Return to the list of discussions...

You must be registered and signed-in to post on this forum. Please register or sign-in now.

Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1707]
At the present time, there are many contributors of biodiversity data, information and knowledge across different countries and organizations.  Could you please share information about the ones you know of and the nature of their contribution (e.g. generation, collection, curation, analysis, dissemination and/or utilization)?  Please share relevant experiences, best practices and lessons learned with regard to biodiversity data, information and knowledge.
(edited on 2020-08-17 13:01 UTC by Sandra Meehan)
posted on 2020-08-10 19:45 UTC by Sandra Meehan, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1712]
Dear colleagues, welcome to the Discussion Forum on the Knowledge Management Component of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. In this first discussion thread, you are invited to share views and updates on the current biodiversity information and knowledge management landscape in your organization, country, region or globally. This may include updates on:
(i) The current status and trends regarding the generation, collection, curation, exchange and/or utilization of biodiversity-related data, information and knowledge;
(ii) The current major sources of biodiversity data and information;
(iii) The main biodiversity data, information and knowledge gaps;
(iv) The strengths and weaknesses of existing information and knowledge management systems (including the legal and policy environment, the institutional arrangements, infrastructure and technologies);
(v) Opportunities and challenges for biodiversity knowledge management;
(vi) The main actors and their roles; and
(viii) The experiences, best practices and lessons learned.

Thank you.
posted on 2020-08-24 04:16 UTC by Mr. Erie Tamale, UNEP/SCBD/Biosafety
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1713]
Sheila Vergara, ACB
- FishBase is an information system with key data on the biology of all fishes and can be accessed through https://www.fishbase.in/search.php
- ReefBase is a database on coral reefs and related resources and can be accessed through http://www.reefbase.org/main.aspx
- TaiBIF Taiwan Biodiversity Information Facility, TaiBIF, is the coordination unit and technical support team for the data publishing activities in Taiwan. Most of the Taiwanese datasets that for various reasons lack of organisational support are published via TaiBIF, while others are published via TaiBIF endorsed organisations. TaiBIF is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, which is also the representing bureau for GBIF. TaiBIF and TaiBIF IPT are hosted by Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica.
- The ASEAN CHM presents a summary of biodiversity data sourced from CHMs, databases, national reports and other contributions of ASEAN member states. It can be accessed from http://chm.aseanbiodiversity.org. The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity is currently working with NatureServe to develop the ASEAN Dashboard, a fit for purpose, interactive platform that aims to harness current datasets to streamline regional target tracking and reporting (e.g. for tracking progress towards CBD, SDG, targets, including those planned for Post 2020), and apply the latest advances in data visualization using state – of- the- art indicators
posted on 2020-08-24 08:23 UTC by Ms. Sheila Vergara, Philippines
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1714]
EL Khitma Elawad Mohammed, Senior Researcher &BD Desk officer. Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources- Sudan
Current biodiversity information and knowledge management landscape in our organization
- sd-chm.cbd.int including information on national biodiversity components and the implementation ,
- National BD date base include species and their distribution
- The main sources of information are reports, studies, and relevant institutions to biodiversity.
- The information are incomplete as not all information provided by different actors. The database include unbalanced data in coverage. The database is of high cost, the lack of skills.
Type of information needed for decision making, updating of information on frequency time (sometime use old data and information).
. Capacity building and training provided for different actors for example on filtering the data  and roles to be assigned to them this will help in the continuity of the process,
posted on 2020-08-24 09:12 UTC by Dr. El Khitma El Awad Mohammed Ahmed, Sudan
This is a reply to 1713 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1715]
EL Khitma Elawad Mohammed, Senior Researcher &BD Desk officer. Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources- Sudan
Current biodiversity information and knowledge management landscape in our organization
- sd-chm.cbd.int including information on national biodiversity components and the implementation ,
- National BD date base include species and their distribution
- The main sources of information are reports, studies, and relevant institutions to biodiversity.
- The information are incomplete as not all information provided by different actors. The database include unbalanced data in coverage. The database is of high cost, the lack of skills.
Type of information needed for decision making, updating of information on frequency time (sometime use old data and information). Capacity building and training provided for different actors for example on filtering the data  and roles to be assigned to them this will help in the continuity of the process,
posted on 2020-08-24 09:15 UTC by Dr. El Khitma El Awad Mohammed Ahmed, Sudan
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1716]
EL Khitma Elawad Mohammed, Senior Researcher &BD Desk officer. Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources- Sudan
Current biodiversity information and knowledge management landscape in our organization
- sd-chm.cbd.int including information on national biodiversity components and the implementation ,
- National BD date base include species and their distribution
- The main sources of information are reports, studies, and relevant institutions to biodiversity.
- The information are incomplete as not all information provided by different actors. The database include unbalanced data in coverage. The database is of high cost, the lack of skills.
Type of information needed for decision making, updating of information on frequency time (sometime use old data and information). Capacity building and training provided for different actors for example on filtering the data  and roles to be assigned to them this will help in the continuity of the process,
posted on 2020-08-24 09:16 UTC by Dr. El Khitma El Awad Mohammed Ahmed, Sudan
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1717]
In the Coleoptera Systematics Laboratory https://en.scarabaeoidea-lab.com/ we have begun to register the diversity of beetles in the Mexican Republic, making contributions to their taxonomy, phylogeny and ecology as well as in the review and description of new taxa. At present, we have begun to integrate molecular and morphometric tools (geometric morphometry) to gain a better understanding of this ecologically important and diverse group of animals.
posted on 2020-08-24 14:40 UTC by Mario Antonio Alvarado-Mota, Universidad del Mar
This is a reply to 1716 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1718]
In Mexico we have developed Enciclovida http://www.enciclovida.mx at the National Commission on Biodiversity. This is a platform thar brings together the records of scientific collections (National Biodiversity Information System) and the observations from citizen science (iNaturalist and eBird). The National Commission of Biodiversity has been gathering museum records for the past 29 years. and promoting citizen science in the last decade.  Every day there is a contribution of 1500 photographs from iNaturalist  alone. The platform also brings together descriptions, photos, videos, bird and frog calls, news and scientific articles from different sources. It is linked to IUCN red list but it also shows CITES and the Mexican redlist. 
Many countries could do the same. If they do not have a National Biodiversity Database, they could use GBIF records and citizen science.

Have a look at Enciclovida http://www.enciclovida.mx

Un abrazo

Carlos Galindo-Lea, Science Communication
posted on 2020-08-24 14:56 UTC by Dr. Carlos Galindo-Leal, Mexico
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1719]
Good day everyone. I am Dr Andrew Plumptre, Head of the Key Biodiversity Areas Secretariat which works for the 13 KBA Partners. I am based in Cambridge UK

The World Database of KBAs (http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org) contains data on globally important sites for biodiversity conservation. These are sites contain populations of species or important areas of ecosystems that exceed a specific threshold amount. As such they represent sites where critical populations for each species occur. KBA assessments are ongoing in several countries to make comprehensive national assessments to guide protected area expansion as well as minimise impacts of infrastructure, agricultural and mining developments. The KBA website is being redesigned so that the data can be more easily accessed and queried and a new release will be made available by the end of September 2020. The data include maps of the sites, species or ecosystems that trigger KBA status at a site, proportions of the global population of a species/ecosystem at a site, percentage coverage of KBAs (to report on indicators for Aichi Target 11 and SDGs 14 and 15), threats to sites and basic landcover data for the site. Data can be aggregated within taxonomic groups and at national, regional or global scale to allow reporting at different levels. If you want to learn more please contact me at aplumptre@keybiodiversityareas.org. I also attach a copy of our annual report for 2019 to give some information about the KBA programme
posted on 2020-08-24 15:26 UTC by Dr Andy Plumptre, Key Biodiversity Secretariat
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1720]
Colombia has a national information system on biodiversity called SiB Colombia (Colombian Biodiversity Information System). https://sibcolombia.net/

SiB Colombia is the national open data network on biodiversity established in 1994 by law (decree 1603/1994). Its main purpose is to provide open access to information on the country's biological diversity for the construction of a sustainable society. It also facilitates the online publication of data and information on biodiversity, and promotes its use by a wide variety of audiences, supporting in a timely and efficient way the integrated management of biodiversity.

It is a reality thanks to the participation of hundreds of organizations and individuals who share data and information under the principles of open access, transparency, cooperation, recognition and shared responsibility. It promotes the active participation of government, academia, the productive sector and civil society to achieve the consolidation of reliable and timely information that supports decision-making at the national and international levels.

