Please post your comments related to the indicators for Goal A and Targets 1-8 in this thread.

Briefing on Indicators for Target 5

I am a legal and policy advisor with Fondation Franz Weber (FFW), a Swiss based NGO. FFW is a member of a consortium of environmental/conservation NGOs, with specialist knowledge and experience in international wildlife trade.

The attached briefing on Target 5 was developed after extensive consultation with a range of experts.

I am a conservation scientist at the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen.

Together with a colleagues we have written a Letter in Science (see reference and link in the bottom), where we argue that the omission of an indicator on changes in biodiversity abundance in accordance with the Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF's) Goal A is unfortunate oversight.

We recognize that one key strength of the ambitious GBF is the focus on indicators and accountability. But it is therefore also important that indicators reflect the GBFs goals. Goal A of the GBF states: “… by 2050 … the abundance of native wild species is increased to healthy and resilient levels”. However, the GBF monitoring framework does not include a headline indicator for abundance. This is despite abundance being one of the most fundamental aspects of biodiversity and that abundance is essential for understanding the state of biodiversity, how it is changing, and how our actions are helping to halt the loss of biodiversity. In the Letter, we also point to the Living Planet database and Index as a potential candidate. With >38.000 vertebrate time series collated and a standardized method this index is actually based on more data and better methods than some other headline indicators suggested in the GBF. We are not saying the LPI is perfect – far from it. But ignoring it, would remove one of the best data-driven barometers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis and would leave us with less knowledge and less tools for demanding accountability from countries to safeguard nature. And focus on abundance could also galvanice action in countries and improve data collection moving forward to close important gaps.

Paper: Geldmann et al. (2023) Prioritize wild species abundance indicators.Science380,591-592
Link: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh4409

if you want a pdf: write me on jgeldmann@sund.ku.dk

I'm an environmental lawyer working on CITES, writing on behalf of David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation (DSWF) to express support for the comment made by Davyth Stewart, Fondation Franz Weber (FFW), and the briefing document on Target 5 (#2800).
The briefing document was developed jointly by the following organisations DSWF, FFW, EIA International, Wildlife Conservation Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, IFAW, Born Free Foundation, Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) and World Federation for Animals. It highlights that the indicators for Target 5 are not sufficient to fulfill the minimum monitoring needs of this Target. Only one potential headline indicator for Target 5 is currently included in the Monitoring Framework (Indicator 5.1 “Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels”). This indicator only covers a subset of the relevant species and drivers of loss and provides no information about the legality or safety of wildlife trade and use activities. A key gap is the absence of indicators on the levels of trade and use of terrestrial species, their sustainability and legality. Our briefing includes a set of recommended additional component, complementary, and binary indicators to monitor trends in the level of legality, sustainability, and safety of wildlife trade and exploitation.
Dr Rosalind Reeve
Senior Adviser, David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation

I am writing on behalf of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

I attach here our updated recommendations on the GBF monitoring framework.

Some cross-cutting concerns for the monitoring framework that are relevant to Goal A / Targets 1-8:

1) Identify linkages to streamline the framework and address gaps: WCS recognizes the significant costs and other challenges associated with monitoring a large number of indicators at national and global levels. Certain “disaggregations” or segmentation into subsets of data already reported, can facilitate tracking of progress against multiple goals/targets and their different elements. For example, the IUCN Red List can provide both an overall picture of progress on species conservation for Goal A, while Red List assessments for specific taxonomic groups can provide an indication of, for example, whether species targeted for commercial use are being exploited sustainably (Target 5). As another example, trends in the extent (A.2) and integrity (A.1 and others) of certain high carbon ecosystems, such as forests and peatlands, particularly versus competing land uses such as agriculture, can provide an assessment of whether nature is maintaining its contribution to global climate regulation without discussing quantitative emissions targets as under the UNFCCC. This could help address a critical gap in tracking progress against Target 8.

2) Clarify the relationship between individual and composite indicators: Relationships between individual metrics/indicators and composite metrics/indicators in the monitoring framework are not always clear. Both are important -- individual metrics track attributes of biodiversity, including of ecosystems, that have unique relationships, but composite metrics look across metrics/indicators to assess the cumulative interaction and complexity of values. Such composite metrics often provide a clearer sense of ecosystem integrity and resilience, which ties directly to achievement of the CBD’s 2050 Vision and the ecosystem functions and services needed by people. To highlight a specific example: a Red List of Ecosystems (A.1) assessment for coral reefs in the Western Indian Ocean (Obura et al. 2021) used data on hard coral cover, fleshy algae cover, and abundance of herbivorous fish and piscivorous fish. These are all currently listed as complimentary indicators at present, but some combination of such indicators is necessary to undertake RLE assessments for A.1. Since the RLE is a headline indicator, the monitoring framework or other guidance should clarify for Parties and stakeholders how such metrics should draw on ecosystem-specific metrics at the complementary level. Guidance, including on tools like MERMAID or freely available global datasets can ensure a level of consistency in these approaches, taking into account national circumstances.

3) GBF indicators for ecosystem integrity or condition require clarity: Parties agreed at CoP15 that the qualitative attributes of ecosystems are just as important as simple metrics of extent (or area protected). Goal A specifically sets the intention to maintain or enhance ecological integrity, connectivity and resilience -- all of which will be required to achieve the stated goal of a measurable increase in the extent of natural ecosystems by 2050. The current monitoring framework has a mix of metrics, some that may be useful with technical clarification and standards -- e..g, to ensure that “natural” ecosystems tracked under A.2 are truly high integrity ecosystems that deliver biodiversity and other values -- and others provide different ways to evaluate those qualitative attributes of ecosystem condition that are critical to track. WCS generally advocates for two things. First, we encourage that the monitoring framework prioritize outcomes where possible instead of process (for example, by using component indicators like the Ecosystem Intactness Index and similar marine indicators to more effectively measure progress against Target 1 in halting ecosystem degradation/fragmentation and land/sea-use change). Second, we encourage thoughtful examination of the different composite metrics for ecosystem integrity/condition to ensure that similar approaches are used across geographies and development contexts.

More specific feedback on the monitoring framework for Goal A, Targets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 can be found within the attachment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me (adegemmis@wcs.org) with any questions or concerns.

