Background and context

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) recognises the importance of a whole-of-society approach, and inclusive participation and robust data for effective implementation. However, two interconnected and mutually reinforcing gaps continue to undermine the Framework's ambitions: persistent gaps in gender-responsive biodiversity data and the underrepresentation of women in biodiversity monitoring, knowledge generation and data governance

The gender data gap is evident throughout the GBF's monitoring framework, from the limited integration of gender-disaggregated indicators to the exclusion of women from many headline and component indicators, and the systematic underrepresentation of women's knowledge and practices in official data collection and reporting mechanisms. Without gender-responsive data, it is impossible to assess whether the GBF is delivering equitable outcomes, or to design interventions that address the differential impact on women and girls.

The participation gap is equally critical. Women are significantly underrepresented among those who generate, collect, analyse, commission and use biodiversity data, which limits the quality, legitimacy and relevance of the monitoring frameworks themselves. This issue is particularly acute for Indigenous women, pastoralist women and women from local communities. These women are holders, custodians and transmitters of  unique and irreplaceable knowledge systems and community-based monitoring practices, yet these remain largely invisible in formal reporting despite the KM-GBF's unprecedented recognition of traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring.

The mid-term review of the Gender Plan of Action highlighted that, although many Parties have made progress in collecting gender-disaggregated data, information specifically linking gender and biodiversity remains significantly underreported. In many national contexts, such data are insufficient, fragmented, or unavailable, limiting the ability to effectively monitor progress and design evidence-based measures for implementation. The review also identified several key barriers, including limited institutional capacity, inadequate resources, and insufficient coordination among the various actors involved in the generation, management, and governance of data.

These gaps are not separate problems. Excluding women from data processes produces data that excludes women, and this in turn makes the case for their participation more difficult. Breaking this cycle requires deliberate, coordinated action across both dimensions simultaneously.

Progress on this agenda is further strengthened by building on synergies across the three Rio Conventions. Harmonising gender-responsive approaches, indicators, and  data standards across the biodiversity, climate and desertification agendas would reduce the reporting burden on parties while providing a more comprehensive and integrated view of women's contributions to and vulnerabilities within these interconnected systems.

The first Global Review of Collective Progress under the GBF is a critical opportunity to assess the current state of these gaps, their impact on biodiversity outcomes, and the concrete steps required to address them. This side event brings together data collectors, women's organisations, Indigenous Peoples and local community representatives, and parties to advance this agenda, which is directly relevant to:

• Agenda item 9: Planning, monitoring, reporting and review (including the GBF Monitoring Framework)

• Agenda item 10: Implementation of Article 8(j) related to indigenous peoples and local communities

• Agenda Item 15: Gender Plan of Action

Women, particularly indigenous and pastoralist women and women from local communities, possess unique knowledge systems and monitoring practices that remain systematically underrepresented in official biodiversity data collection and reporting mechanisms, despite the unprecedented welcoming of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge within KM-GBF monitoring.

 

Objectives

1. Highlight persistent evidence gaps in gender-responsive biodiversity data and women's participation, risking delivering of KM-GBF implementation aligned with Section C, drawing on the findings of the GPA mid-term review. 

2. Showcase complementary approaches and promising practices to strengthen gender-responsive biodiversity data systems, including where women-led monitoring has produced more inclusive and comprehensive data and information, boosting biodiversity outcomes, improvements to the GFB monitoring framework and component indicator, community-based monitoring and women-led knowledge systems.

3. Launch the Handbook on Gender and Biodiversity Data, developed through a global peer-to-peer learning process, and present practical tools, methodologies and approaches that can support Parties, women’s organisations and other actor groups strengthening gender-responsive biodiversity data systems. . 

4. Develop concrete recommendations for strengthening gender-biodiversity monitoring

5. Share outcomes from the 2nd Women and Environment Data Conference (TBC, placeholder) 

Expected outcomes

• Concrete technical recommendations on indicators

• Understand specific barriers preventing women's meaningful participation in biodiversity data governance

• Share case studies demonstrating successful women-led monitoring approaches, including participation- and data-related outcomes

• Strengthen the visibility of indigenous and community-based women's knowledge

• Present solutions to the challenges associated with gender and biodiversity data (highlighting resources such as the handbook, indicator methodology on GPA, and other practical approaches).

• Establish commitments from partner organizations to support follow-up activities

• Strengthened institutional linkages

 

Key questions:

• How are existing GBF indicators capturing or missing information on women?

• What are the implications of these gaps for tracking progress on Targets 1, 2, 3, 22 and 23?

• How can traditional ecological knowledge held by women be better integrated into formal monitoring and for which indicators is there most potential?

• What are the ways in which data being generated by women’s organisation/groups/networks and communities be acknowledged and included into these formal monitoring processes?

• What safeguards are needed to guarantee equal access and benefit sharing for women?

• What institutional changes are needed within gender national focal point structures?

• How can capacity-building resources be directed toward women's data sovereignty?

• What are the immediate, mid-term and long-term actions and follow-ups?