SiB Colombia was established in early 2000 with the coordination of Humboldt Institute to facilitate free and open access to biodiversity data. It comprises a network of more than one hundred organizations (including universities, biological collections, research institutes, environmental authorities and NGOs, citizen science initiatives among others) that work together to ensure that biodiversity data is available to support further research, education, policy making and incentive measures for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Regarding its governance, SiB Colombia is an extended network of organizations led by a Directive Committee (CD-SiB) which represents the interests of the partners, which is composed by the National Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Parques Nacionales Naturales and the five research institutes of the National Environmental System: Humboldt Institute, INVEMAR, SINCHI, IIAP and IDEAM. CD-SiB is supported by a Technical Committee (CT-SiB), Ad Hoc Work Groups for specific topics and a Coordinating Team (EC-SiB), which has the functions of a technical secretariat that takes in and implements the recommendations of the CD-SiB.

SiB Colombia is a country node to GBIF (the Global Biodiversity Information Facility) and other initiatives.
https://www.gbif.org/country/CO/participation

How SiB Colombia work?
SiB Colombia is a network of networks, consolidating almost all national biodiversity groups on one platform. In returns, SiB Colombia provides different tools for integration, publishing and consulting biodiversity information like Occurrences, checklists, species profiles and medatada. This model of publication integrates and supports global initiatives like GBIF, as well as DwC (Darwin Core) and GMP (GBIF Metadata Profile) standards to manage data and metadata.

Additional to these instances for integration and publication data, we have some services like Biodiversity in numbers and Capacity building.

SiB Colombia in numbers to the date, which represent about 80% of species of vertebrates and plants reported for Colombia:

Publishers (organizations): 143
Datasets: 1.254
Occurrences: 8.358.049
Checklist: 215

SiB Colombia has great challenges in terms of IT infrastructure, integration of other types of information, data gaps, systematization of biological collections, among others.
(edited on 2020-08-24 17:27 UTC by Mr. Dairo Escobar)
posted on 2020-08-24 17:27 UTC by Mr. Dairo Escobar, Instituto Humboldt
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1721]
Dear all,

The Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS http://www.obis.org) harvests, quality controls and integrates over 3000 databases/datasets and is one of the primary sources of data/information for the CBD/EBSA process. OBIS is a collaborative network of hundreds of data managers and scientists who work together to advance the access, quality and application of marine biodiversity data. OBIS has 31 national, regional and thematic OBIS nodes and is coordinated from the UNESCO/IOC Project office for IODE in Oostende (Belgium) where the central data system is hosted and maintained. OBIS is also the data platform to support the development of biological and ecological Essential Ocean Variables (and Essential Biodiversity Variables) managed under the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) in collaboration with the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON) of GEO BON.
posted on 2020-08-25 07:22 UTC by Ward Appeltans, UNESCO IOC
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1722]
Dear all,
I recommend reading this open-access article: The biodiversity informatics landscape: Elements, connections and opportunities
https://riojournal.com/articles.php?id=14059

Full reference:
Bingham, H.; Doudin, M.; Weatherdon, L.V.; Despot-Belmonte, K.; Wetzel, F.T.; Groom, Q.; Lewis, E.; Regan, E.; Appeltans, W.; Güntsch, A.; Mergen, M.; Agosti, D.; Penev, L.; Hoffmann, A.; Saarenmaa, H.; Geller, G.; Kim, K.; Kim, H.; Archambeau, A-S.; Haüser, C.; Schmeller, D.S.; Geijzendorffer, I.; García Camacho, A.; Guerra, C.; Robertson, T.; Runnel, V.; Valland, N.; Martin, C.S. (2017). The biodiversity informatics landscape: Elements, connections and opportunities. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e14059. https://hdl.handle.net/10.3897/rio.3.e14059
posted on 2020-08-25 07:25 UTC by Ward Appeltans, UNESCO IOC
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1723]
From Jerry Harrison, UNEP-WCMC

It is important to reflect the fact that specific aspects of knowledge management are already recognised through COP decisions and are being developed and used in the context of the Convention. For example, with respect to area-based conservation measures and the work of UNEP-WCMC the CBD COP has:

a) Invited Parties to provide up-to-date information for the World Database on Protected Areas (decision VII/28, paragraph 32, and other later decisions)
b) Invited Parties to support the voluntary use of the Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas Registry managed by UNEP-WCMC (decision XI/24, paragraph 1e)
c) Invited Parties to provide information on management effectiveness and biodiversity outcomes of protected areas to the Global Database on Protected Areas Management Effectiveness maintained by UNEP-WCMC (decision XIII/2, paragraph 5c)
d) Encouraged Parties to submit data on other effective area-based conservation measures to UNEP-WCMC for inclusion in the World Database on Protected Areas (decision 14/8, paragraph 5b)

In each case the resulting information is being used as a basis for tracking and sharing information on the ways in which Parties are using protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures as tools to support implementation of the Convention. As an organization, we are also using the requests from Parties as a basis for guiding development of the knowledge managent tools and processes, working closely with our partners.

I use these examples as I am familiar with them, and they get the point across. There are many others.
posted on 2020-08-25 08:26 UTC by Mr. Jerry Harrison, Kenya
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1724]
From Diane Klaimi, UNEP

For countries, biodiversity knowledge needs to be centralized in one place to ease finding credible data and facilitate the (re-)use of information for monitoring and reporting to multiple MEAs and SDGs. The most up-to-date source of information when it comes to data and information on biodiversity conservation activities, needs and obstacles where real action is happening, is at the national/local level.

Nevertheless, the parties are challenged by heavy workloads of reporting to many MEAs and coordination with sevral national institutions and experts. Add that, parties have repeatedly requested the international community to make available efficient online systems to facilitate knowledge management, example CBD COP decision 14/25 on knowledge management, CBD COP decision 14/27 on aligning national reporting, assessment and review and CMS CoP resolution 11.10 (Rev. CoP13) on Synergies and Partnerships.

The “Data Reporting Tool for MEAs – DaRT” developed by UNEP, is the answer to those calls and is now ready to be used. DaRT provides private and secure national working spaces for Parties to effectively use synergies in the field of knowledge and information management for national reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. DaRT facilitates collecting, organizing, curating and sharing information across ministries at the national level (https://dart.informea.org/about). Further, DaRT provides an overview on the interlinkages among global and regional strategies (https://dart.informea.org/strategy), as well as an overview of complementary knowledge tools such as CHM/Bioland and Biodiversity Lab (https://dart.informea.org/tools).

DaRT has been developed with financial support from EU and Switzerland.
posted on 2020-08-25 09:18 UTC by Diane Klaimi, UNEP
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1727]
Good day,

This is Candace Amoroso, a Biodiversity Specialist, of the Environmental Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Planning and Development of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

The Trinidad and Tobago Biodiversity Information System (TTBIS) - is a national archive of biodiversity data on Trinidad and Tobago.

The TTBIS manages, stores, searches, retrieves published, and presents data about the country’s biodiversity, their relationships, and their interaction with the environment of Trinidad and Tobago. The site can be accessed via https://ttbis.planning.gov.tt/ttbis/

The TTBIS is managed by the Environmental Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Planning and Development, Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. The EPPD was established in 2002 as part of government’s sustainable development efforts, with a primary mission of  ensuring that there is a balance between Government’s efforts to increase the pace of socio-economic development and the need to ensure conservation of Trinidad and Tobago’s natural resources. This is the heart of sustainable development and is the foundation of the mission, programmes and projects undertaken by the Division.

The Trinidad and Tobago Biodiversity Information System (TTBIS) was produced through the “Improving Forest and Protected Area Management in Trinidad and Tobago” project.
posted on 2020-08-25 16:04 UTC by Ms. Candace Amoroso, Trinidad and Tobago
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1728]
Greetings from the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). Thank you for giving us the opportunities to participate in this discussion forum.

Through the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI) whose secretariat is hosted by UNU-IAS, we have been collecting case studies from IPSI member organizations since 2010 to facilitate sharing of knowledge and experiences related to socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS). IPSI member organizations (e.g., governments, NGOs, private sector, academia, indigenous and local communities) dedicated to working together to realize “societies in harmony with nature” have provided not only good practices for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity but also shared challenges faced, useful methodologies and approaches to solve problems, and unexplored benefits of landscape approaches. So far, we have collected 197 case study reports from those organizations, which are made freely available on the IPSI website in English (https://satoyama-initiative.org/case_study/#start) constituting a continually growing body of knowledge useful to policymakers, practitioners, researchers and interested members of the general public. Knowledge extracted and synthesized from the case studies is expected to contribute to the various international discussions on the relevant issues such as the CBD and its 2050, the SDGs and the IPBES.