Best,

Alfred DeGemmis
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

I am a principal researcher at International Institute for Environment and Development, co-chair of the Governance, Equity and Rights Specialist Group of the IUCN-WCPA and a member of the Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation platform.  I am focusing on the closely linked Targets 3 and 22.
Monitoring equitable governance in Target 3.
There are two dimensions to governance in the context of area-based conservation –
Governance type – allocation of authority, responsibility and accountability between the major groups of actors – government agencies, private organisations, organisations of IP&LCs.  A typology created by IUCN 25 years ago defines four governance types: governance by government, by private organisations, by IP&LCs and by two or more of these groups (shared governance).  With just four categories, governance type can easily be identified from national policy and/or PCA management plans.  Governance type is an existing data field in the World Database of Protected Areas (albeit what the governance type is in theory rather than what it actually is in reality) and 84% of the c 260,000 PCAs in the WDPA report governance type as governance by government. As shared governance and governance by IP&LCs have, by definition, a higher level of community engagement, the % of PCA coverage of these two governance types is a proxy indicator for equitable governance and is already included as a complementary indicator in the monitoring framework for Target 3.
Coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures and traditional territories (by governance type)
Governance quality - how far governance of a PCA between and within the major actor groups conforms with principles of effective and equitable governance, including respect for people and their land/resource rights and human rights, procedural equity (decision-making, access to information and justice, accountability, law enforcement) and equitable sharing of benefits and costs.  Governance quality cannot be determined from policy or management plans and so must be assessed in situ using a suitable tool.  PCA management effectiveness (PAME) tools like METT typically include just 2-3 governance questions - for example “Are IP&LCs involved in management decisions” – which are very crude and the score very much dependent on who is doing the assessment.  A more accurate and credible assessment of governance quality requires a dedicated multi-stakeholder governance and equity assessment tool like SAGE.  But reporting governance quality using SAGE would require that each country use the tool with a representative sample of their PCAs which very few countries are likely to manage in the next 7 years. However, on the assumption that doing governance assessments is likely to lead to more equitable governance, the number of sites using SAGE or similar tool has been included as a component indicator for target 3.  Along with % coverage by PCA governance type, these are currently the only indicators for equitable governance in the monitoring framework for Target 3 aside from indicators on land tenure and Green List certification.  Note that three key procedural issues of governance quality - decision making, access to information and justice – are the focus on target 22 which covers area-based conservation and more, but there are no indicators for these at either headline or component level. 
Some recommendations: 
• Propose the inclusion of PCA governance type as a disaggregation factor for the Headline PCA coverage indicator of Target 3.  This is simply a matter of elevating the existing complementary indicator:  Coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures and traditional territories (by governance type) to become part of the headline indicator from alongside other disaggregation factors such as KBA coverage, and this indicator already meets all the criteria for an acceptable GBF indicator: 
a) The data and metadata related to the indicator are publicly available – they are already included in national reporting to WDPA and published in protected planet.
b) The methodology underpinning the indicator is either published in a peer-reviewed academic journal or has gone through a scientific peer-review process and validated for national use – it was referenced in CBD programme of Work on Protected Areas.
c) The data sources and indicators are compiled and regularly updated with a time lag of less than five years between updates, if possible – only some countries doing this.
d) There is an existing mechanism for maintaining the indicator methodology and/or data generation, providing nationally applicable guidance on the use of the indicator – IUCN guidance published in 2013 and will be updated by WCPA over the next year.
e) Indicators are able to detect trends relevant to the components of the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework – can detect a trend towards governance types that have stronger engagement of IP&LCs.
• Address issues of PCA governance quality through headline and component indicators under Target 22, notably by including inclusive/equitable decision-making in the headline indicator 
• Push back on the argument that the equitable governance element of target 3 is covered under management effectiveness, proposing disaggregation by governance type instead.

This comment is being posted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife:

We support the comments expressed by our colleagues at Fondation Franz Weber and the Wildlife Conservation Society. We would like to emphasize that, in our view, the current headline indicator for Target 5, “Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels,” lacks robustness and is insufficient by itself. Without the addition of other headline and binary indicators for this Target, significant gaps will exist.

One such gap involves the need for reporting on the levels of trade and use of terrestrial species, including their sustainability and legality. Another relates to ensuring that the use, harvesting, and trade of wildlife is “safe.” To address this, parties should report on domestic measures taken to “reduc[e] the risk of pathogen spillover.” Lastly, we feel it is worth noting that given that headline indicators are supposed to “capture the overall scope of the goals and targets,” the current headline indicator for Target 5 does not appear to satisfy the relevant criteria.

UNEP-WCMC, together with IUCN, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA), and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) would like to draw attention to our ongoing efforts to develop an approach for monitoring the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) within the scope of the headline indicator for Target 3.

A disaggregation of the Target 3 headline indicator by level of effectiveness would provide significantly more meaningful data than coverage alone. To support such a disaggregation, the partners in the Protected Planet Initiative, as custodians of the Target 3 headline indicator, are developing a system that would support disaggregating the data in this way.

The proposed approach for reporting to Protected Planet is designed to bring together results from existing effectiveness assessment methods and biodiversity monitoring data. It follows a ‘phased approach’, which would allow data providers to submit data to Protected Planet at different levels of detail, according to their capacity to report and the availability of data.

Please see the attached document for more details and do not hesitate to contact Helen Klimmek (helen.klimmek@unep-wcmc.org) with any questions or comments.

Nutdanai Trakansuphakon from Pgakenyaw Association for Sustianable development , Thailand. We are indigenous NGOs Organization in Thailand and work with indigenous community.

I have some comment.

Target 3: The headline indicator 3.1 “Coverage of protected areas and OECMs” should be reviewed and revised based on important aspects of the final text of Target 3, particularly the text highlighted in bold:

“Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.” There was no sufficient time to address these issues of crucial importance to indigenous peoples and local communities in the monitoring framework at COP-15; these need to be addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.

Viviana Figueroa on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity

Comments on Target 3: AHTEG document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2
 
In paragraph 9 b., the section on “For Sustainable Development Goal indicators”: footnote 3 lists the headline indicator “3.1 Coverage of protected areas and OECMS” as an SDG indicator. Looking at the SDG indicators list, the proposed 3.1 indicator does not seem to be in the SDG list, so it should not be considered as an SDG indicator. The indicator 3.1 needs to be discussed and reviewed in light of the final text of Target 3, which includes, inter-alia “…systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories,…”. Rather than being considered an SDG indicator, it should be considered as part of paragraph 9 (c) (For indicators in development).
Many thanks

We are conservation scientists and practitioners from around the world who have been collaborating to better monitor and understand the outcomes of area-based conservation tools in the ocean. We write regarding the indicators of “effectiveness” to be used for reporting progress toward Target 3. We highlight the need for indicators of quality, not just quantity, and suggest a path forward.

After extensive consultation across disciplinary expertise, sector, and geographic location, we developed The MPA Guide, published as a peer-reviewed scientific article in Science (see reference and link at the bottom), with 42 co-authors from around the world. This framework provides a means to understand and track the likely effectiveness of protected areas in the ocean. The MPA Guide is based on actual conservation outcomes documented from decades of research from around the world. This framework can enable an accurate assessment of how much of the ocean is likely to be within effective conservation areas, as indicated by level of protection and stage of establishment.

The overarching goal is to understand and track not just the quantitative element of Target 3 (i.e., “coverage” of protected areas and OECMs in a single percentage), but, importantly, the qualitative aspects which will enable the effectiveness called for in Target 3.

We note the following:
- There is no headline indicator for the quality and effectiveness of areas included towards GBF Target 3.
- Several tools already exist and can be used to track this element. For the ocean, we suggest that an understanding of Level of Protection and Stage of Establishment provided by The MPA Guide gives a clear, easily assessed, globally-applicable understanding of the likely outcomes and effectiveness of area-based conservation in the ocean. These are underpinned by the presence of Enabling Conditions, which are key social and ecological considerations that enable equitable governance and management effectiveness.
- Including this knowledge via a component indicator in the GBF monitoring framework is vital.

Ignoring the quality of protected areas and OECMs risks countries working towards the quantitative aspect of Target 3 without creating the conditions for the benefits of effective protection to accrue. These benefits for people and nature are crucial for achieving the goals of the entire GBF.

Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

The following co-authors of The MPA Guide paper in Science, available at https://www.science.org/stoken/author-tokens/ST-2/full

Jenna Sullivan-Stack, Ph.D.
Kirsten Grorud-Colvert, Ph.D.
Tundi Agardy, Ph.D.
Natalie Ban, Ph.D.
Nathan Bennett, Ph.D.
Johnny Briggs, Ph.D.
Ling Cao, Ph.D.
Joachim Claudet, Ph.D.
Vanessa Constant, Ph.D.
Jon Day, Ph.D.
Giuseppe Di Carlo, Ph.D.
Alan Friedlander, Ph.D.
Georgina G. Gurney, Ph.D.
Sarah Hameed, Ph.D.
Jean Harris, Ph.D.
Barbara Horta e Costa, Ph.D.
Miriam Fernandez, Ph.D.
Emanuel J. Gonçalves, Ph.D.
Paolo Guidetti, Ph.D.
Sabine Jessen, Ph.D.
Dan Laffoley, Ph.D.
Sarah Lester, Ph.D.
Russell Moffitt
Lance Morgan, Ph.D.
Elizabeth Pike
Ellen Pikitch, Ph.D.
Matt Rand
Callum Roberts, Ph.D.
Karen Sack
Enric Sala, Ph.D.
Nirmal Shah, Ph.D.
Ana Spalding, Ph.D.
Jorge Torre, Ph.D.
Angelo Villagomez

Citation:
Grorud-Colvert, K., J. Sullivan-Stack, C. Roberts, V. Constant, B. Horta e Costa, E. P. Pike, N. Kingston, D. Laffoley, E. Sala, J. Claudet, A. M. Friedlander, D. A. Gill, S. E. Lester, J. C. Day, E. J. Gonçalves, G. N. Ahmadia, M. Rand, A. Villagomez, N. C. Ban, G. G. Gurney, A. K. Spalding, N. J. Bennett, J. Briggs, L. E. Morgan, R. Moffitt, M. Deguignet, E. K. Pikitch, E. S. Darling, S. Jessen, S. O. Hameed, G. Di Carlo, P. Guidetti, J. M. Harris, J. Torre, Z. Kizilkaya, T. Agardy, P. Cury, N. J. Shah, K. Sack, L. Cao, M. Fernandez, and J. Lubchenco. 2021. The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373:eabf0861.

