INTERNATIONAL BIOGEOGRAPHY SOCIETY EARLY CAREER CONFERENCE 2014

The International Biogeography Society (IBS) and the Australian National University (ANU) would like to invite you to the INTERNATIONAL BIOGEOGRAPHY SOCIETY EARLY CAREER CONFERENCE 2014.

The conference will take place in Canberra, ACT, Australia between the 7^th and the 11^th of January 2014, and is jointly supported by the IBS (http://www.biogeography.org/), the ANU Centre for Macroevolution and Macroecology (http://macroevoeco.com/), and the ANU-CSIRO Centre for Biodiversity Analysis (http://cba.anu.edu.au/). The event aims to bring together early career researchers, along with more experienced scientists, working on many aspects of biogeography.

REGISTRATION AND ABSTRACT SUBMISSION WILL BEGIN IN JUNE 2013.

The schedule of the conference is as follows: 

-On the 7^th of January, we will offer workshops for a limited number of participants on methods of phylogenetics and modelling species distributions.

-On the following three days (8^th-10^th of January 2014), talks and posters will be presented by attendees across three symposia:

1.SPECIES DISTRIBUTION ACROSS TIME AND SPACE (Dan Warren - ANU)

2.BIODIVERSITY TURNOVER ACROSS SPATIAL SCALES (Dan Rosauer - ANU)

3.ADVANCES IN PHYLOGENETIC METHODS FOR BIOGEOGRAPHY (Marcel Cardillo, Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis, Peter Cowman - ANU)

-On the final day (11^th of January 2014), several field trips will be offered around the region of Canberra.

The conference will be held at ANU Commons (http://commons.anu.edu.au/), on the ANU campus. Workshops will be run at the teaching facilities of the Research School of Biology, ANU, a new complex with purpose build rooms for computer centric workshops. ANU is within a few minutes’ walk to the main attractions and amenities of Canberra CBD, including restaurants, bars and museums (http://www.visitcanberra.com.au/). Several accommodation options are offered near the venue (http://www.visitcanberra.com.au/Accommodation.aspx). Additional budget accommodation options will be provided for students.

Canberra is the capital of Australia, and is surrounded by beautiful nature, including several nature reserves, where visitors can see many iconic Australian animals (the platypus, koalas, kangaroos, wombats, wallabies), and plants (banksias, eucalypts), as well as cave systems. The coast is only a couple of hours away and Sydney approximately a 3 hour drive.

Student participation will be supported by awards offered by the IBS. More information to follow.

We look forward to welcoming you to Canberra in January 2014!

The ANU Organising Committee

Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis

Peter Cowman

Dan Warren

Dan Rosauer

Marcel Cardillo

ibsconference2014@gmail.com

IBS Special Meeting on the Geography of Species Associations

IBS Special Meeting on the Geography of Species Associations
November 15th – 17th, 2013
Montreal, Canada.

Recent advances in macroecology and macroevolution have contributed much to our understanding of the origin and distribution of biodiversity. At the same time, community ecology has been informed by the inclusion of more sophisticated null models and phylogenetic methods, providing new insights into community structure and function, as well as the processes driving species distributions and their patterns of co-occurrence and association. This special meeting of the International Biogeography Society will explore the intersection between these fields and how they have contributed to the study of biogeography.

The meeting will include 6 contributed oral sessions organised around the following themes:
·         Biogeographic perspectives on ecosystem function and services
·         Deconstructing biodiversity
·         The geography of hyperdiverse and neglected organisms
·         Community assembly over evolutionary time scales
Keynote speakers include: Pierre Legendre (University of Montreal), Nick Gotelli (University of Vermont), Rosemary Gillespie (University of California, Berkeley) and Mark McPeek (Dartmouth).

An interactive roundtable discussion will focus on the past, present and future applications of null models in biogeography. We have also invited editors-in-chief and associate editors of Journal of Biogeography, Global Ecology and Biogeography and/or Ecography to host a second roundtable on the peer review process and publishing opportunities in biogeography.

The meeting will be held at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) located in the heart of downtown Montreal, and will accommodate up to 150 attendees. Montreal offers an incomparable cultural experience and heritage, being the only fully bilingual city in North America. Whilst Montreal is a vibrant and cosmopolitan metropolis, it offers the feeling of a relatively small city for its size due to its organization into small and well‐defined neighborhoods with distinct ethnic and architectural features. Montreal has a major international airport with several daily direct flights from major cities in North and South America and Europe. A multitude of hotels, restaurants and bars are within minutes walk from the venue. Participants will have the opportunity to participate in field trips to McGill's Gault Nature Reserve and Montreal Botanical Garden.