In addition to being shared on the IPSI website, IPSI case studies have been used for IPSI’s knowledge-management and synthesis activities including:
• A systematic analysis of the first 80 IPSI case studies, resulting in a report including an overview of their characteristics and lessons learned (https://satoyama-initiative.org/news/brochure-for-ipsi-case-study-review/)
• A publication titled “Contributions of the Satoyama Initiative to mainstreaming sustainable use of biodiversity in production landscapes and seascapes” (https://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:6018#viewAttachments)
• A publication series, the “Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review” (https://satoyama-initiative.org/featured_activities/sitr/)
posted on 2020-08-26 04:31 UTC by Dr Maiko Nishi, UNU-IAS
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1729]
This is Sheila Vergara of ACB, responding to: (i) The current status and trends regarding the generation, collection, curation, exchange and/or utilization of biodiversity-related data, information and knowledge;

The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity prepares the ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook series, the publication  is drafted in collaboration with the ASEAN Member States (AMS) –– Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam. The AMS provided key resources for the ABO, including National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Selected experts extend significant support and guidance in its development. The midterm assessment of Aichi Targets implementation in the ASEAN can be found in http://chm.aseanbiodiversity.org/abo2/abo2_web.php
posted on 2020-08-26 04:31 UTC by Ms. Sheila Vergara, Philippines
This is a reply to 1729 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1733]
From Kazuhiko Seriu, UNEP Law Division

As already depicted by colleagues in the earlier points, there are multiple sources of information available provided by various organizations. A big challenge at the national level is to find the information, to navigate through the different portals so as to retrieve relevant data. The “Three compendia of guidance related to the biodiversity conventions developed by UNEP-WCMC are a welcomed support.

There is wide recognition of the need to enhance cooperation and create opportunities for synergies in implementing the biodiversity-related conventions at the national level, in order to achieve more coherent, efficient and effective implementation. This has been the subject of a number of decisions taken by Parties in the governance bodies of each of the biodiversity-related conventions. Particularly, the “road map for enhancing synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions at the international level 2017-2020” , which was adopted as Annex II to CBD COP decision XIII/24, has called for analyzing gaps and duplications of existing tools and approaches on synergies in terms of policy coherence as well as information and knowledge management. As such, the three Compendia of Guidance related to the biodiversity conventions summarize existing guidance and provide an assessment of their effectiveness.

The compendia comprise of:
a. Compendium of guidance on synergies among biodiversity-related conventions at the national level;
b. Compendium of guidance for capturing, managing and using data and information; and
c. Compendium of guidance on key global databases related to biodiversity-related conventions.

The compendia are available in all 6 UN languages. For details, please visit the website: https://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/biodiversitysynergies
posted on 2020-08-26 07:27 UTC by Kazuhiko Seriu, United Nations Environment Programme
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1734]
Dear Colleagues,

I view issues of knowledge management as important and examples can be drawn the activities under the Article 20 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that gives effect to the establishment of the clearing house mechanism. As a Biosafety Regulator information under the national BCH has been useful to inform decision making process and providing guidance on the implementation of the National Biosafety Framework at a national level.

I clearly support the notion of considering the elements of the knowledge management component under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework however there is a need to acknowledge local and indigenous knowledge, innovation and practices as an integral part of the framework in order to have a positive outcomes. This is also in line with the fact that the development and implementation of the GBF is an inclusive process that involve all the roles players. In order to ensure that biodiversity valued therefore the “Trends in documentation and use of traditional knowledge needs to in cooperate “cultural practices” in order to give effect to the full implementation of Article 10 paragraph c which states that Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate “Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements”;

Overview of the SA current biodiversity information management

The National Environment Management Biodiversity Act of South Africa give effect to the establishment of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) which contributes to South Africa’s sustainable development by facilitating access to biodiversity data, generating information and knowledge, building capacity, providing policy advice, showcasing and conserving biodiversity in its national botanical and zoological gardens. Some of the information databases housed in SA are summarised as bellow:

•Animal of the Week List: A listing of all the featured SANBI Animals of the Week;
•Biodiversity Advisor: Helps people to find biodiversity information from other SANBI websites;
•PlantZAfrica: SANBI website providing information on popular southern African plants and related topics;
•SIBIS: Provides access to all SANBI scientific databases: over 1.6 million occurrence records and taxonomic details for over 22 000 species. This database has not been updated recently;
•Invasive Alien Plant Alert: A list of plants features in the Invasive Alien Plant Alert series together with a list of invasive alien Species;
•iNaturalist: Your gateway to sharing and identifying southern African biodiversity;
•Red List of South Africa plants: Online version of SANBI’s Red List of South African plants;
•BGIS (Biodiversity GIS): The main SANBI resource for GIS with interactive mapping, biodiversity data, training and legislation;
•Vegetation Map of South Africa: An interactive map showing vegetation types of South Africa. Use Internet Explorer to access it;
•POSA: Plants of southern Africa: an online checklist provides access to plant names and floristic details for southern African plant species;
•SABIF: This website contains data of species in southern Africa, gathered by SANBI and partner organisations;
•DEAT Environmental Indicators: This is the database that stores the SA indicators for biodiversity reporting purposes;
•Land Degradation Report: National Review of Land Degradation in South Africa;
•Collection Permits: How to obtain legal permits to collect South Africa’ natural genetic material;
•SANBI Biodiversity Research Tools: Describes tools for GIS and other uses, how they can be used, and how to access them; and
•Species Status Database: This is the databases that stores all the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) listed species.

Kind regards,
Ntakadzeni Tshidada, South Africa
posted on 2020-08-26 10:59 UTC by Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada, South Africa
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1736]
Bonjour à toutes et à tous,

Les principales sources de données sur la biodiversité au Maroc sont :
http://www.inrh.ma/fr/publications : toutes les données sur la biodiversité marine ;
http://www.israbat.ac.ma/ : toutes les publications scientifiques essentiellement axées sur des thèmes de recherche fondamentale concernant la plupart des domaines des sciences de la Nature ;
http://webagris.inra.org.ma:120/agris/ : c’est une base de données documentaires des publications de l’NRA sur la biodiversité agricole ;
http://www.eauxetforets.gov.ma/Pages/Publications.aspx : Concerne la publication de la biodiversité forestière ;
http://ma.chm-cbd.net/ :  met en exergue les richesses et les efforts déployés dans le domaine de la biodiversité et l'état de la mise en œuvre de la CDB l’échelle nationale et capitalise le travail considérable fourni par les différents départements et experts indépendants qui ont élaboré des études exhaustives à l'échelle nationale sur la biodiversité qui souvent demeurent inaccessible.
En revanche beaucoup d’informations développées par les chercheurs au niveau des universités restent inaccessible vu le manque d’une structure et une plateforme au niveau du département ministériel chargé de la recherche.
Cela demande à chaque fois qu’on entame une étude ou une évaluation le recrutement des consultants pour rassembler les données.
Afin de palier de ce problème, il serait nécessaire de mettre n place des textes de lois et des instruments juridiques qui permettent de rassembler les données et faire des évaluations périodiques de l’état de la biodiversité à l’échelle nationale.
posted on 2020-08-26 15:20 UTC by Mr. Mostafa Madbouhi, Morocco
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1739]
Mike Gill, NatureServe and GEO BON.  One of the key sources of information for supporting the Convention and the tracking of targets are the indicators from the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership.  These indicators have been served via the BIP Dashboard to support national reporting.  Further efforts are underway to develop a global target tracker and to also produce national and regional Dashboards to facilitate flexible access to the most recent data and indicators that can facilitate target tracking at these scales.  Given the significant temporal, spatial and taxonomic gaps, we must also carefully consider not only the needed indicators but also establish support for continued and expanded biodiversity observation data production.  The current systems for the production of such data struggle to sustain themselves limiting the potential and comprehensiveness of the indicators that rely on these data sources.
posted on 2020-08-26 22:55 UTC by Mike Gill, NatureServe
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1741]
Swedish Species Observation System (In Swedish “Artportalen”)
https://www.artportalen.se/
It is a website for observations of Swedens plants, animals and fungi. Anybody can report the species they have seen and search from over 53 milliion* finds. Private individuals as well as professionals such as conservation officers and researchers have contributed.
“Artportalen” is an essential tool for professional, as well as NGO conservation activities and is a unique source of knowledge that is already delivering targeted conservation results and which will help see trends for the prevention of environmental and climate problems.
Artportalen is developed and operated by SLU Swedish Species Information Centre at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, on behalf of Swedish Environmental Protection Agency .
The general public, voluntary organisations and professionals are in a unique collaboration to improve environmental management. Reporters are found throughout the country and consist largely of nature lovers and associated volunteers but also professional conservation officials, researchers and other workers who collect find data. Together they gather the basic data for Artportalen. Through their efforts a unique, and for Swedish environmental management, a very important, knowledge bank of our flora and fauna.
The reporting system helps to stimulate increased interest towards species, and often increases the user's species knowledge, which in turn can lead to increased interest in, and understanding of, conservation and species protection. By making it a pleasure to share one's observations, we hope that more people make a trip into the countryside to search for, to find, and to report their sightings to Artportalen - and thus contribute to better nature conservation.
Artportalen is an open system for searches and recording of sightings. This means that the sightings reported by the users are intended for common use. Once a sighting is recorded, it instantly becomes fully visible to all other users. The intention behind this is to stimulate the interest in plants, fungi and animals among the general public and increase the public understanding of conservation measures, while at the same time rendering the conservation efforts more efficient.
Cecilia Lindblad, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
posted on 2020-08-27 10:35 UTC by cecilia lindblad, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1747]
Han de Koeijer, scientific assistant at RBINS