Subject: Accounting for Inland Water ecosystems and Biodiversity in the Kunming-Montreal GBF Monitoring Framework

The Nature Conservancy, together with WWF, Conservation International, IUCN, Ramsar, UNEP and additional members of the emerging Freshwater Challenge, respectfully share recommendations for the AHTEG’s consideration to account for inland water ecosystems and biodiversity in the K-M GBF Monitoring Framework and to meet the AHTEG’s objective of addressing critical gaps.

Four key points for consideration in the AHTEG’s review and recommendations.
1. Inland waters cover a small fraction of the planet, and their status and dependent biodiversity is among the most threatened.
2. Several recent publications by UN Water, Ramsar, GEOBON, IUCN and others document that meeting the GBF 2030 vision and goals will require explicitly tracking progress for inland waters in the area-based biodiversity (T1-3) and sustainable use and benefits sharing targets, among others.
3. Developing baselines and measuring progress for inland waters is feasible. In the last decade, the types, availability, and processing capability of global inland water-related datasets have increased exponentially. Recommendations and information for indicator metadata templates are included.
4. Consider assessing and ensuring representation of inland waters expertise in each relevant subgroup (direct or outside advisory support) in addition to MEA indicator coordination.

The attached document expands on these key points and was shared directly with several AHTEG members in advance of the July 11th consultation meeting. The document outlines the rationale, resource and key opportunities to represent inland water ecosystems in the monitoring framework and indicators. It also includes points of contact for further coordination and discussion.

We thank you for your leadership, service and consideration and look forward to hearing from you and the online stakeholder's forum.

Please note that I posted on behalf of David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, not International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Thank you
Rosalind Reeve

To be edited

Comments from the Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), with emphasis on adequate reflection in the Monitoring Framework of the GBF’s objectives concerning ecological connectivity.

CMS appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this part of the Monitoring Framework.  Throughout the period of development of drafts of the Kunming-Montreal GBF and its Monitoring Framework, CMS inputs have drawn on extensive consultation processes with a wide range of experts and organisations.

Several issues have been high priorities in this for the conservation of migratory species, but the comments below focus specifically on the central topic of ecological connectivity, which should be understood in both a structural and a functional sense, according to the adopted definition (“the unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth” – CMS COP Resolution 12.26 (Rev.COP13)).

Goal A and Targets 2 and 3 include objectives for maintaining, enhancing and restoring ecological connectivity, and the issue is implicit also in Target 1.  The Monitoring Framework at present however does not make adequate provision for monitoring and assessing progress towards these objectives.

This is particularly acute at the headline indicator level, where there is a complete absence of any indicator addressing connectivity.  CMS has previously proposed two main possibilities for rectifying this; one being a composite of the various existing indices of ecosystem and habitat fragmentation, which feature in the complementary indicators, (namely Trends in mangrove forest fragmentation, the Forest Fragmentation Index, Relative Magnitude of Fragmentation, the River Fragmentation Index and the Dendritic Connectivity Index), and the other being trends in the status of migratory species, which also features in the complementary indicators (as a proxy indicator, on the basis that given that migratory species by definition are a connection between places, a change in status of these species can itself represent a change in the quality of the connection).

The working methods for the sub-groups of the AHTEG (document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2) advise that they should consider, inter alia, “whether there are any critical gaps with the indicators identified for the goals and targets being considered by the subgroup and, if there are, what the options for addressing those gaps are (e.g. by using component indicators)”.  This is just such a case.

The complementary indicators for Goal A include one listed as “CMS Connectivity Indicator”.  This is the one proposed by CMS as “Conservation status of migratory species, as a proxy indicator of connectivity” This would be based on disaggregated sub-sets of the Red List Index, Living Planet Index and Wild Bird Index, providing a proxy measure for the status of connectivity of natural ecosystems as it affects these species, giving particular attention to those with known responses to key connectivity factors.  Existing methods would be used for this, and assessments using these methods have previously been presented at CMS COP13 in 2020 (in the annexes to document UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.24/Rev.1) and will be updated at COP14 in 2024 (in documents UNEP/CMS/COP14/Doc.21.1 and UNEP/CMS/COP14/Doc.21.3).

A ready way therefore of ensuring that there is attention at headline indicator level to the elements of Goal A that seek to ensure that the “connectivity [...] of all ecosystems” is maintained, enhanced or restored” would be to adopt what is currently the complementary indicator referred to above as a headline indicator instead.

A smaller and more partial contribution to this could also be made by ensuring that the approach to one of the already-listed headline indicators (“A.3 - Red List Index”) is operated so as to produce information on the status of species that depend on connectivity.

An approach for doing this has been included as one element in the CMS “Conservation status of migratory species” assessments mentioned above.  Data from the Red List Index have been disaggregated to show trends specifically for migratory species (see for example https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_cop13_doc.24_review-conservation-status-migratory-species_Annex3_e_0.pdf and https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_cop13_doc.24_review-conservation-status-migratory-species_Annex4_e.pdf ).

It is recommended therefore to ensure that the operation of headline indicator A.3 includes just such a disaggregation of migratory species.  (The approach taken by CMS assesses this for migratory species in general and also for those specifically listed in the CMS Appendices – both kinds of assessment would be useful to report in the context of monitoring GBF Goal A).

Although the emphasis in the AHTEG’s work thus far has been on the headline indicators, the Group’s terms of reference as agreed in Annex II to CBD COP Decision 15/5 include “keep[ing] the list of binary, component and complementary indicators under review”.  Given that currently most of the provisions in the Monitoring Framework for addressing any aspect of the ecological connectivity objectives in Goal and Targets 1, 2 and 3 are found in these other indicators, and the inherent importance of them for assessing progress at national as well as international level, this aspect of the AHTEG’s work is also vital and must not be ignored.  The Group should make every effort to advise on and support the operationalisation of these indicators.  CBD COP Decision 15/6 para 13 also reinforces this.

A further provision in the AHTEG ToRs is to “advise on the wording of questions to construct binary indicators to be used in national reports building upon Table 1 of [Annex II to Decision 15/5]”.  CMS urges close attention in particular to the suggested binary indicator for Target 1, which is currently worded as “Number of countries using terrestrial and marine spatial planning to identify areas of high biodiversity importance in national development planning”.  Use of spatial planning merely to “identify” areas of high importance will not represent progress towards the purposes expressed in Target 1.  This suggestion should be re-framed, for example as “Number of countries using terrestrial and marine spatial planning to safeguard areas of high biodiversity importance and promote ecological connectivity at the landscape and seascape scale”.

CMS has also previously proposed “Number of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans including provisions for improving ecological connectivity in spatial planning”, which could be another operable binary indicator for this target.

Finally, we emphasise that providing evidence and accountability for progress, and rapid feedback for adaptive management, is crucial to the credibility and impact of the Framework.  We welcome the AHTEG’s efforts in this direction, and stand ready to provide further support as required.

