, these disappear from its website. In some cases, the comments that matter will be delivered in contact groups or potentially contentious comments will be delivered using other, less public, avenues. For transparency purposes, it would be advantageous if IPBES commits to a permanent and open archiving of comments received. This would render visible the genealogy of decisions and support a more specific understanding of the various interests at work. The MEP will be the second most important body as it shapes the outcomes (the assessment reports) of IPBES. Its credibility will in large parts depend on procedures. Forrstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:example, nominations for the MEP have been made public and it is evident that the number of nominations varied greatly between regions. Final nominations, however, were discussed behind closed doors. This made it impossible to know the actually applied criteria. From the scientific perspective, credibility will be shown if the MEP will be able to organize an assessment process that includes different perspectives and is not impacted by state political or economic interests. However, a first reflection on the constitution of the MEP shows a bias towards male experts (19 men, six women) and natural scientists (http:// ipbes.net/images/documents/MEPBureau/Lessons_learned_ from_the_IPBES_Interim_MEP.pdf). Aside from applying to issues of governance such as election processes, transparency is also an important factor for the scientific work. Here, methods used in the assessments (including data, tools, literature, models) should be made publicly accessible [17]. The process of gap analysis and preparation of assessments should rely on scientific information which is gained independently from financial, strategic or other interests.more biased. One reason is that the pool of scientists is larger in Europe and the USA than in Africa or Asia. There are more peer-reviewed publications from Western scientists available, and they also have more resources with regards to (staff) time which allow them to afford working free. Accordingly, a bias towards male scientists in their mid-to-late career (tenured) from Western European and Y-27632 chemical information Others Group may occur.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org5. ConclusionAfter two plenaries, IPBES is at a crossroads. While many of its original intentions were about ensuring diverse and inclusive representation and knowledge on different scales, its current conduct shows signs of becoming dominated by competing interests (for example, from trade and development policy realms). The consensus principle gives room to implicitly negotiate issues quite outside the range of IPBES as univocal results are required. Debates in plenary already resemble some of the attitudes we have come to expect from the CBD Conference of the Parties (COPs). This is ironic (and order TGR-1202 regretful) given that IPBES is the de facto successor for the CBD’s policy upport function, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) which had been considered too `political’ [19]. However, IPBES can provide the space and the means for relevant and effective science?policy debates, even if these are happening not in plenaries but elsewhere. Three main commitments will have to be integrated in its further development: a commitment to support conceptual and practical plurality and resist one-size-fits-all approaches, a commitment to learning and substantial transformation., these disappear from its website. In some cases, the comments that matter will be delivered in contact groups or potentially contentious comments will be delivered using other, less public, avenues. For transparency purposes, it would be advantageous if IPBES commits to a permanent and open archiving of comments received. This would render visible the genealogy of decisions and support a more specific understanding of the various interests at work. The MEP will be the second most important body as it shapes the outcomes (the assessment reports) of IPBES. Its credibility will in large parts depend on procedures. Forrstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:example, nominations for the MEP have been made public and it is evident that the number of nominations varied greatly between regions. Final nominations, however, were discussed behind closed doors. This made it impossible to know the actually applied criteria. From the scientific perspective, credibility will be shown if the MEP will be able to organize an assessment process that includes different perspectives and is not impacted by state political or economic interests. However, a first reflection on the constitution of the MEP shows a bias towards male experts (19 men, six women) and natural scientists (http:// ipbes.net/images/documents/MEPBureau/Lessons_learned_ from_the_IPBES_Interim_MEP.pdf). Aside from applying to issues of governance such as election processes, transparency is also an important factor for the scientific work. Here, methods used in the assessments (including data, tools, literature, models) should be made publicly accessible [17]. The process of gap analysis and preparation of assessments should rely on scientific information which is gained independently from financial, strategic or other interests.more biased. One reason is that the pool of scientists is larger in Europe and the USA than in Africa or Asia. There are more peer-reviewed publications from Western scientists available, and they also have more resources with regards to (staff) time which allow them to afford working free. Accordingly, a bias towards male scientists in their mid-to-late career (tenured) from Western European and Others Group may occur.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org5. ConclusionAfter two plenaries, IPBES is at a crossroads. While many of its original intentions were about ensuring diverse and inclusive representation and knowledge on different scales, its current conduct shows signs of becoming dominated by competing interests (for example, from trade and development policy realms). The consensus principle gives room to implicitly negotiate issues quite outside the range of IPBES as univocal results are required. Debates in plenary already resemble some of the attitudes we have come to expect from the CBD Conference of the Parties (COPs). This is ironic (and regretful) given that IPBES is the de facto successor for the CBD’s policy upport function, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) which had been considered too `political’ [19]. However, IPBES can provide the space and the means for relevant and effective science?policy debates, even if these are happening not in plenaries but elsewhere. Three main commitments will have to be integrated in its further development: a commitment to support conceptual and practical plurality and resist one-size-fits-all approaches, a commitment to learning and substantial transformation.