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.
Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1708]
In order for the post-2020 biodiversity framework to succeed, governments and all stakeholders will need to find and access relevant information and knowledge easily and to harness in a coordinated, cohesive manner to support policy and decision-making, planning, implementation and reporting.   To this end, what should the knowledge management component entail?  For example, what types of data, information and knowledge should be covered and why?
(edited on 2020-08-17 13:05 UTC by Sandra Meehan)
posted on 2020-08-10 19:42 UTC by Sandra Meehan, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
This is a reply to 1708 RE: Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1757]
Jessica Bridgers, Executive Director, World Animal Net
Knowledge management should aim to facilitate integrative approaches that take into account related scientific fields that have traditionally not been considered in biodiversity management. Sources of scientific knowledge that have been treated in a silo separate from biodiversity include animal welfare science, animal behavior (ethology), cognition and sentience. The Convention on the Conservation on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) has been spearheading efforts to use scientific knowledge on animal culture to better protect endangered wildlife, and this is an important and innovative approach that should be replicated in the CBD. Further, animal welfare and health are important considerations to the management of biodiversity, so including scientific knowledge on these, as well as One Health and One Welfare approaches, is critical. These synergies have been made clear in the wake of COVID-19, where the interlinkages between human, environmental and animal health have been highlighted.
(edited on 2020-08-28 00:14 UTC by Jessica Bridgers)
posted on 2020-08-28 00:12 UTC by Jessica Bridgers, World Animal Net
This is a reply to 1708 RE: Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1758]
Greetings from the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). We appreciate the great efforts that have been made in preparing and drafting the knowledge management component and thank you for giving us the opportunities to participate in this discussion forum.

We agree overall on the proposed scope and in particular the inclusion of “implementation-related data and information” such as those related to experiences and lessons learned in developing and implementing biodiversity national policies, plans, and programmes. As one of the collaborative activities for the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI), UNU-IAS in cooperation with some IPSI member organizations (i.e., University of Tokyo Institute for Future Initiatives, Secretariat of the CBD, the Ministry of the Environment, Japan) has been developing a technical manual to assist CBD Parties with applying landscape approaches in updating and implementing NBSAPs and other relevant policies in the context of the post-2020 period. This manual is designed to present key considerations and step-by-step actions to be taken for incorporating and implementing landscape approaches and to offer suggestions about how to effectively apply landscape approaches to meet the post-2020 GBF. It is also intended to showcase good practices that have been collected from some of the CBD Parties.

In addition to data, information, and knowledge concerning policy-making and implementation at the national level, we believe those at the subnational and local levels are equally important. We also think such data, information, and knowledge at the sub-national and local levels must be interlinked to those at the national and international levels where appropriate for effective implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of CBD and other relevant international processes. Landscape approaches specifically attend to cross-level interlinkages between human and non-human elements and offer a framework to integrate data, information, and knowledge through different sectors and levels in a given area and take advantage of such integrated knowledge in facilitating sustainable natural resource management. The above-mentioned manual is also being designed to provide suggestions and share lessons in regard to how to ensure cross-sectoral and cross-level interlinkages in developing and implementing NBSAPs and other relevant policies.
posted on 2020-08-28 01:13 UTC by Dr Maiko Nishi, UNU-IAS
This is a reply to 1708 RE: Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1762]
Grégoire Dubois, Project Leader of Global Conservation and Development at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

The pressure-state-response framework is extremely useful to identify requirements regarding data needs and stresses the importance of transforming effectively these data into information and knowledge that can be used by decision and policy makers. Understanding each step in the whole process is key to en effective knowledge management strategy for biodiversity.

To halt the loss of biodiversity, the pressure-state-response framework shows that the variety of the data needed to understand the drivers affecting  biodiversity is almost infinite. We are not only speaking about earth observations, DNA sequences, species occurrences but also about cadasters, boundaries of protected areas, consumption habits, but also trade agreements, concentrations of chemicals, ... to name only a few. While biophysical variables can often be mapped effectively using remote sensing, many critical data need to be collected on the ground. Local socio economic data are notoriously absent from databases. 