Laura Cerasi, Fundraising and Partnerships Officer, CMS Secretariat.  laura.cerasi@un.org .

We are Alicia Mastretta-Yanes (CONABIO, Mexico) and Jessica da Silva (SANBI, South Africa), writing on behalf of and in coordination with a large group of conservation biologists and geneticists who provided support at COP-15 on the topic of genetic diversity. We write our post about the indicators for conserving genetic diversity within species, including Headline Indicator A.4

CONTEXT: The GBF’s Goal A and Target 4 is supported by a headline indicator - A.4: Proportion of populations within species with an effective population (Ne) size > 500. This threshold is vital for preventing losses of genetic diversity within populations. Genetic diversity is essential for species’ populations to be able to adapt to new conditions, climate change, and diseases. Additionally, there is a complementary genetic diversity indicator - Proportion of populations maintained within a species. This indicator is important as diversity among populations maintains a diverse range of options (called evolutionary potential) across a species' distribution.

Recent work has shown that these indicators are feasible. Since 2020 these indicators have been refined via stakeholder consultation, pilot projects, and scientific progress.  A recent paper (open access, free to read) highlights how these indicators can be calculated, even in the absence of genetic data  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12953. A complementary paper (preprint, free to read) explains the indicators in more detail https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/5555/

WHAT’S NEW: In 2022-2023 we applied the above mentioned methodology to nine countries (Australia, Belgium, Colombia, France, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, USA), including megadiverse regions from the Global South. The detailed results of this multinational effort will be published before the end of 2024. Here, we highlight that it was possible to use existing data and resources within countries to calculate the indicators for approximately 100 species per country, totalling >900 species. In less than a year, we assessed around 5,000 populations.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUMMARY: In the pilot project, we found that in 58% of species considered, all populations were below Ne 500 (too small to retain genetic diversity). In 19% of species, all populations were large enough. In the remaining species (23%) only some populations were large enough.  We also found that most populations were maintained, though 40% of species have lost more than 1 in 10 populations. This finding highlights that nature is at a critical threshold for maintenance of genetic diversity. Many populations need intervention, management and monitoring to improve their genetic diversity status and allow adaptation in a changing planet.

In summary, genetic diversity indicators are important, scientifically sound, shown to be feasible and highlight a critical state of genetic diversity.  Data sources for the indicators can be diverse, including national biodiversity data, existing reports, citizen science, local knowledge, consulting experts, and more, making them adaptable to each country’s capacity.  The indicators are also flexible to data quality and quantity.  Genetic data/ expertise are not needed. The publications linked above, a forthcoming policy brief, and a publication (in preparation) will explain these messages in more detail.

We are also here to help!  If you are interested in more information on the indicators
https://www.coalitionforconservationgenetics.org/resources-database/have-questions-or-need-translations-related-to-cbd-materials

Previously produced policy briefs on the topic of genetic diversity can be found in 8 languages here:
https://g-bikegenetics.eu/en/multimedia-policy-briefs-pubs/policy-briefs/policy-brief-genetic-diversity-targets-and-indicators-proposed

Just a short follow up on the genetic diversity indicators.

Some may ask, what kinds of species should be included?  As explained in the article linked below, "Ideally, the 100+ species assessed by a country reflect diverse ecosystems, taxonomic groups, rarity categories, and life history traits (e.g., lifespan)."  In addition, "If taxonomic groups are not represented evenly, the indicator value is the mean of each taxonomic group’s means, which down-weighs overly represented taxonomic groups (e.g., mammals). Additionally, each species can be weighted by the proportion of its geographic"

Another common question is how long it takes?  In this pilot testing, it took less than 3 hours per species.  As noted in the publication above, additional time can be saved through alignment and coordination with other assessment processes like the Red List, so this time could be reduced.  Useful capacity building would be to develop more efficient workflows and methodologies.

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12953

I represent the Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK). I share below two briefs relevant to the interpretation of and appropriate indicators for GBF targets relevant to pesticides pollution, including specifically Target 7, as well as Targets 10, 15, and 18. The briefs have been produced by the Pesticide Action Network International (PAN International) and the Third World Network (TWN) for the benefit of national policy makers and the AHTEG.

Brief 1 - Interpreting the Mandate for Action on Pesticides in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) – offers guidance for national policy makers concerning action on pesticides pollution required under Target 7, which calls for a reduction in the overall use and toxicity of pesticides (pesticide load / toxic load) of at least half by 2030. The brief outlines how eliminating the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) will be the most effective means of achieving the overall pesticide load reduction mandated by Target 7, and offers guidance on the critical role of complementary increases in agroecological farming practices under Target 10, and related action required under Targets 15 and 18. The briefing will aid Parties’ development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and subsequent monitoring and reporting.

Brief 2 - Optimizing the Monitoring Framework Indicators for Pesticides in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) – offers specific guidance for the AHTEG in the further development of appropriate scientific indicators for pesticide pollution reductions mandated by Target 7. Specifically, PAN/TWN recommend that the AHTEG advises parties to use the Danish Pesticide Load indicator, or an equivalent indicator, as the scientific methodology for national reporting on Headline Indicator 7.2., that the AHTEG nominates suitable Target 7 indicators for reductions in toxicity and use of ‘highly hazardous chemicals’, and that AHTEG advises Parties to disaggregate reporting under Headline Indicator 10.1 to report significant increases in agroecological practices mandated by Target 10.

PAN and TWN hope this guidance is of use in ensuring action to reduce pesticide pollution is well designed and will be effectively measured and reported. Requests for further information may be sent to jago@pan-uk.org, and/or twn@twnetwork.org

Thank you.

Jago Wadley, International Advocacy Manager, PAN UK.

https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/PAN-TWN-KMGBF-Pesticides-Targets-Interpretation.pdf

https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/PAN-TWN-Optimising-the-KMGBF-Monitoring-Indicators-for-Pesticides.pdf

Human-nature interactions are the underlying process shaping global biodiversity. This is recognised in the Global Biodiversity Framework, where for instance, Targets 4-6 aim to resolve human-wildlife conflict, reduce wildlife exploitation, and manage invasive species. Target 16 encourages people to make sustainable choices, and Target 22 specifies that the full spectrum of human diversity (e.g. race, gender and religion) is captured in the decision-making process.

To meet these targets, we urgently need to develop tools capable of describing these human-nature interactions and derive indicators that can track any changes. Typically, rich combinations of qualitative and quantitative data are needed to describe these human-nature interactions but these approaches lack the ability to scale globally. However, the rapid expansion of the internet - now covering more than 66% of the global population, and with an increase of 30 percentage points in the last decade -, combined with analytical advances in conservation culturomics and iEcology have opened a plethora of new opportunities. For the first time, we can now use human-nature interaction data from diverse internet sources (e.g. Wikipedia, Google trends, Facebook, Reddit etc.) to produce indicators of change in human-nature interactions. These social indicators are ready to be incorporated into the GBF, and are highly complementary to the biodiversity focussed indicators.

We elaborate further in a new Conservation Letters publication: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12991

Dr Diogo Verissimo
Dr Thomas F. Johnson
Dr Joseph Millard
Prof Uri Roll

Hello, I am Andrew Gonzalez, a member of the AHTEG on Indicators. I am here to request feedback and insights on Target 12 Urban green and blue spaces enhanced for human well-being: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/12/

The headline indicator for T12 is SDG 11.7.1 measuring the "Average share of the built-up area of cities that is green/blue space for public use for all."
https://www.post-2020indicators.org/metadata/headline/12-1

We are aware that this only partially covers the outcomes sought for T12.
My question to the forum: has anyone worked with other indicators, such as the City Biodiversity Index?
https://www.cbd.int/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/city-biodiversity-index
Could the CBI, or another index, usefully complement the SDG indicator for this target? Reflections on the challenges of obtaining the data and the technical capacities needed to calculate the CBI would be helpful.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Hello, I am Lucrezia Gorini, a member of the AHTEG on Indicators. We are seeking feedback and insights on headline indicator 1.1 Percent of land and sea area covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans.
We are gathering a FEW examples of spatial plans implemented through a participatory and biodiversity -inclusive approach. Examples will be considered based on the definitions being discussed and developed within the AHTEG and combined with the proposed binary indicator.
Do you have best-practice examples of spatial plans implemented through a participatory and biodiversity-inclusive approach that could be useful to look into? Could you provide information on data sources, including definitions and data collection methods used?