More information and registration details will be posted on the meeting website:
http://ibsmontreal.webs.com/

Local organizing committee:
Pedro Peres-Neto (UQAM)
Jonathan Davies (McGill)
Jean-Philippe Lessard (McGill)

Postdoc: Climate and Biological Response of Hummingbird Diversity

Post Doctoral Associate Position available on a grant titled "Climate and Biological Response: Combining Remote-Sensing and Biological Data to Predict the Consequences of Climate Change on Hummingbird Diversity” under the direction of Catherine Graham (coPI’s include Scott Goetz, Don Powers and Susan Wethington).  The post-doc will live in Stony Brook, New York but field work will be conducted in Arizona and Ecuador.  The incumbent will be responsible for data collection (both from literature and in the field), data analyses, and manuscript writing.  Preferred qualifications include a doctoral degree or the foreign equivalent degree (preferable in Ecology and Evolution), field experience with birds or plants, and statistical modeling in R, GIS and remote-sensing skills, and demographic modeling.  Adequate Spanish speaking skills are also desirable. The salary range is 38,000 – 45,000.  The ideal start date is April 1, 2013 and the position will be filled as soon as possible.

Please send the CV, letter of interest and 3 references to Catherine Graham (catherine.graham@stonybrook.edu). The research foundation of SUNY is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer

Research Fellow in spatial ecological analysis and modelling

46 month postdoctoral position (or may be split into 2 shorter posts if desired)

We are looking to recruit a dynamic Early Career Researcher with a proven track record in ecological theory, spatial mathematical or statistical modelling and/or software development to address a number of exciting projects funded by 3 EU projects (EU-BON, SCALES and ExpeER):

Developing spatial niche models (EU-BON, SCALES).  Niche models are widely used to predict species distributions and to forecast responses to future environmental change.  However, classical bioclimatic niche models have been criticised for ignoring the spatial structure of populations, greatly reducing their predictive power.  Conversely, spatial downscaling approaches rely exclusively on spatial patterning to infer fine scale occupancy, but are insensitive to environmental predictors of where such populations should be found.  The goal here is to develop a hybrid approach, one that takes advantage of both spatial and environmental pattern information.  These approaches will be tested and applied to high-quality biodiversity datasets.

Developing up-scaling and down-scaling analytical tools (EU-BON, SCALES, ExpeER). Biodiversity, abundance and function are spatially complex, multi-scaled and often non-additive.  Various techniques have been developed for inferring coarse scale biodiversity from sets of local samples (biodiversity up-scaling) and conversely to infer fine scale occupancy from coarser scale distributional data (population down-scaling).  We hope to further develop these tools, e.g. to allow up-scaling in the absence of count data, using information on spatial turnover patterns.  We also need to develop software tools or analytic libraries and appropriate documentation, to make these approaches more widely available to non-specialist researchers and conservation analysts.  We will also test for efficient sampling designs to be used in applications of these approaches to population and biodiversity monitoring.  

Implementing improved remote sensing vegetation models (EU-BON).  Remotely sensed images are typically classified on the basis of spectral reflectance data.  The spatial scales of ancillary variables typically receive little attention in the classifications of vegetation from remotely sensed images; however recent research in our group has shown that incorporating widely available environmental datasets (e.g. DEM, soils) at local and neighbourhood scales has the potential to inform and greatly improve such classifications, allowing much finer vegetation differentiation and higher accuracy than would otherwise be possible.  We will further develop these methods to incorporate information about temporal variation in reflectance and in vegetation, and develop application software to make them more widely available.

These three goals are linked; the vegetation modelling involves a form of the spatial niche modelling, and the resulting vegetation maps could serve as habitat variables for modelling animal distributions.  Moreover, both involve explicit scaling approaches, tied to the downscaling methods. 

The Research Fellow will join a large and varied team of academics, postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate students from both the Kunin and Benton labs, and the wider Leeds ecology and evolution research group.  They will also have the opportunity to form collaborations with a wide circle of researchers across Europe and beyond, and to participate in the three project teams.

Application deadline: 14 March 2013.  For information contact Bill Kunin: w.e.kunin@leeds.ac.uk For further details and application materials: http://jobs.leeds.ac.uk,  Reference: FBSBY0002

Surtsey 50th Anniversary Conference

Reykjavik, Iceland, 12 to 15 August 2013. 
Organized by the Surtsey Research Society

The Surtsey Research Society is organizing an Anniversary Conference that will be held in August 2013, in Reykjavik, Iceland. The conference will be an open, international event. Researchers studying geological and biological processes as well as conservation of volcanic islands and related systems around the world are encouraged to participate and present their research at the conference. 

The preparations are well under way and the preliminary program and registration information are available here:

http://www.surtsey.is/afm_50/Surtsey50_2nd%20Circular_final.pdf

Call for proposals for a satellite meeting of the International Biogeography Society

The International Biogeography Society solicits proposals for a small conference in late 2013 or early 2014, as a complement to the primary biennial meetings. 

