Knowledge Management

In your view, why is the knowledge management component critical for the success of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework?  What change or improvements would you like to see happen as a result of implementing the knowledge management component?  How could that change be measured (e.g possible indicators of success)?

Dear Colleagues, the Zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (CBD/WG2020/2/3), presented at the second open-ended working group on the post-2020 GBF (OEWG-2) held in Rome (https://www.cbd.int/meetings/POST2020-WS-2020-02), includes a draft target related to knowledge management (page 10): 18. "Promote education and the generation, sharing and use of knowledge relating to biodiversity, in the case of the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities with their free, prior and informed consent, ensuring by 2030 that all decision makers have access to reliable and up-to-date information for the effective management of biodiversity."  What are your views on this target? How can it be improved?

The draft explanatory note for the Knowledge Management Component of the Post-2020 GBF (https://www.cbd.int/cb/forums/strategic-framework/draft-km-component.pdf) has proposed specific objectives and desired outcomes, which collectively could contribute to the achievement of the draft target on knowledge management.  What are your views on the proposed objectives and outcomes? What should be improved? What additional objectives and outcomes, if any, do you suggest?

The draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 GBF circulated for peer review in June 2020 (https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-24/post2020-monitoring-en.pdf) has proposed possible indicators that could be used to monitor progress towards the achievement of the draft target on knowledge management and measure its effectiveness and impact. The proposed monitoring elements include: Trends in the availability of biodiversity-related information; Trends in the [generation] development of biodiversity-related knowledge; Trends in access to biodiversity related knowledge; Trends in documentation and use of traditional knowledge...; Trends in awareness of biodiversity values; and Trends in the integration of biodiversity into academic curricula(see pages 36-37). What are your views on the proposed monitoring elements and indicators? How can they be improved? What additional monitoring elements and specific indicators would you suggest?

The quantifiable indicators are important to streamline target tracking and reporting What is noted therefore indicators are needed  to be measurable and simple in order not to limit our ability to track targets,  As noted most of indicators on knowledge management included in the global framework are applicable at  an global level, indicators that applicable at national level also are needed for national reporting.

El khitma EL Awad, HCENR Sudan
The quantifiable indicators are important to streamline target tracking and reporting What is noted therefore indicators are needed  to be measurable and simple in order not to limit our ability to track targets,  As noted most of indicators on knowledge management included in the global framework are applicable at  an global level, indicators that applicable at national level also are needed for national reporting.

Greetings from the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). Thank you for the opportunities to participate in this discussion forum.

We appreciate the comprehensive descriptions of the rationale, objectives, and expected impact, but would like to draw further attention to the stakeholders at the subnational and local levels as both contributors to and beneficiaries of this knowledge management component, as well as their capacity in enhancing knowledge management. In order to achieve the stated goal, it is critical to strengthen the capacities of all relevant stakeholders also at the sub-national and local levels, given that their access and utilization of data, information and knowledge are essential for successful implementation of the post-2020 GBF that must happen finally on the ground (referring to 21. (f) particularly). Also, with regard to the expected outcomes, the current descriptions seem to be fairly skewed towards ‘efficiency’ but it is important to give more attention to the issues of equality and equity in regard to how availability, accessibility, use, and application of data, information and knowledge could be improved and increased (referring to C.(b) and (c) for example). For instance, Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have not been fully accessible and available across the countries especially Least Developed Countries, while the digital gender divide is widening (International Telecommunication Union 2019). This is a critical gap that should be filled in the coming years.

Hello from GBIF, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. At the last Open Ended Working Group meeting in Rome, together with the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) we proposed rewording of Target 18 to recognize the importance of biodiversity monitoring systems and information facilities, to ensure that relevant biodiversity data is mobilized and shared openly using FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). This was supported by several Parties during the contact group on this target, and we hope very much that some wording along these lines, whether within the target or elsewhere in the framework, can make its way into the final text.