Hello Lucrezia,

My WCS colleagues compiled a few examples of spatial assessment and planning processes that are biodiversity inclusive and participatory, noting that these thresholds are not clearly defined as of yet and there is a great diversity in approaches.

Parties or organizations undertaking or supporting such assessments may wish to comment further on the specifics of these processes, this is a quick survey and some processes are statements of intent.

If you would like to discuss definitions, etc. in more detail, please let me know.

Best,

Alfred

South Africa: https://www.sanbi.org/biodiversity/building-knowledge/biodiversity-monitoring-assessment/national-biodiversity-assessment/

Seychelles: https://seymsp.com/the-initiative/

China (national): https://environmental-partnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Policy-Brief-Ecological-Conservation-Redlines-2.pdf

China (regional): https://journal.hep.com.cn/laf/EN/10.15302/J-LAF-1-030010

United States/Northeast: https://neoceanplanning.org

United States/Mid-Atlantic: https://www.midatlanticocean.org/ocean-planning/about-ocean-planning/

Palau: https://www.spc.int/updates/blog/blog/2023/05/biodiversity-rich-palau-launches-ambitious-marine-spatial-planning

Niue: https://niueoceanwide.com

Hi Lucrezia

My name is Kirsty Leong, posting on behalf of WWF-International.

Building on what WCS has provided, please find below a compilation of examples where WWF is working with governments and multiple stakeholders on projects and programmes with a spatial planning component. Reports for each are attached. Please feel free to contact me for more information.

*WWF South West Indian Ocean Seascape (SWIO Seascape) Regional Programme
Attached is the 2022 report of the SWIO Seascape Regional Programme Seascape. Dr Samantha Petersen is the SWIO Lead (spetersen@wwf.mg).
Please use "spatial planning" in a keyword search to find information in the document. For example:
“We provided training for five of our CSO networks partners on ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Ecosystem-based marine spatial planning pays particularly close attention to the principles of ecosystem-based integrated management, human rights and climate change. Such planning is foundational for a sustainable blue economy and is, in effect, part of a multi-stakeholder approach to enhancing sustainable and equitable ocean governance”.

*Viet Nam - Informing a national target for protected areas in Viet Nam under the post-2020 global biodiversity framework
Please use "spatial" and "government" in a keyword search to find relevant information in the report.
This report provides a global assessment of Viet Nam’s PA network important biodiversity and NCP features, using both national (where available and accessible) and global data, and it discusses how a further spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

*Heart of Borneo - WWF Spatial Planning Experiences in Borneo
Please use "spatial" and "government" in a keyword search to find relevant information in the report.
This report examines the systematic conservation planning methods used by WWF and assesses its roles, results (outputs, outcomes) and contributions to the conservation effort in Kalimantan, Sabah and Sarawak. It also captures the challenges and lessons learned and presents it from a consolidated Borneo perspective for sharing with relevant stakeholders within and beyond Borneo.

*Tanzania and Mozambique - Ruvuma transboundary landscape
Please see the Solutions chapter which states:
“We need to take a holistic, transboundary landscape approach if we’re to secure key terrestrial habitats and their associated wildlife populations and increase benefits for local people and the national economies of Tanzania and Mozambique. Such an approach means multiple stakeholders and partners can collaborate in a well-coordinated and strategic manner to tackle many challenges across several sectors”.
A key intervention for this programme will be:
"Developing spatially explicit land-use plans jointly, in a consultative manner, with multiple stakeholders and including the valuation and mapping of natural capital". 

*Amazon - 2022 Living Amazon Report
Please use the keyword "planning" to find occurrences of "territorial planning", "basin-wide planning" or "governmental planning" in the report.
This report outlines the current status of the Amazon biome and basin, summarizes key pressures and drivers of change, and outlines a conservation strategy for this decade that would enable the vision of a Living Amazon to become a reality going forward.

Hello again Lucrezia

Kirsty Leong posting on behalf of WWF International.

WWF has a collated few more examples to share with the AHTEG - these ones are not WWF projects or programmes. You may have already come across some or all of them, apologies if that is the case!

*Indonesia: Indonesia’s national resource report on spatial planning in coastal areas, with a focus on preventing/reducing the impacts of emergency issues, including natural disasters, climate change and sea-level-rise, considers issues and approaches in spatial planning, lessons from around the world, and specifically the application in Indonesia.
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/44333

*UN playbook: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-09/undp-gef-integrated-spatial-planning-workbook-2023-en.pdf

*UK: Guiding principles for Marine Spatial Planning produced by Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link), a nature coalition in England bringing together 80 organisations. https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/assets/uploads/Guiding_principles_for_Marine_Spatial_Planning.pdf

*You could also look at some examples of exemplary spatial analyses for linear infrastructure in the Annex of the LISA report. This Annex examines how spatial analyses can be used to assess potential threats to biodiversity from proposed linear infrastructure development.
https://largelandscapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/LISA_Annex1_SpatialAnalysis_FINAL.pdf

Dear Lucrezia Gorini,

I am Cristina Moreno, expert on indicators from the Nature Data Bank of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (Spain).

We would like to share with you for your consideration some examples of spatial planning in the marine context that have been developed in Spain which foster biodiversity and natural heritage conservation and have been developed taking into consideration the outcomes of participatory processes.

On a broader spatial context, Spanish maritime spatial plans have been developed according to “Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning”, and the Spanish Regulation “Real Decreto 363/2017, of 8. April” which establishes the framework for this spatial planning in Spain. Both Regulations support the need to establish means for public participation by informing all interested parties and by consulting the relevant stakeholders and authorities, and the public concerned. In Spain, maritime spatial plans have to be revised at least every 6 years considering the results of the monitoring program, that has been established according to an adaptive management approach. In the first cycle of the planning process, after a period of public consultations where observations were taken into account, other participatory tools were used, such as workshops and several meetings with stakeholders. Some of the workshops were focused on the engagement of representatives of the fishing and wind energy sectors. More information on this participatory process can be found in Regulation “Real Decreto 150/2023, de 28 de febrero, por el que se aprueban los planes de ordenación del espacio marítimo de las cinco demarcaciones marinas españolas” (https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-5704). The participatory process was conducted online due to COVID-19 restrictions, and measure OEM7 foresees the development of a Participation Strategy in order to strengthen stakeholder engagement in next steps.

In the context of marine protected areas, it has been developed a governance strategy and a guidance for participatory processes within the Life project INTEMARES (access to the Guidance document: https://intemares.es/sites/default/files/a10_guia_procesos_en.pdf). Following this methodology, several participatory process have been established for the development of the management plans of marine protected areas. As an example, more information about the participatory process developed for the marine protected area “El Cachucho”  can be found at https://intemares.es/procesos-participativos/cachucho and the resulting management plan at https://intemares.es/sites/default/files/real_decreto_686-2021_de_3_de_agosto.pdf

You can let me know if you need further information.

I am a PhD researcher at the University of Melbourne. My thesis explores potential pathways for effectively, efficiently, and equitably monitoring and reporting biodiversity in cities to local and global initiatives. While the thesis is a multi-step analysis, I can comment on our contribution toward KM-GBF target 12 monitoring.