Historically, the IBS has held biennial meetings in Europe or North America because of the geographic location of the majority of our members.  However, the IBS also has convened small meetings between the biennial meetings.  In 2011 an “early-career conference” was held at Oxford University, and in 2010 the IBS sponsored a symposium at a UNESCO conference in Paris.  We wish these “satellite” meetings to become a regular activity, to better help students and professionals remain active and exchange ideas.  We also wish to provide new opportunities in regions where IBS’s membership currently is small, such as in the southern hemisphere and Asia.  A list of the locations of our past meetings is provided here: http://www.biogeography.org/html/Meetings/index.html

The IBS has limited funding to invest towards development and planning such a meeting.  The local committee, in collaboration with the IBS, will be involved in all of the steps of developing the meeting such as including securing the venue, publicity, registration, abstract submission, among other tasks.  Importantly, registrat

ion fees and sponsors must fund the meeting.  We are also open to joint meetings with other societies for mutual benefit.

The meeting should have a theme that appeals to IBS members globally and to people nearby who previously have been unable to attend an IBS event.  A meeting size of 100–200 people would be a success.

If hosting a satellite meeting interests you, please respond with the following information by 1 March 2013.  Proposals are welcome from existing or new IBS members, but discouraged from convention centers or tourism bureaus.

1. The basics: a) location of the meeting (city), b) the host institution or organization, c) proposed dates, and d) names of the proposed local organizing committee.
2. The topical focus (e.g., early career conference, a regional focus, or a sub-discipline focus) and the target number of attendees.
3. The proposed format:, a) general organization of talks (number of keynote speakers in plenary sessions, number of concurrent sessions), b) possible workshops, c) possible field trips.
4. The actual site of the meeting: a) the capacity of the auditorium, b) area for posters

5. Budgetary issues.  At this point the main considerations should be a) cost of the venue, and b) cost of hotels.
6. Transportation infrastructure, including travel from airport


Sincerely,

Dan Gavin
Associate Professor, University of Oregon
VP for Conferences of the IBS

IPBES-1 day 6

IPBES up and running with Prof. Zakri of Malaysia as its Chair

The final day of the in-session process brought about some impressive consensus-building. After a vote had already been setup for the position Chair of IPBES, Mexico asked for yet another chance to come to a consensus decision. And indeed, after a long evening and a long morning of negotiations, the different delegations after all came to an agreement: the candidate of the Asia-Pacific States, Professor Zakri Abdul Hamid, was elected chair, while Prof. Sir Watson withdrew his bid for this position and instead was elected one of the vice-chairs. Part of the compromise was that the tenure of the chair lasts three years only and that there is no possibility for re-election. Furthermore, for the 2^nd term, the Western Europe and Other States will have the privilege to nominate the candidate for the chair – thus their candidate, Prof. Sir Watson could become the 2^nd chair of IPBES. The right to nominate the chair will then circulate among the regions. Of course this setting only holds in case the 5 UN regions will stay the regional structure of IPBES. As mentioned earlier, the debate revolving around this issue, is still ongoing, and will be taken up by the MEP during the next two years.

Another important issue could not be resolved for good: future admission of observers. All rules dealing with this issue are still bracketed – meaning they will have to be negotiated during IPBES-2. As interim solution for the next plenary session it was decided that all observers present this time are automatically granted observer status for the next time if they wish. Potential new observers must registered with the secretariat, the bureau makes a list and sends it to all members 8 weeks in advance. Each member can veto any potential new observer. But this veto can be overruled by 2/3 of the plenary.  

After a long week of dealing with rules and procedures and the establishment of IPBES one might wonder when the real work will start. In other words, where does IPBES go from here? The MEP as the center of the whole process will meet for the first time already in March. Their list of tasks is long  - but the most prominent one will be to develop an initial work programme for 2014-2018. The member states on the other side are invited to submit requests, while United Nations bodies that are related to biodiversity and ecosystem services, are invited to submit inputs and suggestions. The stakeholders, headed by IUCN and ICSU, and other “relevant stakeholders” are invited to draft a stakeholder engagement strategy until the second plenary.  It will be interesting to see, whether IBS will have an interest in participating in this process. I’d say, let’s do it.

—Lars Opgenoorth 

IPBES-1 day five

The day of decisions

The day started off with the appointment of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP). So the MEP is up and will start running tomorrow morning at nine with their first meeting: 25 experts from the 5 UN regions. First of all – this is great news. However, much talk has been made in IPBES on balancing the MEP by region (that worked), by gender and disciplines. Well, the latter two did not work out so well, as 19 men and 6 women do not exactly spell gender balance. Of the disciplines – 21 are from the natural sciences, most from ecology, botany and forestry, and 4 come from the social sciences. As an ecologist and biogeographer myself I certainly sympathize with this bias to some extent. However, it does not really resemble a multidisciplinary approach. The reality in choosing the 25 out of the roughly 80 candidates seems to have been purely political in nature – which is not really surprising at this state. The rules for how this process will be handled in the future are being discussed here today, though no consensus could be reached. This might in fact be a good thing as it buys some more time to make a case for more objective forms of choosing candidates in the future. No matter how they were chosen, lets hope that they will be doing a good job during the next two years. One of the options for changing the process is the idea to base regions biogeographically instead of politically – which would seem much more natural given that the goal is to protect global biodiversity. The group of stakeholders suggested another rule that would allow observers to propose 5 candidates to balance independent of regions with the goal to balance disciplines and gender. However, currently it does seem likely that this idea will be adopted.

