Prof. Dr. Christine Fürst

 Foto bereitgestellt von
Prof. Dr. Christine Fürst

Personal details:

Christine Fürst, Prof. Dr. habil.; Diploma in Forest Sciences (LMU Munich), Dissertation in Soil Sciences (TU Dresden), Habilitation in Modelling Land Systems (University of Bonn) 

Institutional affiliation:
Currently, Prof. for Sustainable Landscape Development at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and Vice-Rector for Research, Internationalization and Transfer

Further information:
https://sustain.geo.uni-halle.de/team/leitung-sekretariat/dr-fuerst/
https://www.prorektoratfw.uni-halle.de/
Google scholar Profil (Publikationsliste)

Contribution to the IPBES process (role as author, reviewer or expert in Expert Group / Task Force (past and present) or any other relevant function)

• Participation in the scoping process for IPBES work program element 2(b);
• Regional/sub-regional assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the African region; 
• Regional/subregional assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region;
• Lead author of Chapters 5 and 6 of the assessment for IPBES Work Program Element 2(b);
• Participation in the Task Force for IPBES Work Program Element 1(c): Development of methods,approaches, and participatory processes for working with indigenous and local knowledge systems (ILK);
• Currently: Review Editor for the “Spatial planning and connectivity assessment”.

Participation in other IPBES-relevant activities

•  Coordinating Lead-Author in the National Assessment (Germany, Faktencheck: https://www.oekom.de/buch/faktencheck-artenvielfalt-9783987260957), Chapter “Transformation”.
• Expert in the BMFTR platform FEdA (Förderung für den Erhalt der Artenvielfalt, https://www.feda.bio/de/) 
• Expert in the platform Biosefair (https://biosefair.hub.inrae.fr/) 

Questions:
 

What is your motivation to actively participate in the IPBES process?

My main motivation is to support an integrative process in the existing land governance systems to include biodiversity, ecosystem services and nature as such in policies and decision making. A huge motivation is also to make aware of the impact of losses in biodiversity for our society. Climate change impacts are already visible and tangible, but not yet biodiversity losses are perceived to be as critical as they are already for life and life quality. Too many policy and decision makers tend to occupy land for economic development without reflecting the critical impacts on regulative capacities and natural resources. My scientific mission is to make aware and to contribute to how biodiversity and ecosystem services can become part of regulatory, law-based, and any other kind of governance instruments to ensure planetary health, well-being, biodiversity and related nature´s contributions.

What do you consider as being original and special about IPBES?

IPBES developed the first international policy supported and scientifically grounded platform that engages intra- und transdisciplinarily and comprehensively over many world regions for the conservation, restoration and protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services and for the acceptance how important these are for the overall existence of life on our globe. It is relevant for me to contribute and connect the basic research that underpins IPBES with policy instruments how to introduce this knowledge in decision making and policy processes particularly when it comes to the most critical aspect – sustainable land use. 

You have been involved in the IPBES-process (which one?) for a while. Which experiences did you make and what did really impress you?

The high internationality and interdisciplinarity were absolutely catching for me to learn how to bridge gaps between disciplines and perspectives. The most convincing was the huge chance to meet scientists across many contexts and learn from their expertise and experience. Also, the bundling of amounts of knowledge to which I would never have had access without the works in IPBES was a highly motivating factor for me. 

For which chapter/s did you apply and what would be a good result from your point of view?

This time, I applied for the “Spatial planning and connectivity” assessment which is definitively very close to my own works and research interest. There are many aspects, which I hope to see in the recommendations. Environmental Impact Assessment and Spatial Environmental Assessment are relevant EU directives and also international principles which ensure that planning and policy making, but also concrete projects respect sustainability, while so far, biodiversity and ecosystem services as decision criteria are not yet well represented. Planning processes as such, with the huge pressures of energy transition and economic growth run into danger to ignore the basics of life of our planet. My hope is that the recommendations of this assessment bring biodiversity, ecological aspects, the relevance of nature for life back into decision processes until it is not too late to stop unstainable resource exploitation. Particularly in developing and transitioning countries, but increasingly also in highly developed economies, the relevant impacts of biodiversity losses on climate regulation, life quality and security are more and more ignored, even though increasingly, disasters happen. I hope that with this assessment, improved criteria in spatial planning and in landscape management can be established that stop short term and only shortly economically motivated interventions at the expenses of worlds health and security.  

Which experiences have you already make science-policy-interfaces?

From my previous actions in IPBES and in the national assessment, I had the chance to learn about policy consultation. It is meanwhile – as vice-rector of my university and member of quite some national and international gremials, daily part of my life. Also, my research focus on spatial planning at different scales includes science-policy interactions from a very local, thematically focused up to larger scale, more general exchange and formulation of recommendations. As such, the science-policy and science-citizen interface is indispensable for me as researcher to ensure that we conduct impactful research that is close to needs, to contemporary questions and to potential futures to be jointly developed. The communication cultures are diverse but help to adjust the focus of research on those questions that are highly relevant for society and pressing if the think on the huge uncertainties that arise from Climate Change, Biodiversity Losses, Resource Insecurity and other aspects such as Demographic Change and Global Migration. 

Which opportunities and challenges do you expect when engaging in such interfaces?

A chance is to help improving processes and structures that hinder or reduce the acceptance of relevant criteria how biodiversity and nature´s services to people (ecosystem services) are part of decision making and policy processes in an age, where many other challenges seem to be – for the moment – more relevant than thinking on sustainability as such. It might be that contemporary policy makers and their related institutions are not aware which price we pay for enhancing infrastructural development, exploitation of natural resources and ignorance of natural risks and disasters. Spatial planning and thinking in larger landscape contexts is a highly powerful instrument to counteract short-term and local-economy based decisions that are not based on foresight, vulnerability and resilience as basic principles for sustainable development. A challenge will be to formulate finally the non-prescriptive recommendations in a way that they find entrance in national, EU and international governance and regulations. For the moment, it might be, international interest is more on custom duties, costs, war and economic growth. But at the end – without intact nature, life cannot exist and without clean air, water, bio-production, healthy soils, intact flora and fauna, no livelihood can exist. 
 

What would be your personal wish for the future of IPBES?

A sound cooperation with IPCC is already established. In tendency, it would be good to make the selection processes of the different types of contributors (coordinating, lead, author, review editor, etc.) more transparent. Also, it would be great, to include a policy dialogue within assessments so that different actor types can exchange their views and needs. Sure, an assessment such in IPBES is a scientifically guided process. But from my past experiences, it was often disappointing to work on an in-depth review and being somehow excluded from the parliamentary processes, where lawyers reformulate texts in a way that is not often tangible for scientists. Growing better together, bringing the parliamentary discourses together with the scientific basis would be extremely helpful for both sides.