In Belgium and the EU there are many sources of information available on national and sub national biodiversity.
Before, in Belgium and elsewhere scientific institutes and Universities used to have the monopoly on collecting, curation and use of biodiversity data. Due to policy choices there are now less and less scientists in the scientific institutions working on topics related to biodiversity. Nowadays information on species and other biodiversity information is being updated on a regular basis, not only by scientific institutes but also by citizen scientists. They are working together in species groups under sub-regional nature conservation organisations like Natuurpunt (https://www.natuurpunt.be/) and Natagora (https://www.natagora.be/) and species specific NGOs like the bird ringing society. These and also other citizen scientists use smartphone-based applications like obsmapp and obsidentify to bring data on occurrences of species together in https://observations.be/. The generation of information is encouraged through the organisation of regular species observation days for the wider public, like “counting birds in your garden weekend”, “Butterfly observation weekends” in summer etcetera.
The information isn’t only used in Belgium to make species reports, management reports for nature conservation areas and policy briefs, but it is also shared with the global community through GBIF, UNEP-WCMC and other sources as Jerry Henderson [#1723] mentioned. Belgium has been working on the TCT tool before that is now being succeeded by the DART project as mentioned by Eric Wiedmer [#1725]. This tool assisted us in preparing the Sixth national report in a short time span together with the information available in the following organisations and sites.
Through the reporting obligations towards the EU environmental legislation, Belgium is among others part of the European EIONET network (https://www.eionet.europa.eu/)and shares its environmental and biodiversity data. For biodiversity information on the national and international level, The Belgian Clearing House Mechanism (http://www.biodiv.be) is sharing information on policy information, technical and scientific cooperation related to the implementation of the Convention. It works together on the EU level with the European CHM BISE (https://biodiversity.europa.eu/). Flanders (https://omgeving.vlaanderen.be/energie-klimaat-en-milieu/biodiversiteit and https://www.inbo.be/) and the Walloon region (http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/fr/accueil.html?IDC=6) have their own websites on biodiversity indicators and nature and biodiversity reports and information. The Belgian biodiversity platform (http://www.biodiversity.be/) is working on the science-policy interphase of the scientific knowledge related to biodiversity.

This is only a small overview of information, data and knowledge management in Belgium. There are still gaps, mainly to link all the available information and ensure that it is up to date. Policy makers should make use of this information when making decisions. Which is not always the case as only last week a Ministry wanted to convert a unique nature conservation area into a business park according to the national media…….
(edited on 2020-08-27 13:45 UTC by Ir. Abraham (Han) de KOEIJER)
posted on 2020-08-27 13:44 UTC by Ir. Abraham (Han) de KOEIJER, Belgium
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape and the nature of their contribution [#1749]
To thoroughly respond to issues i)-viii) really is a huge undertaking that cannot be accomplished individually nor - likely- even by simply compiling individual answers. One general remark however, would be that the coordination of biodiversity knowledge is - to say the least - highly unsatisfactory but that several initiatives exist that have at least addressed similar topics. I suggest that at this level the fledgeling global "Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge" (https://www.biodiversityinformatics.org/) is taken into consideration.
At the national level many countries now have coordinated infrastructures for biodiversity data and knowledge. From my perspective, based upon international collaboration with numerous initiatives of all ´brands´ using highly up-to-date, collaboratively developed software technology (see the Living Atlases Community (https://living-atlases.gbif.org/), a new Swedish Biodiversity Data Infrastructure (SBDI), comprising all major data and data services providers in our country will come into existence by 2021. Focus in the coming period will be on harvesting, presenting and analyzing traditional species occurrence data from natural history collections (specimens and related sequence-data) and observations reported into several portals, some of which represent monitoring schemes and others citizen-science projects. SBDI will in addition present sequence-based information (bar-coding, meta-barcoding), and tracking and sensor biodiversity data - all of this mediated through GBIF-Sweden.
(edited on 2020-08-27 15:43 UTC by Sandra Meehan)
posted on 2020-08-27 14:15 UTC by Anders Telenius, Swedish Museum of Natural History
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1750]
In Zambia there are many sources of  information available on biodiversity issues from government institutions, civil society organizations, non governmental organizations, academic institutions and individuals especially those who are doing research! This information is readily available and is shared among different stakeholders and a number of institutions have databases for the management of this information!There are numerous sources of existing and potential biodiversity data and information. Many such sources are linked to specific projects, such as academic research, environmental impact assessments of development initiatives, general land resources assessments, and reports of conservation initiatives.

Much of the data and information on biodiversity in Zambia is at species level and, to a limited extent, on ecosystems. Natural ecosystems classification in Zambia is based on vegetation types!

I hope the new framework can take into consideration provisions for securing and traditional and indigenous knowledge. There is a growing international recognition that Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) can be a useful source of information to complement modern scientific knowledge (MSK) in the management of natural resources.
posted on 2020-08-27 14:40 UTC by Ms. Mwangala Simate, Zambia
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1753]
Greetings from the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission.

Realising the huge challenge in accessing biodiversity information to support its policies, the European Commission has announced it will launch this year its new Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity. This Centre will help streamline biodiversity into all EU policies and support the monitoring of new EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.

Still in the planning, the Knowledge Centre will be articulated mainly around two primary sources of information: the European Environmental Agency and the Joint Research Centre. The Research and Innovation programme of the EC will also be key to support the production of information.

So far, the EC has been indeed using mainly two sources of information:

1) EU data provided by the EU Members States to the European Environmental Agency (EEA) that are further translated into an information that is made available via EEA's Biodiversity Information System for Europe (https://biodiversity.europa.eu/);

2) information generated by JRC's Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA, https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) using data provided by third parties such as the World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC) or the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, to name only a few, but also products generated by the JRC itself that are mainly derived from earth observations. The DOPA is also regularly used by the CBD Secretariat to assess progress of Aichi Target 11 .

The cooperation and development programmes of the EU has also been supporting over the years the local and regional development of biodiversity programmes that are including a strong knowledge management component. This is the case for example of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management (BIOPAMA) Programme running in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (https://www.biopama.org/)

Two issues are essential regarding biodiversity data used by policy makers

1) data need to be freely accessible and models transparent. We need to be in a position where anyone can replicate a study and challenge decisions.

2) to ensure maximum benefits for everyone regarding the use of biodiversity data, adopting the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship is essential. Data produced/collected must be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.

The landscape of information systems is changing fast and new platforms appear every day. Moreover, the transversal nature of biodiversity makes almost all kinds of data relevant to biodiversity policies, from trade agreements to indigenous knowledge, from pesticides to wildlife crime, from DNA sequences to earth observations,  to name only a few... 

It is therefore urgent to bring together the main actors dealing with global data to develop a regularly updated one stop shop for global biodiversity to support the CBD and IPBES and help assess and monitor policies on biodiversity. Such platform would greatly help standardise key indicators, reduce overall costs of maintaining multiple systems, strengthen coordination, and help identify knowledge gaps.

Last but not least, a well designed system could be replicated at multiple scales and therefore help validate information through better communication and exchanges.