The management and accessibility of global data has been improving enormously over the years but we still lack platforms that can integrate all these data to generate the information we need. An example is the Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (see https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/explorer/) which, for example, integrates typically park boundaries from UNEP-WCMC, species data from the IUCN and time series of built-up areas derived from earth observations to assess pressures inside and outside protected areas.

Technology and IT infrastructures are improving fast and the community would greatly benefit from an improved orchestration and coordination  regarding the development of such platforms, if only to reduce costs.

Still, there are huge gaps between the reality on the ground and global information and this is key to reduce the often huge uncertainties encountered in pressure-state-response analyses.

Gaps and uncertainties can partly be reduced by
- strengthening capacity building activities (human)
- improving standardization and data accessibility (technology)
- strengthening orchestration between all actors (institutions)
- ensuring a bidirectional flow of data and information between people on the ground and highest political levels (governance and culture).

The last point is to me one of the most critical ones that can help putting in place long term programmes.
posted on 2020-08-28 11:17 UTC by Mr Gregoire Dubois, Joint Research Centre
This is a reply to 1708 RE: Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1770]
Hi, this is Evelyn Vera, Director for Environmental Affairs with the Mexican Government

The Knowledge Management Component should build upon the existing efforts and initiatives. There is already a wide range of information available from local to global level and this Component should focus on organizing it in an easy to navigate digital platform, so it can be easy to consult and relevant for the implementation of the GBF. It is important that the platform is developed in line with the implementation mechanisms of the GBF and user needs. However, this platform should not generate more costs/ bureaucracy, and it should be as streamlined as possible.

This Component should not be understood as another database. It should go beyond a list of reports, documents and scientific articles, and be built as an interactive platform based upon the negotiated targets. This initiative should also address the needs of decision makers as they require information in their day by day tasks and processes related to the implementation of the GBF; it should offer biodiversity related information but it should also seek to trigger the design and development of innovative ideas towards the achievement of national targets, which most of the times will require other tools apart from the ones that are commonly implemented.

Moreover, it should provide different sources of information and elucidate the less obvious but still relevant sources. For example, information on consumer trends around products related to biodiversity, people’s perceptions, opinions and behaviors on a particular policy or government initiative. Here, the Component might like to consider partnering with other initiatives such as the UNEP Strategy for Private Sector Engagement or even look for partnerships with think tanks and innovation firms.

It should diversify its sources of information and knowledge in order to be ambitious and yet achievable.
posted on 2020-08-28 17:13 UTC by Ms. Evelyn Vera Barreto, Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores
This is a reply to 1762 RE: Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1771]
Agree with your assessment on the gaps and the urgent need to close them
posted on 2020-08-28 17:14 UTC by Ms. Evelyn Vera Barreto, Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores
This is a reply to 1771 RE: Scope of the Knowledge Management Component [#1773]
I agree strongly with the sentiment of making sure the digital platform is easy to navigate. There is an urgent need for KM platforms to be more implementer-oriented and user friendly. In my experience, using other platforms has sometimes meant spending considerable time sifting through a seemingly endless collection of materials, many of which may not have been screened, remained incomplete, were improperly edited, or were even incorrectly classified.

This does not mean that the platform shouldn't comprise a vast repository of materials for people serving in a diverse range of roles - rather, the KM processes, including those for quality assurance and data integrity, should not be absent throughout platform implementation, and filters should be maintained to ease navigation. Information presented on the platform should also be closely curated to ensure it is timely, relevant, and appropriate.

In an ideal world, the user interface would showcase the varied information that people in different roles require based on their needs. Regarding the types of information to be made available, implementers in particular would benefit from case studies and narratives/micro-narratives from other implementers. It seems often the case that such materials are not readily available, so it could also be useful for the platform to encompass a mechanism for capturing and showcasing them. This could take the form of fora for discussion and commentary, at a bare minimum. Either way, practical, applicable lessons learned should be featured prominently.

Since data for and from Small Island Developing States is often unavailable, resources should be allocated towards the gathering, packaging and disseminating of data specific to such countries.
posted on 2020-08-29 03:07 UTC by Dr Lena Dempewolf, Ministry of Planning and Development