Nations unies

Globally Unique Identifiers (GUID)

Yüklə 1 Mb.

səhifə	22/25
tarix	06.03.2018
ölçüsü	1 Mb.
	#44979

1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Globally Unique Identifiers (GUID)

DOI - Digital Object Identifier	Character string of electronic documents	International DOI Foundation (IDF)	http://www.doi.org/
GUID -Globally Unique Identifiers- and LSID -Life Sciences Identifiers- Applicability Statements	Identification of Life Science data objects	TDWG work group	http://www.tdwg.org/standards/150/
RDF - Resource Description Framework	Standard model for data interchange on the Web	RDF - working group	http://www.w3.org/RDF/
Biodiversity Metadata Standards
EML - Ecological Metadata Language	Metadata specification for ecology discipline	Ecological Society of America and associated efforts	https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#tools/eml
DIF - Directory Interchange Format	Catalog Interoperability (CI) to find scientific data in another sites	NASA's Master Directory (NMD)	http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/add/difguide/index.html
NBN metadata standard	Geo-spatially referenced datasets	National Biodiversity Network - UK	http://www.nbn.org.uk/Share-Data/Providing-Data/NBN-Metadata-Standard.aspx
Biodiversity Information Standards - TDWG (Taxonomic Databases Working Group)
Darwin Core	Darwin Core (often abbreviated to DwC) is an extension of Dublin Core for biodiversity informatics. It is meant to provide a stable standard reference for sharing information on biological diversity. The terms described in this standard are a part of a larger set of vocabularies and technical specifications under development and maintained by Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) (formerly known as the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG)).	TDWG - Biodiversity Information Standards	http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/ https://github.com/tdwg/dwc
Audubon Core	Vocabularies to metadata for biodiversity multimedia resources and collections	Joint GBIF- TDWG Multimedia Resources Task Group (MRTG)	https://github.com/tdwg/dwc
SDD - Structured Descriptive Data	Descriptive data about a taxon or species	TDWG - Biological Descriptions Interest Group	http://www.tdwg.org/standards/116/
ABCD - Access to Biological Collection Data	Access to and exchange of data about specimens and observations	TDWG - Biodiversity Information Standards	http://www.tdwg.org/standards/115/
TAPIR - TDWG Access Protocol for Information Retrieval	XML-based request for accessing online databases	TAPIR Task Group	http://www.tdwg.org/standards/449/
Additional biodiversity data standards (pending ratification)
Plinian Core	Standard to share species level information	Maintained by open source community / Proposed on TDWG 2013 (INBio, Costa Rica / GBIF, Spain / UG, Spain / IAvH , Colombia / Conabio, Mexico / USP, Brazil)	https://code.google.com/p/pliniancore/
Genomic Contextual Data Markup Language (GCDML)	Descriptors for describing the exact origin and processing of a sequenced biological sample, from sampling to sequencing, and subsequent analysis	Core project of the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC)	http://gensc.org/projects/gcdml/

Terms and Vocabularies

http://vocabularies.gbif.org/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/data-organization

http://standard.biodinfo.org/bsbc/

http://dev.e-taxonomy.eu/trac/wiki/CommonDataModel

http://www.openarchives.org/

http://www.biodiversitya-z.org

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/4/311

http://gensc.org/

http://www.gbif.org/resources/2647

http://www.bionomenclature.net/

http://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/Darwin_Core

Section V: Enhancing the Utility of Assessments for Decision Makers and Practitioners

IPBES aims to encourage decision makers and other practitioners to use its assessment findings, as set out in its third function: “Promote the development and use of policy support tools and methodologies so that the results of assessments can be more effectively applied with a particular focus on policy support tools”.

This section describes ways of making assessment findings useful for decision-makers and practitioners. The first chapter focuses on policy support tools and methodologies. It draws on the work of the expert group for Deliverable 4c, including the guide and in particular the Catalogue of Policy Support Tools. The second chapter focuses on communication and stakeholder engagement. While there is a communication and stakeholder engagement plan for IPBES, it is recommended that assessments (particularly regional, national and local assessments), have their own plan to ensure that the assessment process is relevant, credible and legitimate to end users. This is a short chapter outlining key principles, and issues around communication and stakeholder engagement with reference to other key resources.

