Some offer unequivocal support for a new body that increases the public and political profile of biodiversity.

Summary of BioNET's position at the European consultation:

o Support in principle the establishment of a mechanism able to present biodiversity advice with a strong, single voice and in a timely manner to decision makers and the public. Following one speaker at the European consultation, “there is a need for single body to synthesise and communicate the consensus of knowledge on what is known, what is unknown and what is contested about biodiversity.”
o Why? Currently, scientific advice on biodiversity to decision makers and the public is weak: e.g. the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity is really a policy development and drafting forum, not a scientific or public communication forum. Additionally, it is still too poor at engaging scientists.
o The outcome of a successful “IMoSEB” would be significantly greater mobilisation of public and policy makers to act on existing agreements under CBD and other agreements.
o An “IMoSEB” must have inter-governmental ownership to be effective. One option is to follow the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in winning buy-in from the biodiversity conventions.
o Communication needs to be central to the purpose of a new mechanism. Targets are the public, policy processes (not only CBD) and practitioners (biodiversity stakeholders).
o To avoid duplication, existing mechanisms and processes need to be used such that IMoSEB would be a “network of networks”. This approach will minimise but not eliminate the need for financial resources both for the new mechanism and its network of networks.
o Biodiversity knowledge is highly diverse in nature, spanning not only our scientific understanding of genes, populations, species and ecosystems, but traditional knowledge and various cultural and value systems. Given the complexity, the feasibility of a mechanism might be enhanced is it adopts a focus on e.g. biodiversity change / loss.
o A new mechanism needs to clearly articulate how it relates to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in order to leverage the government buy-in to the results of that process.