One of the most discussed topics today came on a different subject. Rule 14, dealing with the admission of observers. As on day one, Argentina, Brazil, and China held a strong opinion that admission needs to be based on consensus. As no decision has been reached yet regarding the status of the European Union, stakeholder have a strong ally as the EU currently only has observer status. Naturally the EU does not like the idea that any member state could by virtue of a de facto veto power keep them out of IPBES. The same is of course true for all the other potential stakeholders. One can imagine why some countries would have an interest in keeping stakeholder groups, such as ethnic NGOs out of the process. With others it is less clear. An agreement could not be reached today – thus it is not certain whether new Observers will get the chance to attend IPBES-2. Well, it seems like observers admitted to IPBES-1 will automatically be admitted to IPBES-2 – so IBS will most likely be able to send a delegation again. 

The final decision of the day will probably come with a vote for the chair. As no deal could be brokered (the G77 so far does not accept a compromise of having two co-chairs) it is likely that Zakri Abdul Hamid will be elected chair.

—Lars Opgenoorth
 

IPBES-1 day four

Scientists are not the only knowledge holders 

Other than global climate change, one could argue that the global biodiversity crisis is foremost a collection of local crises. In this spirit, IPBES wants to incorporate a strong focus on local and indigenous knowledge. Though this has been widely agreed upon there does not seem to be a clear path as to how to integrate different knowledge system into a science-policy platform. Some side events dealt with this topic and more workshops will follow in the intersessional period but it will certainly be one of the most difficult tasks in the agenda of IPBES to achieve. A reflection that this process is only just starting is the fact that there is no candidate for the MEP who is actually a knowledge holder of another sort than scientific. And it seems that there is not even someone with a scientific background who is experienced with a multidisciplinary approach that bridges knowledge systems.

How does a regularly trained scientist incorporate indigenous, traditional, local knowledge in an assessment? How do you judge the quality of local knowledge, something that is already hart in science? Do you judge at all – or is this already the wrong approach when the aim is to integrate a different knowledge system that has different criteria for quality? I certainly do not have answers but am really looking forward to see what this part of the IPBES process will bring.

 What about the scientific knowledge holders? How can we contribute to make sure that the most capable scientists are going to participate in IPBES to make it a highly accepted endeavour? As IPBES is set up as an intergovernmental platform national science agencies or environmental ministries are probably the most straight forward path of organizing participation. However, many of the members of The International Biogeography Society as well as from the other international and national science organisations are potential contributors to the assessments. Thus these science organisations might offer a different path. During the intersessional process stakeholder engagement will be organised and of course the IBS is free to get involved.

—Lars Opgenoorth 

 

IPBES-1 day three

Who has a stake in stakeholder involvement – do you?

It seems like stakeholder involvement in IPBES got a peptalk from almost any delegation in Bonn so far. But reality has not been so convincing – both from the side of the plenary as well as from our side as stakeholders. Luckily on both sides there were signs today that things might start to change.  

As mentioned yesterday, we had prepared some "text" we hoped could be included in the "Rules and Procedures" to strengthen our position and role in the future IPBES process. Unfortunately we were not given the chance to present it at the respective Contact Group meetings that were dealing with it as we were not given the floor – neither yesterday nor today. That is very unfortunate – to say the least. Of course the meetings are very intense already and involving additional ideas by stakeholders could complicate things. But listening to stakeholders only when it is convenient does not exactly resemble the peptalks and certainly not what we would call participation. 

Nevertheless, after this initial frustration we got some encouraging news today too, as our general opening statement seemingly led to the inclusion of two paragraphs that foster the draft of a stakeholder engagement strategy by the secretariat in cooperation with us. Furthermore, in the draft there was "text" that would allow stakeholders to participate in some of the "bread and butter" business of the IPBES – e.g. the right to suggest topics for the actual assessments as well as for commenting on the prioritization of the assessment themes by the MEP. This would be a crucial right since e.g. the IBS or even individual members (or of course any other stakeholder) could with their respective expert knowledge then propose topics or comment on the presented priority list. This is how we understand stakeholder involvement. 

Luckily also our own involvement [slowly] starts to improve as we intensify the coordination between present stakeholder groups – preparing drafts, coordinating the contacting of country delegations, and so on. As stakeholders are very diverse a next step would be to form a forum of the Societies representing the different involved scientific disciplines – so that we can really coordinate ourselves also during the intersessional stages and to get more of the potentially interested societies involved. Right now there seem to be only the IBS, the GFOe and the Society for Conservation Biology to be involved in Bonn (that is from the Science Societies). Some more have expressed their general interest – e.g. the European Ecological Federation. But in the end the question is - who has a stake in IPBES? Do we as the International Biogeography Society? Do you? 