Chapter 11: Policy support tools and methodologies [GUIDANCE TO UPDATED FOLLOWING BUDAPEST MEETING]

Coordinating Authors: Sebsebe Demissew, Julia Carabias, Thomas Koetz, Lucy Wilson

Authors: Jay Ram Adhikari, Mialy Andriamahefazafy, Sujata Arora, Ivar Andreas Baste, Gunay Erpul, Ersin S. Esen, Moustafa Mokhtar Ali Fouda, Mary George, Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Howard Hendriks, Claudia Ituarte Lima, Tatiana Kluvankova, Ryo Kohsaka, Claudio C Maretti, Juana L. Marino, Rodger Lewis Mpande, Emmanuel Munyeneh, Roberto Oliva, Paul Ongugo, Unai Pascual, György Pataki, Tamar Pataridze, László Podmaniczky, Irene Ring, Leonel Sierralta, Azime Tezer, Juliette Young, Carlos Ivan Zambrana-Flores.

11.1 IPBES and policy support tools and methodologies

There is a wide range of policy support tools and methodologies available for different purposes, at various stages of the policy cycle. Despite the abundance of ecosystem service-related tools, there have been few systematic reviews or evaluations of ecosystem services tools that have determined their strengths, weaknesses, and applicability to various settings or that have simultaneously applied several tools to a common study area (Bagstad et al. 2013). Consequently, it is often difficult for decision-makers, at different scales, to access information on policy support tools and methodologies, or to identify how relevant these tools and methodologies might be for their specific context.

To address this challenge, IPBES will support decision-makers forming and implementing policy by identifying policy-relevant tools and methodologies (including those arising from assessments) and making them easier for decision-makers to access. Where necessary, the Platform will also catalyse the further development of policy support tools and methodologies^¹⁹. An expert group has been established to support the MEP and Bureau in developing a ‘Catalogue of Policy Support Tools and Methodologies’ in order to provide guidance on how the further development of such tools and methodologies could be promoted and catalysed in the context of the Platform. This catalogue and guidance will be reviewed at the 3^rd Plenary session in January 2015 (IPBES 3/3/5; IPBES 3/INF/8).

This chapter is based on draft guidance developed by the expert group, which provides a clear definition and explanation of what ‘policy support tools and methodologies’ are and conceptualizes these in the context of IPBES objectives, functions and its conceptual framework (IPBES 3/3/5; IPBES 3/INF/8). The draft guidance also suggests how the further development of the policy tools and methodologies could be promoted and catalysed and recommends how policy tools and methodologies could be more systematically identified, made accessible and disseminated by the Platform. Collectively, the catalogue and guidance seek to serve the needs of a range of social actors, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on diverse decision-makers and implementing bodies and information providers and brokers. They also provide a channel for IPBES to engage in dialogues with other conventions and initiatives with similar visions and complementary mandates to explore possible synergies on the use and further development of relevant tools and methodologies.

11.1.1 What are policy support tools and methodologies?

The draft guidance (IPBES 3/3/5; IPBES 3/INF/8) defines policy support tools and methodologies as:

“Policy support tools and methodologies are approaches and techniques based on science and other knowledge systems that can inform and assist policy-making and implementation at local, national, regional and international levels to protect and promote nature, nature’s benefits to people, and a good quality of life.”

This definition seeks to include all tools and methodologies that can contribute to desired outcomes for people and nature in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Such a broad definition is needed to support the development of a comprehensive catalogue and guidance that is useful for policy makers, member states, allied organisations, and other stakeholders.

The context of policy support tools and methodologies is important. Specifically, they need to be understood in the context of socio-ecological challenges and what can be done to tackle them. Figure 11.1 provides a simple illustration of the interrelation of policy formulation, policy instrument design and implementation, and policy support tools and methodologies for biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services.