Best,

Gregoire Dubois
European Commission - Joint Research Cente
Project Leader for Global Conservation and Development
(edited on 2020-08-28 12:19 UTC by Mr Gregoire Dubois)
posted on 2020-08-27 16:17 UTC by Mr Gregoire Dubois, Joint Research Centre
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1754]
A todos un saludo,
Desde Colombia y del Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales -IDEAM se relaciona la información que se tiene identificada como parte de los procesos de caracterización que se llevan a cabo.
MONITOREO DE BOSQUES Y RECURSOS FORESTALES
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/bosques-recurso-forestal
Sistema Nacional de Información Forestal (SNIF)
http://snif.ideam.gov.co/ideam-snif-web/
Inventario Forestal Nacional
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/inventario-forestal-nacional
MONITOREO DE SUELOS Y COBERTURAS DE LA TIERRA
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/suelos-tierras
MONITOREO DE ECOSISTEMAS
Glaciares
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/glaciares
http://glaciares.ideam.gov.co/contenido-rogc
Sistema de Monitoreo de Bosques y Carbono (SMBYC)
http://smbyc.ideam.gov.co/MonitoreoBC-WEB/reg/indexLogOn.jsp
Ecosistemas Continentales, Costeros y Marinos
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/mapa-ecosistemas-continentales-costeros-marinos
Batería de Indicadores del IDEAM
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/consulte-los-indicadores-ambientales
SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN AMBIENTAL DE COLOMBIA (SIAC)
http://www.siac.gov.co/
SISTEMA DE INFORMACION HIDRICO
http://www.ideam.gov.co/web/siac/sirh
Sistema de Monitoreo Territorial de la Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia - ONIC: https://monitoreoterritorial-onic.co/
posted on 2020-08-27 20:39 UTC by MAGDA SIERRA, IDEAM
This is a reply to 1754 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1760]
Hello everyone, I am Tim Hirsch, Deputy Director at the Secretariat of GBIF - the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org/). For those who are not aware, GBIF is an intergovernmental collaboration to promote and facilitate free and open access to primary biodiversity data - that is, evidence of the occurrence of species in space and time, from whatever source. This evidence may be from digitized specimens in natural history collections, species surveys and censuses, environmental impact assessments, citizen science observations, biodiversity literature or (increasingly) occurrence data derived from DNA sampling of the environment (eDNA). Through our network of national nodes we enable the development of skills and best practices to compile, manage, share and use such data in research and policy applications, using common informatics standards that enable diverse datasets to be easily integrated and searched.

Looking at the contributions to this string, it is clear that many national initiatives on biodiversity data and knowledge management are able to use GBIF as a means of standardizing information and connecting to a global network. For those establishing national biodiversity information systems our key message would be: you are not alone! Joining a global network can bring you in contact with a very collaborative community of practice, able and willing to share skills and information, as well as freely-available tools, so you are not 're-inventing the wheel.' Our collaboration with the CBD, UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and other partners,  ensures that we are able to offer advice and training on how primary data may be applied to information products directly relevant to biodiversity policy.

One reason I am late to this discussion (sorry) is that we are just starting to process more than 200 concept notes submitted from sub-Saharan Africa through the Biodiversity Information for Development (BID) programme, aimed at building capacity for mobilization and use of biodiversity data for sustainable development https://www.gbif.org/bid. With funding from the European Union, we are just now entering a second phase of this programme, with new calls due shortly for the Caribbean and Pacific regions. While we will unfortunately not be able to fund all of the projects proposed, it is very rewarding to see the wealth of ideas from institutions across the whole of sub-Saharan Africa for bringing into active use data currently isolated or locked up in national or local collections and institutional databases, survey records, NGO and citizen science initiatives, among many others. We have similar responses in calls we have issued in other regions, including for the Biodiversity Information Fund for Asia (BIFA), supported by the Ministry of Environment, Government of Japan. It demonstrates the hunger for capacity and funding support for opening up and sharing data on biodiversity - and the importance of ensuring that these needs are met in support of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
(edited on 2020-08-28 07:19 UTC by Tim Hirsch)
posted on 2020-08-28 07:14 UTC by Tim Hirsch, Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Secretariat
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1765]
RAKOTOARIDERA Rantonirina

Bonjour a tous
Ci après le  paysage actuel de la gestion de l'information et des connaissances sur la biodiversité de notre pays :
-Les rapports nationaux dans lesquels sont consignées les informations récentes sur l’évolution de la gestion de la biodiversité de Madagascar
-http://mg.chm-cbd.net/: C'est un portail qui présente les informations relatives à la mise en œuvre de la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique à Madagascar. Par ailleurs, il vise à promouvoir les échanges d'informations sur la biodiversité malagasy et la coopération scientifique et technique. On peut y trouver différentes informations, entre autres : les notifications, les documents nationaux disponibles, les monographies, les acteurs pour la mise en œuvre de la convention, des actualités…
-https://arsie.mg/metadata: C’est un site de metadata de documents sur la biodiversité et les recherches
-http://www.environnement.mg : Site du Ministere en charge de l’Environnement et du Developpement durable
-https://www.rebioma.org/ Réseau de la biodiversité de Madagascar
Rebioma Webportal, un portail dynamique de référence pour les chercheurs du monde entier  qui s’intéressent à la Biodiversité de Madagascar.
Un portail dynamique dans le sens où on peut trouver :
• des données d’observations,
• des modèles de distributions des espèces,
• des documents,
• des actualités,
• des photos sur la Biodiversité de Madagascar.
-Les différentes institutions œuvrant dans le domaine de la biodiversité sont aussi détenteurs d’informations
-Les universités disposent également des documents de recherche menées par les étudiants
Tous les portails de partage et d’échange d’informations sont riches mais on peut dire que les informations qui s’y trouvent sont insuffisantes ou parfois nécessitent des mises à jour pour différentes raisons, entre autres :
-Toutes les informations utiles ne sont pas fournies par les différents acteurs qui les détiennent
-le manque de moyens pour la conduite de la mise à jour même si on connait très bien les lacunes à combler
-le mécanisme de collecte d’informations mérite encore d’être amélioré.

En outre, si le cadre post 2020 se veut être un cadre fédérateur, nous proposons que les success story relatifs a la mise en œuvre des mainstreaming dans différents domaines ainsi que les informations afférentes  a la conduite des thématiques émergents méritent d’être partages dans le système de gestion de connaissances pour permettre aux autres pays non inities de s’y inspirer. Par ailleurs, les informations relatives à l’accès aux différents fonds disponibles pour la mise en œuvre du cadre devraient également être partages
posted on 2020-08-28 14:20 UTC by MRS Rantonirina RAKOTOARIDERA, Madagascar
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1766]
Dear colleagues, I am Trevor Sandwith, Director of IUCN's Global Protected and Conserved Area Programme based in Switzerland. In this brief response, I would like to provide information on the PANORAMA: Solutions for a Healthy Planet Partnership. This involves IUCN, GIZ, UN Environment, UNDP, Grid-Arendal, IFOAM Organics International  and Rare in a partnership to document and promote examples of inspiring, replicable solutions across a range of conservation and sustainable development topics, enabling cross-sectoral learning and inspiration. Current resources and further information can be found on this website:
http://www.panorama.solutions

PANORAMA allows practitioners to share and reflect on their experiences, increase recognition for successful work, and to learn with their peers how similar challenges have been addressed around the globe.   Different thematic disciplines and communities contribute to PANORAMA. On the web platform, these communities are represented through portals. As PANORAMA has evolved, further themes and new partners are added to the portfolio and partnership.

PANORAMA includes an online platform for learning and knowledge exchange within an overall framework that facilitates knowledge generation, documentation, shared learning, assimilation and adaptation.  Case studies are documented as solutions using a standard format that identifies replicable "building blocks" (key success factors) and the context in which the solutions were implemented. Solutions are shared on the online platform and through publications. They are also integrated into capacity development activities and workshops. This methodology for learning and innovation is applicable across topics, sectors, and audiences. The approach has been termed “the Solution-ing Approach” designed to match knowledge providers with knowledge seekers, but also to better understand and analyse the process whereby knowledge is assimilated and scaled.

Solutions are specific, applied examples of successful processes or approaches. They can be entire projects or only aspects of a project, and typically encompass several steps or phases of activities. Solutions, while context-specific, are not seen as fixed proof-points, but as toolboxes that can be leveraged and inspire learning across geographies and themes.

The Solutions contained in PANORAMA respond to challenges to sustainable development and human wellbeing and contribute to maintaining or improving the health of biodiversity and ecosystems, helping to achieve the Aichi Targets of the of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and several Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. They are well organised and accessible to be applied directly to the implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Solutions are designed to be effective and have been implemented with a demonstrated positive impact for nature conservation and/or sustainable development. Finally, they consist of elements that can potentially be replicated or scaled up in other geographic, social or sectorial contexts.  Solution providers include currently over 500 institutions and individuals who have shared their experiences, challenges, lessons learned and success factors. Solution providers represent NGOs, government institutions, academia, international organisations, foundations and the private sector, for cross-sectoral, inter-regional learning and knowledge exchange.