—Lars Opgenoorth 

IPBES-1 day two

“Contact groups” and “Friends of the chair” – let the grinding begin
 

A faculty meeting is a dream come true of cooperation compared to the tough grinding that is and will be going on here the next days. As mentioned yesterdays IPBES is run in consensus mode and that means that every time opinions differ it takes quite some effort (and time) to come to an agreement if it can be reached at all – if not – put it in square brackets and deal with it some other time. Quite naturally the plenary is not the ideal place to reach agreements – it is a place of debate. This is where “Contact Groups” and “Friends of the Chair” set in – just two of a set of tools where smaller groups come together to actually work on a compromise. In the Contact Group format all delegations send someone to participate in the discussion. In the “Friends of the Chair” format, the chair asks specifically those groups to a meeting that are most outspoken in their disagreement. These tools came to use today for the continuation of defining the Rules and Procedures of IPBES. Unfortunately the topics that were being discussed are not really worth being repeated here while the points that actually would have been of great interest to us stakeholders as, e.g. the setup of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and the rules that will determine the rights of the observers, will be dealt with tomorrow due to a lack of time today. We had prepared statements on these issues and will present them tomorrow at the next round of the Contact Group if we get the chance. These positions should strengthen the rights of the stakeholders to participate for example in the nomination process for the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP). Right now, this can only be done by countries – but not for example from the different science organizations such as the IBS. A second issue is the general setup of the Multidisciplinary Panel. As mentioned yesterday, 5 positions are granted to each regional group. Thus there is no guarantee that the panel is actually balanced e.g. by disciplines. Stakeholders suggest that some additional seats should be installed that are reserved for important disciplines that are underrepresented.

For the interim panel this is not relevant anyway as candidates have already been nominated and probably also decided by now, as Canada indicated today. Unfortunately these most interesting discussions happen behind closed doors so we have to wait a couple more days to find out how the MEP will actually be made up. Unlike with the MEP some information today leaked regarding the future chair of IPBES. The person who talked about it was actually Robert Watson himself who mentioned that a compromise might be reached that the two nominees for the position of the chair will simply co-chair IPBES. This would certainly be a good solution. We’ll find out tomorrow if all the delegations think the same. 

—Lars Opgenoorth

IPBES-1 day one

IPBES is up and running – or the “Joy” of Rules and Procedures
 

Good things first. In a knowledgeable and spirited speech Achim Steiner, the UNEP executive director, opened IPBES-1. His evident joy was only topped by the interim Chair Alfred Apau Oteng Yeboah of Ghana who could not stop smiling about being called the first (interim) Chair of IPBES. Reason for his interim chairship is the fact that there are two candidates for the actual position: Zakri Abdul Hamid of Malaysia, nominated by the Asia-Pacific states and backed by the G77 and China. And Robert T. Watson of the UK, known for his long standing commitment within the IPCC which he chaired between 1997 and 2002. Watson was nominated by Western Europe and other States. As this is being written the candidates and the so far elected bureau members sit together to sort out the position of chair/co-chair. Let’s see whether they come to an agreement by the second session this afternoon. Up for election are also the 25 members of the MEP (Multidisciplinary Expert Panel). Each of the five UN regions is eligible to sent 5 experts to this panel that will be responsible for the scientific process of IPBES. An interesting curiosity in this election process is the fact that the Eastern European States so far have only nominated three persons for the 5 positions – all of whom come from Hungary. You start wondering where the wealth of qualified scientists or more generally “knowledge-holders” are from Eastern-Europe. So if anyone of our members is interested – maybe you should contact your country representative and put your hat in the ring.

Besides election matters members and observers had the chance to give general comments to the plenary today. As reported yesterday, the collected stakeholders agreed on an initial statement that was given to the plenary today and will be downloadable from the IPBES webpage. The stakeholder process that led to this statement was well organised by IUCN and ICSU – but starting the next days we will certainly discuss how we will organise ourselves in the future and who will have a mandate to represent the stakeholders in the future or if that is at all feasible.

Of course the statements of the member states also gave a first hint where IPBES is headed. While the members one after another announced that they highly value stakeholder involvement – you start wondering why on the issue of accepting stakeholders so many thought that a consensus procedure would be a good rule in this context. In essence that means that every member state can veto any particular stakeholder as an observer. Needless to say, that this would be a severe blow in the face of an open and transparent stakeholder process and thus for the acceptance of IPBES.

