Eed on a document like the conceptual framework, which clearly manifests IPBES’ attempt to integrate local and traditional knowledge as well as multiple scales. By including terms such as `Mother Earth’, `Nature’s gifts’ and `Living in harmony with nature’, the framework accounts for non-Western cosmologies while also acknowledging the contingency and ambiguity of concepts like `quality of life’. These are, the framework concedes, `highly dependent on place, time and culture’ (?5). Accordingly, the fast-track assessment on pollination `will include indigenous and local knowledge perspectives on pollinators and pollination systems and their benefits to those knowledge holders’ (IPBES/2/17/ Annex V/3/8). Even the fast-track methodological assessment of scenarios and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services is set to examine `the feedbacks between biodiversity, nature’s benefits to people, good quality of life, institutions and governance, and using scenarios and models’ (IPBES/2/ 17/Annex VI/III/13). But while the framework’s language has evidently been taken up, it remains to be seen how practically relevant it will be, especially in relation to the multi-evidence-based approach sought by IPBES. What might perhaps be even more critical is the consultation and incorporation of other knowledge, disciplines and experiences in deciding the actual topics and themes for assessment. For the moment, these appear to be set with no notable recourse to the broader perspectives invited by the conceptual framework. On a more conceptual level, the diagram in the framework suggests an unequivocal and mechanistic characterization of causes and effects very much in contrast to the ambiguous terms it employs. Here, discrete elements (such as nature, drivers, assets, systems) are linked through clear functional relationships that are, according to implicit expectations, based on statistically settled observations, experiments or(c) Stakeholder engagement strategy`Relevant stakeholders’ can comment on documents under review, attend plenary ALS-008176 biological activity sessions and deliver statements if given the floor by the session chair. The impropriety of this clause was conclusively demonstrated when, during IPBES-2, the chair of a working group on budget excluded all stakeholders for the remainder of the plenary after one unpopular stakeholder’s statement as told by an observer. Stakeholders are also NS-018 chemical information permitted to put forward experts for nomination by the MEP for working groups and task forces. Current stakeholders (not covered by the stakeholder engagement strategy (SES)) comprise environmental NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund, scientific bodies and networks such as IUCN, universities (e.g. University of Cambridge), United Nations (UN) agencies, indigenous peoples and local communities, regional governments and networks such as Local Governments for sustainability (ICLEI) and industry lobby. Next to multilateral agreements which already have a privileged status with regard to submit requests, during IPBES-2 an official Cooperation Agreement was concluded with UNEP, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the United Nations Development Programme. Other stakeholder institutions have an observer status–if already registered during IPBES-1–allowing them to visit the sessions of the plenary. The SES is meant to formalize, ensure and protect the inclusion of stakeholders and their partici.Eed on a document like the conceptual framework, which clearly manifests IPBES’ attempt to integrate local and traditional knowledge as well as multiple scales. By including terms such as `Mother Earth’, `Nature’s gifts’ and `Living in harmony with nature’, the framework accounts for non-Western cosmologies while also acknowledging the contingency and ambiguity of concepts like `quality of life’. These are, the framework concedes, `highly dependent on place, time and culture’ (?5). Accordingly, the fast-track assessment on pollination `will include indigenous and local knowledge perspectives on pollinators and pollination systems and their benefits to those knowledge holders’ (IPBES/2/17/ Annex V/3/8). Even the fast-track methodological assessment of scenarios and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services is set to examine `the feedbacks between biodiversity, nature’s benefits to people, good quality of life, institutions and governance, and using scenarios and models’ (IPBES/2/ 17/Annex VI/III/13). But while the framework’s language has evidently been taken up, it remains to be seen how practically relevant it will be, especially in relation to the multi-evidence-based approach sought by IPBES. What might perhaps be even more critical is the consultation and incorporation of other knowledge, disciplines and experiences in deciding the actual topics and themes for assessment. For the moment, these appear to be set with no notable recourse to the broader perspectives invited by the conceptual framework. On a more conceptual level, the diagram in the framework suggests an unequivocal and mechanistic characterization of causes and effects very much in contrast to the ambiguous terms it employs. Here, discrete elements (such as nature, drivers, assets, systems) are linked through clear functional relationships that are, according to implicit expectations, based on statistically settled observations, experiments or(c) Stakeholder engagement strategy`Relevant stakeholders’ can comment on documents under review, attend plenary sessions and deliver statements if given the floor by the session chair. The impropriety of this clause was conclusively demonstrated when, during IPBES-2, the chair of a working group on budget excluded all stakeholders for the remainder of the plenary after one unpopular stakeholder’s statement as told by an observer. Stakeholders are also permitted to put forward experts for nomination by the MEP for working groups and task forces. Current stakeholders (not covered by the stakeholder engagement strategy (SES)) comprise environmental NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund, scientific bodies and networks such as IUCN, universities (e.g. University of Cambridge), United Nations (UN) agencies, indigenous peoples and local communities, regional governments and networks such as Local Governments for sustainability (ICLEI) and industry lobby. Next to multilateral agreements which already have a privileged status with regard to submit requests, during IPBES-2 an official Cooperation Agreement was concluded with UNEP, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the United Nations Development Programme. Other stakeholder institutions have an observer status–if already registered during IPBES-1–allowing them to visit the sessions of the plenary. The SES is meant to formalize, ensure and protect the inclusion of stakeholders and their partici.