PANORAMA is a useful initiative that aligns very closely with the draft Knowledge Management Component of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.  It responds to all four of the strategies outlined:
(a) Promoting knowledge generation (and particularly from practice);
(b) Facilitating knowledge discovery and collection (through solution providers, curated and peer-reviewed case studies);
(c) Enhancing knowledge organization and sharing in a systematic online, searchable database; and
(d) Promoting the effective use/application of knowledge through communities of practice.
posted on 2020-08-28 15:35 UTC by Mr. Trevor Sandwith, IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1767]
The Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO MBON/GEO BON)

(i) The current status and trends regarding the generation, collection, curation, exchange and/or utilization of biodiversity-related data, information and knowledge;
Marine ecosystems have numerous benefits for society that depend on a rich biodiversity of life in the sea. Yet the geographic density and temporal coverage of biodiversity observations in coastal, open, and deep ocean areas around the world are not sufficient to monitor changes in the diversity, abundance, and geographic range of marine species. These observations are needed for CBD parties to track marine biodiversity indicators and generate national assessments in the context of regional change. A coordinated international community of practice is being organized by the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON) to share best practices on biodiversity observation, to promote the DarwinCore data formatting standard, and to share observations using FAIR practices through the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS of UNESCO’s IOC). MBON is also collaborating and coordinating with numerous partners to increase the capacity of ocean monitoring and of the application of biodiversity data for sustainable development and conservation by integrating biological observing infrastructure with physical and biogeochemical observations.

(ii) The current major sources of biodiversity data and information;
(iii) The main biodiversity data, information and knowledge gaps;
The points (ii) and (iii) are answered in the presented attachment.

(iv) The strengths and weaknesses of existing information and knowledge management systems (including the legal and policy environment, the institutional arrangements, infrastructure, and technologies); and
Governments and researchers worldwide have recognized the need for information to evaluate, respond and adapt to changes in marine biodiversity to address national plans and several international treaties including the CBD, the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 14 on oceans and several others), the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and Ramsar Convention on wetlands. SDG 14 provides 10 Targets, 6 of which are tied to biodiversity and ecosystems. Despite this recognition of its importance, sampling of marine biodiversity has been largely neglected in regular ocean observing programs due to the complexity of its measurement. Also, there is a need for combining remote sensing with in situ verification. There is a temptation to believe that improving satellite resolution will provide sufficient information on coastal and marine ecosystems, but this is not the case and is unlikely to be case any time soon. In situ observation is required to ground truth satellite observations including regional testing of conversion algorithms, extrapolation below the surface layer of the ocean, and detail on species composition and condition in the coastal margins. Notwithstanding, most of the available data is fragmented and not readily accessible, thus promoting the interoperability and harmonization of data, promotion of standards for data quality, its ease of access and utilization are of utmost importance. A major limitation is the lack of investments in establishing and integrating biological ocean observing systems at the national level for most countries.
The marine sciences community is networked to increase the use of best practices and to share data through the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON) and several other organizations (GOOS, OBIS, Ocean Best Practices System, etc.). It defines marine Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) and Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) jointly with the GOOS Bio-Eco panel, and promotes best practices in data collection and management, including the development of standards that aid interoperability and data integration, and publication of data through OBIS.

(v) Opportunities and challenges for biodiversity knowledge management;
One of the utmost challenges of biodiversity knowledge management is the availability of quality biodiversity data. Promoting best practices, access to technological resources, interoperable approaches for data publication and access, promote capacity building, and sharing of knowledge are key aspects to consider for an effective biodiversity knowledge management. Is of utmost importance that responsible institutions strengthen collaborations and work together to avoid effort duplication and facilitate access to biodiversity data and knowledge required to support effective decision making, in the context of limited funding for biodiversity conservation. In particular, the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration offer important opportunities for substantive contributions.

(vi) The main actors and their roles; and
MBON, GOOS BioEco, and OBIS can be identified as core partner actors for knowledge management on ocean biodiversity (indicators).
The Marine Biodiversity Observation Network, established within the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON ), is a community of practice for the collection, curation, analysis, and communication of marine biodiversity data, that strengthens understanding of marine biodiversity and coordinates monitoring of associated changes over time through scientific observations, thereby facilitating ecosystem conservation, sustainability, and good management practices. MBON links existing national and international research and monitoring efforts to promote the operational collection of biodiversity observations. This requires coordination and collaboration between countries, organizations, and individuals involved in the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, and many other organizations. MBON establishes membership and opportunities to develop international and thematic marine observation networks. A marine component to the Asia-Pacific BON has begun, called AP MBON, and MBON has initiated the development of an America’s Pole to Pole BON (P2P). Additionally, MBON is engaged with the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) which aims to become a coral reef MBON and with marineGEO, and options for the development of a European MBON, and perhaps also a MBON Pole to Pole including Europe and Africa, are being explored. A key role of MBON is to foster standardized minimum metrics of marine biodiversity as part of the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) of GEO BON and Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) proposed by the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). MBON works with GOOS to develop a common framework for biodiversity and biological EOVs. The GOOS Bio-Eco panel has identified EOVs for ocean biology based on a Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response process that considered the societal and scientific requirements of national programs, international treaties, and the scientific community. MBON facilitates the development of a common framework for EBV and EOV, informing GOOS on the integration of marine biodiversity observations within environmental variables. Working within this framework facilitates the adoption of the biodiversity EOVs in existing international ocean observing systems and regional alliances that constitute GOOS. Also, MBON emphasizes objective knowledge of changes in marine life and ecology and promotes the integration of regional datasets through systems such as the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS). Thus, MBON recognizes OBIS as the lead implementation mechanism of standards for data management and publication that enable integration and analysis of marine biodiversity data. MBON welcomes other groups interested in adopting the DarwinCore standards and interoperable approaches for data curation, archival, and distribution.

(viii) The experiences, best practices, and lessons learned.
The MBON Pole to Pole effort - “Laying the foundations of the Pole-to-Pole Marine Biodiversity Observation Network of the Americas” is developing a Community of Practice across the Americas to assess marine biodiversity and ecosystem change using field and space observations.
The Pole-to-Pole (P2P) MBON supports groups in the American continent and small island developing states to: develop and document best practices associated with marine biodiversity observations, including methods for data collection and data management, while allowing flexibility to ensure national needs are addressed; enhance coordination of data collection within and between nations; integrate biodiversity data collection with physical and biogeochemical observations; and evaluate status and trends of marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Changes in marine biodiversity are being documented in these regions but effective decision-making requires a detailed understanding of these changes. Similar efforts are needed in other places around the world.

Thank you.
posted on 2020-08-28 15:42 UTC by Dr. Joana Soares, AIR Centre
This is a reply to 1707 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1768]
From Suzanne Davis, National Focal Point for Jamaica Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) and Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)

The Jamaica CHM department at the Natural History Museum of Jamaica, Institute of Jamaica operates as a national biodiversity information network for the island of Jamaica (see http://www.jamaicachm.org.jm ). In summary, the Jamaican context is that of a natural-resource-based economy with useful biodiversity data, information and knowledge scattered across different sectors (e.g. natural resources, agriculture, health, culture), institutions and geographic locations.

Species lists and a national ecological gap assessment report, survey reports, scientific, technical and public education publications, online databases (e.g. http://cidebox.com/jamaicainvasives/www/ ), maps and images are the biodiversty data and information made available through the Jamaica CHM. Capacity-building for data and information management for our major target audiences and users (i.e. policy and decision-makers, academics, natural resource managers and civil society) is an important part of the landscape and the CHM's work. Collaborative project development and implementation, and technology training are the usual capacity-building avenues.

There has been some gradual progress over the years for Jamaica in engaging with more academic and resource manager stakeholders, both local and overseas, in data and information sharing. However, knowledge management is not a part of routine operations for many stakeholders, even where there is interest.  A culture of information sharing is still being built and is not yet the norm. Other challenges include inequitable access to needed technologies that are often expensive for developing countries, and changing traditional approaches to work flows to incorporate knowledge management.
posted on 2020-08-28 16:00 UTC by Dr. Suzanne Davis, Jamaica
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1769]
Dear colleagues, I am Trevor Sandwith, Director of IUCN's Global Protected and Conserved Area Programme based in Switzerland. In this response regarding the current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management, I would like to briefly detail the work of the BIOPAMA Initiative. http://www.biopama.org

The Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Programme (BIOPAMA) aims to improve the long-term conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, in protected and conserved areas and surrounding communities. It is an initiative of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States financed by the European Union’s 11th European Development Fund (EDF), jointly implemented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).

At the heart of the initiative are two major investments, firstly in the establishment of five regional observatories with associated Regional Reference Information Systems, and secondly through a programme of investment in specific actions to enhance the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas by responding to diagnostic assessments/needs.