It seems generally very debatable whether consensus rule in a body that will oversee the production of scientific reports on the biodiversity crisis is a good idea but I guess it was not all that surprising that almost all members that spoke out on the topic today were strongly favouring consensus as the rule of vote to apply for IPBES. The power and irony of this set in when Bolivia also spoke out in strong support of a consensus rule right before they started reading their list of why, how and when they will oppose the current approach to IPBES. It for sure will make for some good drama in the coming days. Disregarding whether one agrees with Bolivia’s position on the IPBES or not – their statement sure has the potential to make some of the other member states second guess their position towards consensus rule.

—Lars Opgenoorth

IPBES-1 day zero

Stakeholders exchange their views and find common ground in preparation of IPBES-1

Under the chair of Anne Larigauderie of Diversitas International the IPBES-1 stakeholders today took center stage at the old German Parliament in preparation of the first plenary session that starts tomorrow. The roughly 150 of us coming from a diverse group of science organizations such as the IBS, indigenous groups, and NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, arrived only successively on a day that saw Frankfurt Airport close down due to ice and snow.

The stakeholders seemed somewhat biased by science organisations respectively scientists. Especially the absence of some of the major environmental NGOs was noticeable. This absence was interpreted by some that these NGOs are sceptical that the IPBES process will be independent enough and that it does not focus enough on the biodiversity crisis but rather on the ecosystem service part and human well being. It will certainly be a great challenge to balance these interests during the IPBES process.

The goal on day zero of IPBES-1 was to exchange ideas and to come to common positions for the up-coming week. In two roundtables the themes “Rules and Procedures” including the “Role of Observers”, and the IPBES “Initial Work Programme” were being discussed. We agreed that interest and engagement of all relevant stakeholders are key for the impact and legitimacy of IPBES. We will therefore try to convince the plenary to develop a strategy how stakeholders can be effectively included in the IPBES process. This strategy should get installed by the second plenary. One interesting suggestion included the setup of crowdsourcing tools to effectively empower a broad range of people to getting involved. Many participants stressed the importance to acknowledge the variety of relevant knowledge that exceeds knowledge provided by the science community. It will certainly be a major challenge to include the different groups of knowledge holders in the process and at the same time enable an effective science driven assessment procedure in this science-policy interface. Besides stakeholder involvement another point of concern were how the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) will be set together in the future and how the roles of the MEP and the IPBES Bureau will be interpreted. While nominees for the Interim MEP (this will serve for 2 years) have already been named (list of nominees can be seen here: http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/mep-nominations.html ) and will be elected tomorrow, it is still unclear how the procedure of proposing the members will be handled in the future. As the MEP is the body that will be central in guiding the scientific aspects of the IPBES, we will strongly encourage the plenary to set up rules that allow all stakeholders to participate in the proposal procedure, and to make this process transparent. Regarding the roles – we are convinced that it should be the responsibility of the MEP alone to rank requests for assessment topics as part of its scientific and technical functions to ensure that this process will be science driven. Finally we agreed to ask the plenary meeting that the MEP will quickly start the process of developing an initial work programme during the intersessional phase so it can be voted on during the 2^nd plenary.

Tomorrow the country delegations of 105 member states of IPBES will move into the spot light, and after a very long preparatory process IPBES-1 will officially begin.

—Lars Opgenoorth

PhD position: modeling of invasive algal species

The Phycology Research Group (UGent) is looking for a highly motivated PhD student who is keen to work on invasive seaweeds and distribution modeling in the framework of a EU FP7 ERA-NET funded project.

Background:
European coasts regrettably form a global hotspot for marine introductions with over 500 alien species recorded at present. Seaweeds represent one of the largest groups of marine aliens in Europe and several invasive seaweeds qualify among the most notorious pest species in the marine environment.

Study/Research project:
The main objective of this research opportunity is to predict the potential range of invasive alien seaweeds by developing species distribution models (SDM) under present and future climatic conditions. SDM links species occurrences with the environmental characteristics and have the potential to predict distributions in a geographically explicit framework, including extrapolation in space and time. The predictive power of SDM, however, is very much dependent on the assumption that species are at equilibrium with their environment. The very nature of invasive species makes that this is assumption is not met for these organisms. Therefore SDM of invasive or range-shifting species is particularly challenging, and requires development of advanced modeling techniques:

Detailed objectives include:
1. updating information about distribution of alien seaweeds in Europe
2. developing methodologies aimed at predicting the spread and eventual range of marine IAS under current and future climatic scenarios
3. testing for niche shifts in introduced and invasive seaweeds by comparing the ecological niche in invaded and native ranges
4. identifying geographic areas most likely to be disproportionally impacted by the future spread of invasive species.

What is expected from candidates:
1. EU citizenship
2. A Master of Science degree relevant to the subject (e.g. Biology, Bioscience Engineering, Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Geography, ...)
3. Excellent study results and a scientific, critical attitude
4. English language proficiency
5. Computer literacy. Experience with geographical information systems (GIS), modeling software and/or scripting is regarded an important advantage

We initially offer of a fellowship of 1 year, which is possibly extendable after positive evaluation. Candidates should be willing to apply for additional external grants (e.g. IWT, FWO). Interested candidates email Olivier De Clerck (Olivier.declerck@ugent.be) with a motivation letter and CV before 7 February 2013. Preferred starting date: March 1st, 2013.