My research focuses on biodiversity monitoring in urban areas, considering multiscale applications of potential urban Biodiversity Indicators. Regarding Target 12, I have found that an indicator for greenspace biodiversity monitoring is still a challenge in KM-GBF. While there are existing and potential indicators that can cover this gap, such as the Singapore Index, I found them to be methodologically complex for many users. The index is a composite of multiple sub-indicators and requires many experts to populate all sub-indicators. Additionally, data-linked limitations such as data availability, accessibility and harmonisation remain challenging, specifically for global south cities.

To overcome these limitations and find potential indicators that can address the gaps in different indicators candidates to Target 12 specifically for biodiversity contexts, I am in the final stage of testing one indicator across 109 metropolitan areas encompassing over 600 Local Government Areas. The indicator I am testing is based on the methodology and concept developed by Callaghan et al., 2019 entitled" Using citizen science data to define and track restoration targets in urban areas". Our testing has shown a promising direction to address urban biodiversity monitoring at the greenspace scale and at different policy scales such as metropolitan, district, national, and regional scales in different climate and economic regions. Once our findings' related publications/reports are peer-reviewed and published, we will share them. In between, we are also happy to collaborate and discuss the progress in detail to address indicator gaps in KM-GBF Target 12.

We will keep updating and contributing to this platform to ensure that cities and other actors in the urban environment can measure, monitor, and report their contribution to biodiversity.

Best regard
Evariste Rutebuka

I'm Belma Kalamujic Stroil, currently a member of AHTEG on indicators.

Regarding the A.4 headline indicator operationalization, what recommendations should countries follow when selecting species to report on in regards to this headline indicator, taking into account the diversity among CBD Parties (e.g., island countries)?

Representation of the ocean in the GBF Monitoring Framework – comments by The Nature Conservancy

Dear Madam, Sir

The Nature Conservancy is grateful for the opportunity the AHTEG on Indicators has provided for observers to provide comments on the proposed monitoring framework for the Global Biodiversity Framework through the online discussion forum.

Attached to this cover note you will find a short set of recommendations for how to improve the representation of the ocean in the framework without significant increases to the reporting burden of parties.

We believe it is of utmost importance that the ocean is adequately represented in the monitoring framework to ensure that the area covering over 70% of the planet’s surface can benefit from the ambitious action the Global Biodiversity Framework sets out to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity.

A full list of recommendations is in the attached document but in summary we recommend that:
- Indicator 5.1 (Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels) should be replicated under targets 9 and 10 given the inclusion of fisheries in those target. This will ensure a more holistic assessment of whether delivery of targets 9 and 10 is on track without increasing the reporting burden on contracting parties.
- For the Component and Complementary indicators on “Extent of natural ecosystems by type” and “habitat distributional range” under Indicator 2.2 (Areas under restoration) “including coral reefs and mangroves” is added to the text in recognition of the critical nature of these ecosystems. We believe this is in line with the approach that the Global Biodiversity Framework itself applies across ecosystems and that the Monitoring Framework therefore is the place to draw out ecosystems of particular importance for achieving the overall goals of the GBF.
- A component indicator is added under indicator 5.1 that reads “Number of data-limited fisheries that have a management plan, harvest strategy or monitoring plan in place”. This is recognising that more than 80% of global catches occur in fisheries that lack the necessary data, resources and infrastructure to conduct quantitative model-based stock assessments. In order to accurately assess the 'proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels', it is essential to measure a country's progress in managing data-limited fisheries.

Best wishes,
Andreas Hansen
Senior Policy Advisor, Ocean and Conservation Finance
Global Policy, Institutions and Conservation Finance

On behalf of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) team developing a global assessment of threats to inland fisheries, as well as the Inland Fisheries Alliance, InFish network, and IUCN Fisheries Expert Group among others that endorse this effort, I would like to highlight the value of this tool which was (1) mentioned in comment #2955 and (2) has been identified as a complementary indicator for Target 5.

As stated in comment #2955, inland water ecosystems and biodiversity are among the most endangered in the world.  Yet, because these systems are difficult to assess, they are often marginalized in global policy and monitoring discussions.  However, we now have the capability to include inland water ecosystems explicitly in the K-M GBF Monitoring Framework, such as through this global inland fisheries threat indicator.

Please see attached for more information and thank you for your consideration.

Dear Belma

Thank you for the inquiry about choosing species for reporting genetic diversity indicators.

Your question is an important one.  Biased selection of species is a concern for reporting any biodiversity indicator, including genetic indicators.  For example, selecting only charismatic species (butterflies, orchids, etc.), species of economic value, or rare/ endangered species would result in an indicator that represents the condition of species in that subset rather than the condition of most species in the country.

To avoid misleading results from a biased selection, the genetic indicator(s) could be calculated for one of the following:
-All species (or a randomly chosen set) within certain taxonomic groups (e.g. birds, gymnosperms, mammals) in a country, with the indicator presented as, for example, “the Ne 500 indicator for cycads,” "the Ne 500 indicator for mammals" (as with for example the Red List of cycads, see https://www.iucnredlist.org/assessment/red-list-index), etc OR
-A randomly selected subset of all known species in a country OR
-A systematically selected (e.g. stratified random) set of all known species in a country

A systematic assessment is the preferred approach as it ensures a balanced number of species from each taxonomic group (e.g. there are many more insect and plant species than mammals so fully random would  include few mammals). This involves pre-defining certain categories, in particular taxonomic groups, e.g. plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, fungi, algae, and the main ecosystem types within each country (e.g. rainforest - covering terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments). Then a number of species within each group should be chosen randomly (see Baille et al 2008 for discussion in context of the Red List index). 

Again, the indicator should not only be based on emblematic, threatened, and charismatic species/ culturally valuable species, because different types of species face different threats. However, after indicator calculation and reporting at the country level is complete, the indicator for selected species or subsets can be showcased in public outreach (e.g. for pollinators, corals, species providing provisioning services, etc), as is done with Red List status, to help foster public and policy-makers’ acceptance and interest in monitoring genetic diversity.  Subsets of particular species of policy concern (i.e., legal protection, management) can be disaggregated as well, to evaluate the effectiveness of such policies.  Habitat forming or umbrella species may be important examples or subsets to examine, since their genetic diversity may affect the fate of entire ecosystems.  IUCN has published guidelines on selecting species and populations for monitoring of genetic diversity (Hvilsom et al. 2022).

Genetic indicators will be less accurate when small numbers of species are used.  At minimum, 100 species should be used, though ideally many more will be used (Baille et al 2008 recommend 900 species with sufficient data; however, to allow for species missing data, the initial list of taxa to evaluate should be 1500).

It will likely take time for countries to build sufficient capacity for reporting.  If initial reports have too few species, more species can be added in later reports.  Indeed it is anticipated that biodiversity monitoring capacity within countries will increase over time, and thus countries may wish to increase the number of species included in their genetic indicator calculation, e.g. from 100 to 1000 species.  In such cases, the species being newly evaluated can have retrospective indicator calculations made, assuming historic data is available.  This highlights a broader opportunity, that such retrospective evaluation could extend genetic indicator calculation into the past.

References
Baillie, J.E., Collen, B., Amin, R., Akcakaya, H.R., Butchart, S.H., et al., 2008. Toward monitoring global biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 1(1), pp.18-26.
Hoban, S., da Silva, J.M., Mastretta‐Yanes, A., Grueber, C.E., Heuertz, M., Hunter, M.E., et al., 2023. Monitoring status and trends in genetic diversity for the Convention on Biological Diversity: An ongoing assessment of genetic indicators in nine countries. Conservation Letters, 16(3), p.e12953.
Hvilsom, C., Segelbacher, G., Ekblom, R., Fischer, M.C., Laikre, L., et al., 2022. Selecting species and populations for monitoring of genetic diversity. IUCN Publication.

Dear Colleagues,
I am sharing this post on behalf of the UN Biodiversity Lab Partnership (CBD, UNDP, UNEP, UNEP-WCMC). We have compiled a recommended spatial data list to support the efforts of the AHTEG on Indicators.