(i) The Regional Observatories and Regional Reference Information Systems

The Regional Observatories for Protected Areas and Biodiversity are the central pillar of BIOPAMA’s work. They support data collection, analysis, monitoring and reporting, develop the capacities of staff and organisations to manage this information and provide policy guidance for better decision making on biodiversity conservation.

Mandated by well-established regional institutions, five Regional Observatories have been established. These key regional partners include: the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), the University of the West Indies (UWI-CERMES) in the Caribbean, the East African Community (EAC) Secretariat, the Observatory for Central African Forests (COMIFAC-OFAC), the West African Marine Protected Areas Network (RAMPAO) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU).

BIOPAMA engages primarily with national and regional level agencies and institutions, with additional targeted interaction with protected area managers.

The Reference Information Systems (RRIS) are a key feature of each Observatory.  The RRIS is a tool that gathers in one place the information from the many knowledge products, projects, databases on protected areas, species and related information, in addition to the data uploaded, created and generated by the users themselves.  The Joint Research Centre is responsible for the development of these tools, uploaded with the information collected through the functions of the Observatories.

The provision of data, information and guidance can enhance the protected area decision-making and planning at regional, national and site levels. The Regional Observatories provide these services that allow planners and decision makers to access the most updated and comprehensive information on protected areas and natural resources management using the Reference Information Systems. The production of periodic status reports on biodiversity and other policy support materials, as well as the networking function of the Observatories benefit conservation planners and decision makers.

The Global Reference Information System and the Regional Reference Information Systems can be accessed at this link:
https://www.biopama.org/what-we-offer#tools

(ii) The BIOPAMA ACTION COMPONENT
BIOPAMA is also investing in the enhancement of the governance and management of protected and conserved areas in the ACP regions through a grant mechanism.

More information about the Action Component can be found at this link:
https://action.biopama.org/

Still in the early days of implementation, and in relation to the Knowledge Component of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, the Action Component includes the facility for capitalization of the lessons learned from the implementation of grants, and for knowledge to be assembled into the Regional Reference Information Systems referred to above. In addition, case studies are able to be captured into the PANORAMA: Solutions for a Healthy Planet knowledge generation and sharing mechanism.
http://www.panorama.solutions.
posted on 2020-08-28 16:26 UTC by Mr. Trevor Sandwith, IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1774]
From Dr Brian MacSharry European Environment Agency
Hello everyone,  there is some great discussion going on here, please find my observations. which compliment much of what has been said!
(i) The current status and trends regarding the generation, collection, curation, exchange and/or utilization of biodiversity-related data, information and knowledge;
The EEA and EU work with European work with countries to collect data under a series of voluntary and obligated reporting flows using approved data standards. The development of these data standards is done in conjunction with these countries. We collect data on a regular basis (from yearly to every 6 years basis) and this is stored in a centralised system (the central data repository [CDR] where countries submit their data. We run a series of quality checks on the data and report these back to the countries to ensure they can resolve any technical issues.

A crucial next step is that we use the submitted data to generate knowledge and information on biodiversity in Europe. We do this by preparing a series of analysis, indicators, briefings, and reports.  As with the reporting cycle of the data some of these products are updated annually others are updated/published every several years.

In order to ensure that the variety of biodiversity data being collected and the various products derived from them are not isolate products we integrate them into the Biodiversity information system for Europe.  The Biodiversity information system for Europe is the single-entry point for data on information on biodiversity in Europe, with a focus on supporting the implementation of EU and Global biodiversity policies in Europe. On this platform we bring together the separate biodiversity data on protected areas, species, habitats, ecosystems, green infrastructure as well as the indicators, briefings and reports to make them more available. The aim of the platform is to provide knowledge and information to policy makers and the general public on biodiversity. Note the platform is currently being overhauled and will be relaunched in Oct 2020.

(ii) The current major sources of biodiversity data and information;
The main sources of information are from Countries and from products derived from remote sensing. Data submitted from countries comes via field work, modelling, expert opinion, and surveying. This work covers protected areas (both the geographical aspect as well as the content aspects, i.e. what is within certain protected areas - Natura 2000) as well as reporting on the distribution, populations, trends and conservation status of species and habitats (submitted every 6 years but continually worked on by countries) this work involves thousands of staff involved, 100,000 hours (if not more) of people across European countries. The second main source of data is that generated by the Agency and derived from satellite technology which is often backed up by expert opinion, field work and modelling, this work covers Land use and mapping of ecosystems (a project called Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services - MAES which has a report with a series of related assessments of the condition of these ecosystems). The EU has created the Copernicus programme, which is the EU’s Earth Observation Programme. This is increasingly becoming a source of biodiversity information for countries and at the European level by the Joint Research Centre and the EEA. Copernicus produces 12 Tb of data daily. 

At the Agency in partnership with countries and the Joint Research Centre we use this data to generate knowledge and information applying our skills and experience in biodiversity to add context and interpretation of the data.

(iii) The main biodiversity data, information and knowledge gaps;
• The effectiveness of management of protected areas
• There are still a number of unknowns in terms of the population and status of several habitats and species.
• The impact of threats and pressures on the wider ecosystem
• Coordination between local and regional/global level can be a challenge at times.
• In some countries there is a lack of information on the distribution of species and habitats


(iv) The strengths and weaknesses of existing information and knowledge management systems (including the legal and policy environment, the institutional arrangements, infrastructure and technologies);
Regarding the  Biodiversity information system for Europe and associated work flows
Strengths:
• network, number of people involved leads to collective ownership of the process.
• We engage all the key actors and ensure we are coordinated in our approach
• All data being used is quality controlled
• Collect data on a regular basis
• Build relationships with data providers, policy makers
• We use the data collected, which gives data providers the “why” they should submit data.
• We ensure we use the same data across several products so that there is consistency in messaging on biodiversity
• Consistent methodology for analysis
• It is open and accessible by all (the only limitations to this are where countries expressly ask for restrictions on data use).
• Linked to policy, i.e. there is a reason why we ask what we ask and do what we do. There is a strong policy framework to define what it is we do
Weaknesses:
• The current platform is dated but is being upgraded at the moment with a new version being launched in Oct 2020.This refers to how the system is engineered and how the system looks.

Risk:
• You need to be current in the use of technology
• A system needs to be policy led

(v) Opportunities and challenges for biodiversity knowledge management;
There are several clear opportunities for biodiversity knowledge management over the coming years.
• Remotely sensed data, such as from Copernicus, the EU’s Earth Observation Programme, provide 12 Tb of data, using this can help transform how we collect data. It will also lead to challenges on how to manage such a large amount of data
• Advances in cloud computing will allow for complex analysis to be done virtually instantaneously. The challenge here is in understanding what analysis to do and what policy questions it will answer.
• Artificial intelligence/Machine learning has the potential to automate many tasks currently being done. It can help in quality control of data, understand patterns, read and synthesis written text in different languages. The challenge here is again in aligning this with clear policy needs, everything should link to the “why”?
• In the coming years we will have larger data, quicker analysis, but this leads to issues in terms of storage of this data and we need to always ensure that technical advances are policy led.

(vi) The main actors and their roles; and
• Countries and their agencies, data providers, policy implementors
• NGOs: data users (sometime data providers, collectors), policy advocates
• conservation groups, data users (sometime data providers, collectors), policy advocates
• Researchers: data users (sometime data providers, collectors), policy advocates
• Volunteers: data collectors
• regional and global actors : policy developers, implementors, networking

(viii) The experiences, best practices and lessons learned.
• Engage and give ownership with the relevant actors
• Focus on the key policy questions (and key biodiversity questions)
• Evolve how you collect, manage, analyse data
• Communicate
• Everything you do should answer the “why”

Links:
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators
https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en
(edited on 2020-08-31 07:23 UTC by Dr Brian MacSharry)
posted on 2020-08-31 06:27 UTC by Dr Brian MacSharry, European Environment Agency
This is a reply to 1753 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1775]
Hi Gregoire
well said!
"Two issues are essential regarding biodiversity data used by policy makers

1) data need to be freely accessible and models transparent. We need to be in a position where anyone can replicate a study and challenge decisions.

2) to ensure maximum benefits for everyone regarding the use of biodiversity data, adopting the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship is essential. Data produced/collected must be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.