Figure 11.1: Schematic representation of the context of policy support tools and methodologies. Source: IPBES 3/3/5 and IPBES/3/INF/8

In accordance with the IPBES mandate, it is suggested the policy support function of IPBES should focus on:

enabling decision makers across scales to gain easy access to identified policy support tools and methodologies to better inform and assist the different phases of policy making and implementation.
allowing more tailored information on policy tools to be easily accessible to users of the catalogue.
identifying gaps in tools and methodologies and propose the need to develop new ones.

These goals will be achieved through the development of an online, user-focused platform. In addition to being a repository of high quality information on available policy support tools and methodologies, the catalogue will enable decision-makers, practitioners and other social groups to adopt a step-wise approach to identify the most relevant tools and methodologies for their individual needs.

A seven family typology of approaches and techniques has been proposed by the expert group based on the broad challenges that may arise in the development and implementation of sound policy for the benefit of people and nature. Box 11.1 provides a list of these families and gives examples of tools and methodologies for each one.

The catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies will eventually be able to provide further guidance on how to use the tools and methodologies it contains.

Box 11.1: Proposed families of policy support tools and methodologies with examples

Assembling data and knowledge (including monitoring) – indicators, oral history, mapping of ecosystem services, census data, population dynamics.
Assessment and evaluation – trade-off analysis, management effectiveness, trend analysis, indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) identification and assessment, quantitative modelling, cost-benefit analysis / non-monetary valuation, scenarios.
Public discussion, involvement and participatory process – expert interviews, stakeholder consultation, cultural mapping and implications for policy goals and criteria, social media tools.
Selection and design of policy instruments – instrument impact evaluation, ex-ante evaluation of options and scenarios, designing of individual territory sets or systems of protected areas.
Implementation, outreach and enforcement – audits, risk-based enforcement effort, process standards (e.g. ISO) , MRV (monitoring reporting and verification)
Capacity building – handbooks, manuals, guides, e-learning resources, training, education, knowledge sharing.
Social learning, innovation and adaptive governance – strategic adaptive management, social learning theory.

Source: IPBES 3/3/5 and IPBES/3/INF/8

11.1.2 What role do assessments play in relation to policy support tools and methodologies?

In the context of IPBES, assessments relate to policy support tools and methodologies in three distinct dimensions. Firstly, assessments are an important policy support tool in their own right. Assessment reports and the assessment process itself have become powerful tools in environmental governance. Whether regulated in the context of e.g. Environmental Impact Assessments or as a result of a larger international initiative, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, assessment reports and processes have become critical tools within policy making, in particular for the agenda setting and review phase of the policy-cycle.

Secondly, as part of their process, assessments also incorporate and utilize other policy support tools and methodologies. For example, they use scenarios (see Chapter 6 on Scenarios; Henrichs et al. 2010) to explore future changes to ecosystems and services they deliver, and valuation methodologies to better understand the trade-offs in the different kinds of values within and among stakeholders (see Chapter 5 on Values). Policy support tools can also help to visualise and communicate the findings of an assessment to different audiences. For instance, maps can be effective tools for displaying spatial variation in the delivery of ecosystem services at numerous scales. Further examples of tools and methodologies can be found in Box 11.1.

Thirdly, assessments are key mechanisms for identifying effective policy responses or policy instruments, as well as the policy support tools and methodologies needed to implement these policy instruments in the most rigorous and effective way. An assessment can evaluate the effectiveness of a range of policy instruments with different contexts, sectors and scales (such as Protected Areas Schemes or Payments for Ecosystem Services Schemes). They can also identify which policy support tools and methodologies have been used in implementing these policy instruments and their strengths and weaknesses (e.g. availability of the tool and/or data needed to feed it, effectiveness, practicability and replicability of current and emerging policy support tools and methodologies). They can identify gaps and what is needed to further strengthen the policy support tools and methodologies.

In ensuring that all IPBES assessments identify and assess the availability, effectiveness, practicability and replicability of current and emerging policy support tools and methodologies, as well as their gaps and needs, IPBES assessments will also provide a key mechanism to provide substance to the catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies and keep it up-to-date as new tools and methodologies are made available.

