Dr. Vanesa Rodríguez Osuna

Foto bereitgestellt von
Dr. Vanesa Rodríguez Osuna

Angaben zur Person:

Dr. Vanesa Rodríguez Osuna, MSc. Environmental Engineer
Net-Zero Sector Track Lead

Institutionelle Anbindung:

UN Environment Programme - Finance Initiative (UNEP FI)

Weitere Hintergrundinformationen zu Person und Institution:
www.unepfi.org

Autorin in welcher Expertengruppe / Task Force (vergangen und gegenwärtig); ggf. weitere Funktionen im IPBES-Prozess

• 2023-ongoing: Coordinating Lead Author, Chapter 1: Setting the Scene and the Summary of Policy Makers of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment.
• 2021: Scoping Expert, IPBES Business and Biodiversity Scoping Assessment.
• 2020: Scoping Expert, IPBES Nexus Assessment, a thematic assessment of the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health in the context of climate change
• 2017-2018: Contributing Author, IPBES Global Assessment, Chapter 2.1 Status and trends -Drivers of change
• 2017-2018: Coordinating Lead Author, Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas
• 2015-2018: Coordinating Lead Author, IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services for the Americas, Chapter 1: Setting the scene and Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors
• 2017: Invited Expert, IPBES Task Force on Modelling and Scenarios, IPBES new visions for nature and nature’s contributions to people for the 21st century
• 2014: Scoping Expert, IPBES regional assessment of the Americas

Fragen:

What is your motivation to actively participate in the IPBES process?
IPBES is a unique science-policy platform for nature-related topics given their membership of 147 governments in addition to the most important international conventions.
I like to contribute to the valuable work of IPBES because I believe that a strong scientific and policy-relevant basis contributes to better decision making by policy makers and leaders and can foster a transition towards a more sustainable future.
I also love the collaboration with great scientists and experts from a wide range of disciplines and across the world that jointly work on very complex topics and understand the need of making this work scientifically sound, policy-relevant, and useful for decision makers.

What do you consider as being original and special about IPBES?
IPBES reports are requested and approved by government members and therefore are highly relevant for decision makers compared to the purely scientific approach.
IPBES reports go through a robust peer-review process by governments and other key stakeholders (including international treaties, indigenous peoples) and the authors are nominated by governments or accredited institutions and then selected by a multi-disciplinary expert panel. Another particularity is that other knowledge systems and grey literature are systematically considered in the formal assessment process.

You have been involved in the IPBES-process (which one?) for a while. Which experiences did you make and what did really impress you?
I have been regularly involved in IPBES geographic and thematic work since 2014 (Americas, global, nexus, business & biodiversity assessments) as Lead Author or Coordinating Lead Author.
I was also involved in dialogues with national focal points, governments, and supported the IPBES scientific team at plenaries, where our joint work was approved by all member governments. This experience was very positive. It is rewarding to see the key findings of our work adopted by funding agencies, global initiatives, national strategies, companies, and leaders across various sectors.

For which chapter/s did you apply and what would be a good result from your point of view?
I was involved in Chapters 1 and 6 and the Summary for Policymakers of the Americas Assessment, a chapter of the IPBES Global Assessment and the scoping assessments for the a) Americas; b) the nexus among biodiversity, water, food, and health in the context of climate change, and c) the business & biodiversity assessment.
In my view, a successful outcome is when governments approve these assessments and allocate sufficient resources for their implementation, as was the case with the assessments mentioned. The true measure of success is the uptake of key findings by various stakeholders, integrating them into local, regional, and national policies, strategies, and plans.

Which experiences have you already made in science-policy-interfaces?
I gained very interesting and successful experiences in the science-policy interface. I took various scientific and non-scientific roles across various geographies and sectors, which give me a broad perspective on how environmental issues are perceived by different stakeholders.
In my technical assistance work on green technologies at GIZ, we fostered the involvement of scientific institutions in dialogues with governmental stakeholders in partner countries (ministries). We encouraged the consideration of scientific inputs in the project implementation, for example in the formulation of improved policies, national and local strategies and pilot projects.
In another role, I led a R&D project in New York, where we developed a science-based framework to measure the impact of investment portfolios on various environmental themes (related to water, climate/public health, and food systems). Increasing capital flows into sustainable portfolios is crucial for achieving better environmental and social outcomes.
My previous work at the Center for Development Research (ZEF) included encouraging science-policy dialogues to foster the integration of biodiversity considerations in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in Bolivia. I led several expert meetings in Bolivia and Germany involving key biodiversity and EIAs experts as well as government representatives involved in the environmental licensing procedures for development projects. Results of this work were published and included in the curricula of future environmental professionals.
At GIZ in Bolivia, I was responsible for the first export of Vicugna fiber from the national management programme in Bolivia. This historic milestone ensured income generation for indigenous people and local communities while incentivizing the conservation of this endangered species. This work required the consideration of good scientific assessments and close collaboration with governmental institutions (environmental, tax and customs authorities).

Which opportunities and challenges do you expect when engaging in such interfaces?
To me, some of the most important challenges in this interface are language barriers: scientists and policy makers tend to speak different “languages” when talking about the same topics. The depth to which certain topics are addressed and time horizons varies widely too. For example, politicians tend to focus in the short-term and voter´s preferences, while for scientists, environmental and social issues are mostly seen with a long-term horizon and independent of voter´s preferences or policy cycles.
There are many opportunities to leverage the valuable knowledge produced by IPBES assessments. An important one is to mainstream IPBES´ key insights on a) the drivers of biodiversity loss and b) the available solutions to conserve, restore and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems, while supporting the Paris, Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2030 Development Agendas.

What would be your personal wish for the future of IPBES?
I hope IPBES makes a stronger case for the interlinked nature of addressing the biodiversity, climate, and pollution crises. There has been a strong development on climate risk awareness, which now needs to be better connected to the role of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in exacerbating the negative impacts of climate change (and also on pandemics). At the same time, I hope IPBES underscores how biodiversity and healthy ecosystems are vital solutions to these crises and are the cornerstone of any healthy economy and societal well-being.