The document is available as a view-only Google Doc here: https://bit.ly/SpatialData_AHTEG_Indicators

This proposal is based on our review of the Monitoring Framework of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Decision 15/5) and the associated metadata for each indicator (available on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Indicators Website) against existing spatial data, aiming to identify gaps and develop the GBF indicators for use at country level.

The data included in the document are global data that (1) our team of spatial data experts believe can support the calculation, planning and monitoring for a particular goal, target, or indicator and (2) that are not already mentioned in the metadata for the Monitoring Framework. These datasets aim to support countries to fill spatial data gaps where national data is not available.

In the document, we have provided an overview of the work, methods, and four data tables:
• Table 1: Headline Indicators – 29 datasets.
• Table 2: Component Indicators – 23 datasets.
• Table 3: Complementary Indicators – 9 datasets.
• Table 4: Relevant GBF Data – 16 datasets.

The document spans all GBF Goals and Targets for which spatial data can be used to calculate the indicators. They are clearly organized by goal and target number to enable easy review for Goal A and Targets 1-8.

We hope this might be useful to Parties and to the AHTEG on Indicators. We welcome any questions or comments.

Best wishes,
Annie Virnig (anne.virnig@undp.org)

Subject: Accounting for Inland Waters in the Kunming-Montreal GBF Monitoring Framework Target 3 Headline Indicator 3.1

In July 2023, The Nature Conservancy, together with WWF, Conservation International, IUCN, Ramsar, UNEP and additional members of the emerging Freshwater Challenge, shared initial recommendations for the AHTEG’s consideration to account for inland water ecosystems and biodiversity in the K-M GBF Monitoring Framework and to meet the AHTEG’s objective of addressing critical gaps (#2955).  Building from that submission and with general support of the Convention on Wetlands Scientific and Review Panel (STRP) and UNEP-WCMC, we are pleased to submit the attached recommendations for measuring baselines and tracking progress for inland waters under Target 3 Headline Indicator 3.1. Coverage of protected areas and other area-based conservation measures. The recommendations focus on disaggregating and tracking coverage of the inland waters realm and biomes (including rivers and streams) by protected areas (PAs) and other area-based conservation measures (OECMs).

We provide these recommendations while acknowledging that to fully assess progress toward protecting inland waters under Target 3, all components of the headline and component indicators need to be adjusted to represent inland waters, including effectiveness, aquatic connectivity and areas important for biodiversity. In this regard, TNC supports the review and actionable recommendations submitted by the STRP and UNEP-WCMC, and looks forward to working with the SBSTTA, CBD Secretariat, and partners to produce methodologies for effectiveness, connectivity and areas important for biodiversity over the K-M GBF implementation period. 

We thank the AHTEG membership for their time, expertise and commitment to a participatory process to develop the KM GBF monitoring framework and welcome feedback and clarifying questions at any time.

Simon Ferrier from CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency

Numerous posts on this forum have identified gaps in the extent to which indicators included in the monitoring framework, and particularly those adopted as headline indicators, address the full scope of goals and targets defined by the GBF. Many of these posts have also suggested solutions to addressing these gaps, either through the addition of indicators to the framework, or through the elevation of existing component or complementary indicators to headline-indicator status.

My purpose here is not to promote the addition or elevation of any particular indicators, but rather to draw attention to the significance of a different kind of gap in the existing monitoring framework. As things stand indicators are assigned to, or ‘pigeon-holed’ against, individual goals and targets and split across three levels – headline, component, and complementary indicators. This typology lends itself to representation as a relatively simple two-way table. However, what is missing from this representation is any sense of how the reporting of results for individual indicators will account for key relationships and interdependencies between components of the socio-ecological system which the GBF goals and targets are seeking to address (as per the GBF’s underpinning theory of change). For a detailed explanation of the importance of addressing such interactions in implementing the GBF see Leadley et al (2022)  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332222002640?via%3Dihub.

Here I focus on this challenge, and a potential approach to addressing it, specifically in relation to Goal A and area-based action Targets 1, 2 and 3. The interdependencies involved in this case are relatively well known and understood. Spatial planning, ecosystem restoration, and expansion of protected areas implemented under Targets 1-3 will jointly affect the area, integrity, connectivity, and resilience of ecosystems under Goal A. Changes in these ecosystem attributes will, in turn, have flow-on consequences for the persistence of species and genetic diversity, the other major components of this same goal.

These key interdependencies are likely to render the use of headline indicators to plan and report progress under Goal A and Targets 1-3 much less straightforward than it perhaps appears at first sight. The headline indicators for Targets 1-3 focus largely on reporting the gross area subjected to a given type of action, presumably by country and/or by broad ecosystem type – e.g. the area covered by spatial plans, the area under restoration, or the area included in protected areas and OECMs. However, the contribution that such actions make to advancing outcomes for ecosystems, species and genetic diversity under Goal A is not a simple function of the total area covered by those actions. This will also depend on the precise location of individual actions relative to underlying spatial patterns in the distribution of biodiversity (e.g. species), and on spatial relationships between the portions of ecosystems being protected or restored and the remaining distribution of these same ecosystems in the surrounding landscape or seascape. The net contribution made by actions of a given type (retention, restoration, protection) will further depend on how their impacts complement, or offset, those of the other types of action and ongoing threatening processes. Failing to account for these interdependencies when prioritising actions to achieve individual targets will reduce the efficiency with which countries, and the world as a whole, can work towards achieving multiple targets and goals under the GBF. 

It could be argued that there is no need for headline indicators for Target 1-3 to explicitly address the contribution that actions implemented under these targets will make to achieving outcomes under Goal A, because monitoring of actual outcomes for ecosystems, species and genetic diversity are already going to be addressed by the headline indicators adopted for that goal. Two major concerns arise from this assumption. The first is that, while ongoing monitoring of actual (observed) outcomes for biodiversity clearly has a vital role to play in evaluating the success of the GBF, decisions by member countries as to precisely what actions to implement (under Targets 1-3) to most efficiently and effectively achieve these outcomes can be informed only by information on the expected (predicted) contribution of those actions, not by information which will not be collected until after these decisions have already been made.

The second concern is that, even from the perspective of evaluating the success of the GBF, the headline indicators adopted for Goal A may well lack sufficient sensitivity to assess and report the collective impact of actions implemented by member countries. Expected lag times for the impact of different types of action (particularly restoration) to take effect, and therefore to be detectable, may be far longer than the time remaining between now and 2030. This problem could be further compounded by the discrete/categorical nature of the data and analyses underpinning some of these indicators – e.g. reporting of changes in ecosystem extent alone may mask significant changes, both positive and negative, in the condition/integrity of remaining areas of an ecosystem type, including those resulting from management actions implemented under the GBF; and gains achieved for individual species and ecosystem types at national and subnational scale may not be reflected in results for the Red List indicators if these improvements are not sufficient to result in a given species or ecosystem type transitioning between discrete Red List categories.   

In combination, the above concerns point to a significant gap in the existing monitoring framework. This is the gap, or more precisely disconnect, between the headline indicators for targets and those for goals. In the case of Targets 1-3 and Goal A, unless this disconnect is effectively addressed there is a risk that by 2030 the reporting of results for these two sets of indicators will provide an incomplete picture of progress being made in achieving real outcomes for biodiversity. On the one hand, the headline indicators for Targets 1-3 will tell us how much the areal coverage of spatial planning, restoration and protection has been increased, but will shed little light on the extent to which these actions have been implemented in the right places, and therefore how much they are actually contributing to achieving desired outcomes for ecosystems, species and genetic diversity under Goal A. On the other hand, it seems likely that the headline indicators for Goal A will not fully reflect these contributions, given expected lag times for impacts of management to play out (relative to the impending 2030 time horizon), and constraints on the indicators’ sensitivity to detect change. 