First Plenary Meeting of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES-1)

Stakeholders’ Day
Prior to the First Plenary Meeting of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES-1)SUNDAY 20 JANUARY 2013

World Conference Centre Bonn, Germany
Plenary meeting room

Annotated Agenda
This “Stakeholders’ Day” represents an opportunity for all non-governmental stakeholders interested in IPBES to informally exchange information and discuss issues related to IPBES. It is taking place prior to the 1st Plenary meeting of IPBES (IPBES-1) on Sunday, 20 January 2013. Building on previous such stakeholders’ consultations held prior to the two sessions that discussed modalities and institutional arrangements for IPBES (Nairobi 2011, and Panama 2012, respectively), this informal exchange will be facilitated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council for Science (ICSU), and co-convened by UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP.

Goals
The overall goal of this meeting is to provide a wide range of stakeholders with an opportunity to discuss their engagement in IPBES and in particular:
- To ensure a collective understanding and update on the IPBES process thus far;
- To discuss stakeholders engagement in IPBES, facilitating a collective understanding of the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in IPBES activities and processes;
- To focus the exchange of views on the specific issue related to the admission of observers to the
platform that will be discussed and agreed at the first session of the Platform’s plenary; and
- To draw out elements for common plenary introductory statement on behalf of all stakeholders.

Documents Official Documents supporting the first session of the Platform’s plenary are available at
www.ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-1. Participants are invited to pay particular attention to document IPBES/1/4 on ‘Draft Policy and Procedures for the Admission of Observers’, which will be discussed at this meeting.  Information regarding activities in support of IPBES which have been undertaken by a variety of stakeholders since the last intergovernmental meeting on IPBES in Panama will be posted at www.ipbes.net/resourcesunder the section on “Stakeholders”. All interested stakeholders are invited to send relevant information to the IPBES Interim Secretariat for sharing on the website.

The sessions will be co-chaired by Anne LARIGAUDERIE, Executive Director of DIVERSITAS and Head of the International Council for Science (ICSU) Delegation to IPBES and Cyrie  SENDASHONGA, Global Director Policy and Programme at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

9:00-9:15 Welcoming Session
Opening remarks: IPBES interim Secretariat; co-conveners of IPBES (UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and
UNDP); and representative of the Government of Germany

9:15-10:45 Session 1: Update on IPBES
This session will inform participants about the on-going process to operationalize IPBES and the
intersessional process undertaken by the Platform since its establishment in April 2012. Keynotes
will be given by representatives of UNEP/ UNESCO,/FAO and/or UNDP, aiming and will cover:
- The outcome of the Panama meeting and the Panama Resolution;
- Activities undertaken during the intersessional process including:
o Nominations to IPBES Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel;
o Issues related to Rules and Procedures;
o Preparation of an initial work programme;
- The agenda for IPBES-1.
Participants will have the possibility to ask questions to the speakers.

10:45-11:00
Coffee Break

11:00-12:30
Session 2: Learning dialogues on IPBES process and activities
Participants will have the possibility to attend 3 roundtables and exchange in small groups on the
issues presented during IPBES-1. These exchanges in smaller groups will enable better understanding of the on-going processes and will bring clarity on the possible ways and means to contribute to IPBES activities. Discussions will be organized as follows:
Roundtable 1: Role of Observers in the Plenary
Facilitator: Cyrie SENDASHONGA
Roundtable 2: IPBES Rules and Procedures
Facilitator: Pierre COMMENVILLE
Roundtable 3: IPBES initial work programme
Facilitator: Anne LARIGAUDERIE

12:30-13:30 Lunch Break

13:30-15:00 Session 3: Contributing to IPBES
This session will provide an opportunity for a diverse set of stakeholders in IPBES to provide their
views on how they plan to interact with and/or make use of IPBES (maximum 8 interventions of 5
minutes each). These presentations will be followed by a general discussion on stakeholders' engagement in IPBES.

15:00-15:15 Coffee Break

15:15-16:45 Session 4: Outlining a common message to be conveyed to the Plenary
The session will begin by a general discussion on the admission of observers to IPBES Plenary, building on the exchange of views of session 2 (Official Document IPBES/1/4). The participants will then be invited to collectively craft a common message, including:
- A common statement on participation of Stakeholders in IPBES
- Comments on the draft policy and procedures for the admission of observers to the
Plenary of IPBES (document IPBES/1/4).

16:45-17:00 Closing Session
Closing remarks by co-chairs, including process proposed for informal regular stakeholders’
exchanges during IPBES-1.