These are key points, while they can be difficult in some case it is an essential step. By having data open it means everyone can access the same data and replicate any analysis that an organization produces, a hallmark of scientific rigour!
posted on 2020-08-31 09:20 UTC by Dr Brian MacSharry, European Environment Agency
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1776]
A question posed in the online forum related to any perspectives on:
(i) The current status and trends regarding the generation, collection, curation, exchange and/or utilization of biodiversity-related data, information and knowledge;
The whole concept of a knowledge component must of course be led by the question of “knowledge for what purpose”. This is also emphasized in the current Draft Knowledge Component in para 11, where it is emphasized under Processes that there should be “alignment of knowledge management with goals”. This is one of the only places where the knowledge component acknowledges that its scope should be aligned with goals, meaning, we assume the goals of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. It is very difficult to coordinate an effective Knowledge Component if it does not have its purpose very clearly stated. Actions and initiatives to facilitate implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework have to be the lens through which knowledge is generated and applied. Otherwise there can be, as is already evident, a proliferation of efforts to build knowledge systems that can be used for any purpose. This has the effect that the whole of the Knowledge Component will have to focus on coordinating efforts across many knowledge and information systems, rather than on actually generating the kind of knowledge itself that can be utilised to promote implementation.

It is suggested that the designers of this Knowledge Component look very seriously at this question of aligning the Knowledge to its purpose, in this case through a disaggregation of the actual demand for implementation (of any target or goal) in the post-2020 GBF. The initial rationale given in the paper is that knowledge could serve all of the Conventions…. this might be too broad and demanding a task, and push the focus of the effort into brokering agreement and coordinating among many high level organisations and efforts rather than on where knowledge needs to be applied. There should rather be a focus on WHAT knowledge is needed to make a REAL difference at the interface with practice, i.e. at the other end of the scale where the practitioners work. For example, it is not possible to enhance the governance of any protected area by building an international database of PA governance. It IS possible to enhance governance, when agencies and practitioners know how to assess governance in situ and are able to evaluate and propose actions to address weaknesses. All of the 6th National Reports to the CBD expose this weakness in knowledge management for equitable governance, with virtually no country being able to demonstrate any real progress in fostering progress on equitable governance. The point of this explanation is that the priorities for knowledge management are in the field, in practice, and in the hands of practitioners. The focus of the Knowledge Management Component should be on the knowledge needs to effect better implementation, not on the accumulation and storage of knowledge at the global level.

In PANORAMA – Solutions for a Healthy Planet, we have tried to reverse this approach by looking for evidence of where knowledge is being usefully applied, and bringing this knowledge of best practice to the surface, where others can examine it and determine whether it helps them to address knowledge and implementation gaps. The Knowledge Management Component could well benefit from a greater focus on building knowledge up from implementation, rather than the current top-down approach that is the essence of this paper. www. panorama.solutions
(edited on 2020-08-31 11:22 UTC by Mr. Trevor Sandwith)
posted on 2020-08-31 10:30 UTC by Mr. Trevor Sandwith, IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
This is a reply to 1712 RE: Current landscape for biodiversity information and knowledge management [#1777]
Best regard

Nathalia Casas, university professional - Genetic Resources Group, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

Since 2007, Colombia has had an Environmental Information System-SIAC (Spanish acronym for Sistema de Informaciòn Ambiental), created in order to integrate the environmental information generated in the country to facilitate the generation of knowledge, decision-making, education and social participation for sustainable development. It also has additional information systems such as the Biodiversity System of Colombia-SIB (Spanish acronym for Sistema de Biodiversdiad de Colombia), which in addition to being a data repository, is an open system with windows that allow permanent interaction. It has 4 participation channels through which information can be provided on: i) Species lists, ii) Data portal, iii) Online collections and iv) Biodiversity catalog. For the use of these data and information, the “Open Access Guide to SiB Colombia” was prepared, which is framed in the principles of free access, cooperation, transparency, recognition and shared responsibility.

Specifically, for the knowledge of the Amazon region, the SINCHI Institute developed the "Territorial Environmental Information System of the Colombian Amazon SIAT-AC" which consists on institutions that establish agreements to generate information and support decision-makers in the Amazon. It also operates the Open Data site to allow the download and analysis of information on secondary vegetation, priority areas of restoration in water rounds, land cover, intervention strata, ecosystems and agricultural frontier, among other geographic applications.

For knowledge on marine biodiversity, there is the "Marine Biodiversity Information System- SiBM" which articulates the environmental information generated, managed and / or required at the national, regional and local levels associated with 5 strategic coastal marine ecosystems (corals, seagrasses , mangroves, beaches and rocky coastline). The SiBM shares information through two of the largest, most widespread and used biodiversity systems in the world: the Ocean Biogeographic Information System - OBIS, of which it is the node through INVEMAR, and the Global Facilitating Mechanism for Biodiversity Information - GBIF, which is fed by the information that reaches SiB Colombia as the national node of this initiative. Another way in which information on marine biodiversity is made available, is through the website of the Museum of Marine Natural History of Colombia - Makuriwa.

To monitor the status and trends of biodiversity, and make management decisions, solid up-to-date scientific data is required. One of the main achievements in this regard has been the update of the Map of Continental, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems of Colombia at a scale of 1: 100,000-2017. The map was developed thanks to an inter-institutional, networked effort of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies - IDEAM, the research institutes of SINA, Parques Nacionales Naturales and the Agustín Codazzi Geographical Institute. The map was prepared with an analysis of the change in ecosystems (periods 2005 - 2009 and 2010 - 2012) and presents the changes in the extension of the main types of ecosystems in the country, of which it identifies 91 general types. Of special relevance was the identification and mapping of the underwater ecosystems up to 30 m deep in the San Andrés and Providencia archipelago.

In relation to the transformation and loss of biodiversity drivers, the monitoring of changes in forest cover stands out in the reporting period, for which the “National Forest Monitoring System SNMB” was consolidated in IDEAM. SNMB includes the "Forest and Carbon Monitoring System SMByC" which produces a quarterly "Early Warning of Deforestation Bulletin" with information on events of changes in coverage. Likewise, the "SNIF Forest Information System” and the “National Forest Inventory- IFN”, the "Reference Level of Forest Emissions NREF" and the design of the "National Information System of SNS Safeguards".
Of special relevance and very important in relation to the causes of deforestation, since 1999, with the support of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the extension of coca crops is monitored through the Comprehensive Monitoring System of Illicit Crops- SIMCI. With a comprehensive vision, SIMCI monitors the territories as scenarios where characteristics that favor or limit coca cultivation converge, obtaining information that helps to guide interventions.

Monitoring of water quality, quantity and regulation is carried out systematically, every four years, by IDEAM through the National Water Study-ENA. The country assesses the green and blue water footprint of the different sectors and by geographic area. These evaluations helped in the construction of a water pressure map of ecosystems that provides information on the competition for green water in a basin, as a consequence of the expansion of the agricultural frontier that directly affects ecosystem services in the basins. From the evaluation of the multisectoral blue water footprint, the index of water not returned to the basin was evaluated, yielding critical and very high levels in the Andes and the Caribbean region.

In marine environments water quality monitoring, is made though the "Monitoring Network for the Conservation and Protection of Marine and Coastal Waters of Colombia REDCAM". It is coordinated by INVEMAR, and the Regional Environmental Authorities with coastal jurisdiction are part of this Network: CORALINA, CORPOGUAJIRA, CORPAMAG, CRA, CARDIQUE, CARSUCRE, CVS, CORPOURABA, CODECHOCO, CVC, CRC and CORPONARIÑO.

In the matter of protected areas, the information is consolidated in the Unique National Registry of Protected Areas - RUNAP, administered by Parques Nacionales Naturales

One more action done for the generation of information on the country's biodiversity, was developed the project “Colombia Bio”, which aims to promote knowledge of Colombian territories that have not yet been explored,  is carried out in partnership with scientific research institutions of the country. This project has five components that aim to develop short, medium- and long-term actions. It is the Bio Expedition component with which the knowledge of the species has been increased in places with great information gaps, including taxonomic levels of which there are very few records in the country.

In general terms, knowledge about biodiversity at the national level has increased in recent years, but the challenge of its interoperable multidimensional and multi-scalar integration persists, which allows to know more precisely the trends and changes in the country's natural wealth. It is also necessary to reduce the gap between science and politics.

Likewise, as indicated by the socio-ecological approach adopted in the National Policy for the Comprehensive Management of Biodiversity and its Ecosystem Services, PNGIBSE, it is necessary to strengthen citizen participation in the generation of knowledge about biodiversity.

In environmental licensing processes, or in compensation management, the inventory and monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services should be strengthened, at local scales, and associated with environmental licensing and the operation of sectors and companies in processes that imply changes in biodiversity (agriculture, livestock, mining, hydropower, road infrastructure and urban planning, among others). In this field, monitoring programs should be strengthened so that they contribute to identifying thresholds of less risk of transformation of biodiversity and ecosystems, maintaining their structure and functioning within stability thresholds, in the field of development projects.
posted on 2020-08-31 20:37 UTC by Ms. Nathalia Rocio Casas Ortiz, Colombia