The good news is that a number of indicators already included as component or complementary indicators in the monitoring framework have significant potential to help address the above problem. These are so-called ‘leading (or predictive) indicators’ which are designed to predict outcomes for biodiversity expected as a function of the present (observed) state of the system of interest and any set of management actions implemented within, and/or proposed for, that system. Of particular relevance to addressing interdependencies between Target 1-3 and Goal A are a subset of these leading indicators sometimes referred to as ‘habitat-based indicators’, which predict outcomes for biodiversity as a function of observed and/or expected changes in habitat (or ecosystem) condition across any spatial domain of interest. The potential contribution that such indicators can make to more effectively linking Goal A and Targets 1-3 in GBF implementation is explained in greater detail in the Briefing Note on monitoring for the GBF prepared by GEO BON https://geobon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Monitoring_brief.pdf and in the earlier  Expert Input document prepared jointly by Future Earth and GEO BON https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/5735/c241/efeeac8d7685af2f38d75e4e/sbstta-24-inf-31-en.pdf
(particularly pages 34-35 and 121-124).

Among other indicators of this type included in the GBF monitoring framework (e.g. the Biodiversity Intactness Index, and the Species Habitat Index) are two indicators developed by my agency CSIRO – the Biodiversity Habitat Index (BHI) and the Bioclimatic Ecosystem Resilience Index (BERI). Metadata factsheets for both are available at https://www.post-2020indicators.org/. A poster on the BERI presented at last year’s GEO BON conference https://event.fourwaves.com/geobon-2023/abstracts/4ab9a772-2eab-4f7c-afba-7bf91c6ecabe (and attached here) also directly addresses the issue I have raised here. The BERI assesses the capacity of natural ecosystems to retain species diversity in the face of climate change, as a function of ecosystem extent, integrity, and connectivity. It is recognized as a component indicator for Target 8, and was even included as a headline indicator for this target in the draft monitoring framework considered at COP 15. However, due to its highly integrative nature, the BERI offers considerable potential to play a more extensive role in GBF implementation by addressing interlinkages between Target 8, the area-based action Targets 1-3, and the ecosystem-focused and species-focused components of Goal A (see the poster for further explanation). 

The role of component and complementary indicators in the monitoring framework is often framed as one of filling gaps in the coverage of the multiple components defined for a given goal or target, left by the headline indicators adopted for that goal or target. My parting message is that at least some of these component and complementary indicators can contribute much more to implementation of the GBF – by addressing not just gaps in the coverage of components within individual goals and targets, but also gaps in addressing key interdependencies between multiple goals and targets.

We are Sean Hoban, Linda Laikre, Cristiano Vernesi, Catherine Grueber, Ancuta Fedorca, Alice Hughes, David O’Brien, Myriam Heuertz, Sibelle Torres Vilaça, Alejandra Lorena Goncalves, Abdeldjalil Aissi, Jess da Silva, and Alicia Mastretta Yanes, and we are posting on behalf of a large group of conservationists, including members of G-BIKE and the Coalition for Conservation Genetics. We write our post about the indicators for conserving genetic diversity within species, including Headline Indicator A.4.  This is an update to our previous post above (September 2023).

CONTEXT:
The GBF Goal A and Target 4 is supported by a headline indicator - A.4: Proportion of populations within species with an effective population (Ne) size > 500. An effective size of 500 is important for maintaining genetic diversity “within populations” for the long term. Genetic diversity is essential for species’ populations to adapt to new conditions, climate change, and diseases. For example, genetic diversity has helped seagrass meadows recover after extreme heat waves, and is helping some species adapt in contemporary time, from rhesus macaques to collared flycatchers.

Because Target 4 commits to conserving genetic diversity “within and between populations”, there must be an indicator on between populations genetic diversity.  This is the complementary genetic diversity indicator - Proportion of populations maintained within a species. This indicator is important because diversity among populations maintains a diverse range of options across a species' distribution.  For example, populations found in parts of a species range that experience a warmer climate may have physical traits adapted to those locations.  This kind of genetic diversity can help coral adapt to warmer temperatures, for example.

Since 2020, these indicators have been refined via stakeholder consultation, pilot projects, and scientific progress.  A recent paper (open access, free to read) highlights how these indicators can be calculated, even in the absence of genetic data  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12953.

WHAT’S NEW:
In 2022-2023 we applied these indicators in nine countries (Australia, Belgium, Colombia, France, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, USA), including megadiverse regions from the Global South. The detailed results of this multinational effort are now available in a free to access article: https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/6104/. It was possible to use existing data and resources within countries to calculate the indicators. In this pilot testing  approximately 100 species per country were assessed, totalling >900 species. In less than a year, we assessed around 5,000 populations. Data were obtained from very diverse sources: national inventories, local monitoring, local knowledge, consultation with knowledge holders, citizen science, species management plans, and other sources.  A complementary paper explains the advantages of the indicators in more detail https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae006/7625302.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUMMARY:
Headline indicator: We found that in 58% of species assessed, all populations were below Ne 500 (too small to retain genetic diversity); indicator value = 0. In 19% of species, all populations were large enough; indicator value = 1. In the remaining species (23%) only some populations were large enough; indicator value between 0 and 1. 
Complementary indicator: We also found that most populations were maintained (overall indicator value = 0.90), though 40% of species have lost more than 1 in 10 populations.

These findings highlight that many species are at a critical threshold for maintenance of genetic diversity. Many populations need intervention, management and monitoring to improve their genetic diversity status and allow adaptation in a changing planet. We also note that even some species considered as IUCN Least Concern or Near Threatened can have low genetic diversity indicator values indicating that even if they are not threatened with extinction, they have low or decreasing genetic diversity.

SUMMARY
In summary, genetic diversity indicators are critically important, scientifically sound, affordable, fast, and feasible. The diverse data sources and flexible methodology make them adaptable to each country’s capacity.  Genetic data/ expertise are not needed. The publications linked above provide further detail. 

A quickstart video on the basics of the indicators is here (scroll down a little on the page): https://www.coalitionforconservationgenetics.org/sbstta25.  On this same page you can find a policy brief in multiple languages


Webinar presenting our results to the European Commission Knowledge Center for Biodiversity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8KLqagcwl0

We are also here to help!  If you are interested in more information on the indicators or would like help to start assessing them in your country please contact us
https://www.coalitionforconservationgenetics.org/resources-database/have-questions-or-need-translations-related-to-cbd-materials


Sean Hoban, The Morton Arboretum, USA
Linda Laikre, Stockholm University, Sweden
Cristiano Vernesi, Foundation Edmund Mach, Italy
Catherine Grueber, University of Sydney, Australia
Ancuta Fedorca, National Institute for research and Development in Forestry Marin Dracea, Romania
Alice Hughes, University of Hong Kong, China
David O’Brien, NatureScot, UK
Myriam Heuertz, INRAE (National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment), France
Sibelle Torres Vilaça, Vale Institute of Technology, Brazil
Alejandra Lorena Goncalves, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Argentina
Abdeldjalil Aissi, University of Batna, Algeria
Alicia Mastretta-Yanes, CONABIO, Mexico
Jessica da Silvia, South Africa National Biodiversity Institute
And many members of the Coalition for Conservation Genetics (https://www.coalitionforconservationgenetics.org/)

I am Jessica Bridgers, Deputy CEO of the World Federation for Animals. We are a federation of over 50 NGOs working towards the recognition of animal welfare as essential for the sustainable development agenda. Our efforts focus on integrating animal welfare into international health, food, and environmental regimes and trade and development finance rules.

The attached recommendations have been developed by WFA's working group on biodiversity and contain recommendations for Targets 5, 6, and 8.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jessica Bridgers

The SDG indicators referred to are the following, which relate to the overall coverage of protected areas and the coverage of important sites for biodiversity by protected areas and OECMs (a recommended disaggregation of the headline indicator)

Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas
Indicator 15.1.2: Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type
Indicator 15.4.1: Coverage by protected areas of important sites for mountain biodiversity