Jobs: Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate

-->

Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate

 Natural History Museum of Denmark and Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen

Pre-announcement of seven positions

The Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate will soon offer three faculty positions:

 Full Professor in Macroecology, Macroevolution or Community Ecology

 Associate Professor in Macroecology, Macroevolution or Community Ecology

 Associate Professor in Historical Biogeography and four fixed-term postdoc or Assistant Professor

positions (2-4 years):

 Assistant Professor in Phylogeography

 Assistant Professor or postdocs in Biogeography

 Assistant Professor or postdocs in Macroecology

 Assistant Professor or postdocs in Macroevolution

Positions will be announced start of the new year with a fairly short application deadline especially for the fixed term positions.

We seek international competitive candidates with a very strong publication record at the level of position interested in. We expect documented strong analytical and data handling skills and the ability to communicate within a crossdisciplinary research center. Competitive salaries are offered.

For more information contact Professor and Center Director Carsten Rahbek at crahbek@bio.ku.dk – or catch him at the forthcoming IBS conference in Florida.

The center (http://macroecology.ku.dk/) is a longterm funded center of excellence with a crossdisciplinary research program addressing fundamental questions on the origin, maintenance, conservation and future of life and biological diversity on Earth. Researchers at the center currently represent 14 different nationalities and the working language is English.

Accepting nominations - C. Hart Merriam Award

The American Society of Mammalogists is now accepting nominations for the C. Hart Merriam Award. The C. Hart Merriam Award is given to eminent scholars in recognition of outstanding research in mammalogy over a period of at least 10 years. C. Hart Merriam was the first chief of the Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy of the United States Department of Agriculture, and a founding member of the American Ornithologists' Union, the National Geographic Society, and the American Society of Mammalogists. Among other contributions, he developed the concept of "life zones" to classify biomes found in North America. Nominations for the Merriam Award will be considered without regard to national citizenship or activity in the ASM.  Persons interested in nominating someone for the Merriam Award should send a single letter of nomination and a copy of the nominee’s CV via email to Felisa Smith (fasmith@unm.edu) by 10 February 2013.

2 POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER POSITIONS in GLOBAL CHANGE and CONSERVATION

Two positions available at the Global Change and Conservation group, part of the Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Research, at the University of Helsinki, Finland. The appointments will be for a fixed term for two years and there will be a trial period of four months in the beginning. Starting independent university researchers can be considered in special cases.

We are looking for ambitious advanced postdocs willing to join a stimulating environment and collaborate with an active team. We would especially welcome candidates with background and expertise that could complement the team most. We work with a broad range of topics related to conservation effectiveness and conservation planning. Climate change research has a strong focus, but we also deal with other important aspects of conservation: conserving evolutionary history; ecosystem functioning and conservation planning; deforestation, causes and consequences; governance and other sociopolitical constraints to conservation (read more about us at http://gcc.it.helsinki.fi). The team hosts a broad range of research activities from methodological and theoretical research to teaching a very applied field course in the tropics. A qualified candidate will have interests in developing conservation theory, developing measures of effectiveness of conservation actions, and/or developing quantitative and spatial conservation planning approaches.

We would welcome candidates with very different profiles, from social scientists to spatial ecologists or biostatisticians. We especially welcome applications from candidates specialized in community ecology (in particular, modelers of metacommunities in space), macroecology, paleontology, and physiology. For one of the posts, we would favor a candidate with a strong spatial statistics background and extensive GIS skills.

For the second post we would have preference for a candidate with a social science

background and with expertise in studying the social aspects of conservation science.

The topic for the research project is open for specification depending on the expertise and interest of the candidate. Nonetheless, the successful candidate will be expected to conduct original research on core problems in biodiversity conservation. The candidate should be willing to integrate his/her own research project to those of the team, and be able to propose and foster common lines of research.

Qualified applicants should possess a minimum of a doctoral degree (Ph.D) and have the background and ability to address or discuss a wide range of disciplines and issues

related to conservation. Selected candidates will not have the obligation, but will have the opportunity to participate in PhD student supervision.

The salary will be based on level 5–6 (3 105–4 221 €/month, Postdoctoral Researcher /

University Researcher) of the demands level chart for teaching and research personnel in the salary system of Finnish universities. In addition, the appointee will be paid a salary component based on personal performance. All standard pension benefits and

occupational health care are provided for university employees.

Applications

Candidates should submit by email (biotiede-mrg@helsinki.fi) the following documentation by December 30th:

- Curriculum vitae

- Brief description of previous work, with 3 selected publications

- Letter of interest, expressing how the candidate thinks his/her background would

fit the team’s research interests

- Names and email addresses of up to three referees

Position Extent: 2 years

Starting date: preferably 1.2.2013

Contact person: Mar Cabeza (cabeza@cc.helsinki.fi)

Information about us:

The team: http://gcc.it.helsinki.fi

The larger research group: www.helsinki.fi/science/metapop

The department: http://www.helsinki.fi/biosciences/

Helsinki, 12th December 2012

University of Helsinki Central Administration

www.helsinki.fi/university