11.2 Guidance on identifying and assessing policy support tools and methodologies

IPBES assessments play a key role in identifying and assessing current and emerging policy support tools and methodologies. In particular, when assessing the effectiveness of policy responses or policy instruments, assessments should systematically identify and assess policy support tools and methodologies as defined by the expert group on deliverable 4c. In doing so, the assessments should address aspects such as the availability, effectiveness, practicability and reliability of policy support tools and methodologies, as well as their requirements, needs and gaps.

Key resources

Ash, N., Blanco, H., Brown, C., Garcia, K., Henrichs, T., Lucas, N., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Simpson, R.D., Scholes, R., Tomich, T.P., Vira, B., and Zurek, M. (Eds). (2010) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Island Press, Washington D.C. Available at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/ecosystems-and-human-wellbeing--a-manual-for-assessment- practitioners
Bagstad, K.J., Semmens D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R. (2013) A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services 5: 27–39. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204161300051X
Henrichs, T., Zurek, M., Eichhout, B., Kok, Kasper, Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Ribeiro, T., Vuuren, D. van & Volkery, A. (2010) Scenario development and analysis for forward-looking ecosystem assessment. (2010) In: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Ash, N., Blanco, H., Brown, C., Garcia, K., Henrichs, T., Lucas, N., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Simpson, R.D., Scholes, R., Tomich, T.P., Vira, B., and Zurek, M. (Eds). Island Press, Washington D.C. Available at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/ecosystems-and-human-wellbeing--a-manual-for-assessment-practitioners
IPBES 3/3/5. Deliverable 4(c) guide on policy support tools and methodologies. Available at: http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-3.html
IPBES 3/INF/8. Update on deliverable 4(c) policy support tools and methodologies. Available at: http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-3.html
The Catalogue of Policy Support Tools and Methodologies will be a key resource once it has been developed.

Chapter 12: Communication and stakeholder engagement

12.1 Communication

Communication and outreach are necessary to ensure that assessment results are put into use and have an impact. An assessment itself can be thought of as a communication tool between researchers and decision-makers, as it translates scientific information into policy-relevant information. If an assessment is technically proficient but fails to communicate, it tends to fail overall. Therefore, choosing the best ways to present the information from the assessment to the intended audiences deserves great care (Box 12.1). The overall products should be readable, understandable, and unambiguous.

A communication strategy should be developed at the outset and followed carefully, with continuous communication and capacity building throughout the assessment process. The main purpose of developing a communication strategy at the start of the assessment is to ensure the right people are communicated with at the right time via the right media, with salient and useful information (Box 12.2). It helps to focus resources on the specific communication ideas that are most beneficial to achieving the overall assessment goal. Once the data analysis has reached a conclusion, communication of the key findings and messages is very important.

Box 12.2: Developing a comprehensive communications plan ensures effective outreach

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in Biscay (EEMBizkaia) is a local scale assessment which has achieved success due to a clear outreach and coordination strategy. An extensive communication plan was carried out in coordination with researchers, local authorities and NGOs, ensuring stakeholder participation from the outset and the subsequent socialisation of results. Key aspects of this communication plan included:

Involving stakeholders at multiple stages of the assessment; either in educational workshops, research surveys and interviews, or sharing results via conferences or modern media channels.
Encouraging direct contact and continuous communication between all stakeholders and the technical assessment team to voice problems and concerns and guide outputs.
Specifically, local, national and international conferences and workshops were conducted to articulate the assessment benefits to key audiences. This was alongside continuous development of outreach materials and publications in both specialised journals and the general public media, including short, simple audio-visual media to convey key messages in a friendly manner and engage diverse interest groups. Further, continuous communication with international partners and other multidisciplinary teams, particularly the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of Spain, ensured coordinated efforts, engagement with the wider community and scaling of results.
With widespread buy-in from a range of key stakeholders, results of the assessment are being integrated into policy and implemented by local technical authorities.

Source: Booth et al. (2012)

Yüklə 1 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş: