Technical and Scientific Cooperation

In decision 16/3 paragraph 6, the IAG has been requested to identify suitable options to further address the technological, technical and institutional capability gaps identified, in particular by developing country Parties, with a focus on the targets and crosscutting considerations of the KMGBF and the CBD and its Protocols.

To help the IAG respond to this request, the Secretariat is undertaking an analysis of needs and gaps based on existing sources of information such as the National Targets and thematic assessments. The draft analysis will be uploaded to this thread in due course for feedback.

TSC-IAG members are invited to recommend any additional sources of information or make other suggestions that would be useful for this analysis.

FAO conducted global assessment of gaps and priorities for restoration in 2021. File is attached.

Attached is UNESCO's white paper on priority gaps for implementing global ocean observation system for ocean decade.

Dear colleagues, for ease of reference we have compiled a document that lists the sources IAG members recommended during the online meeting

A potentially relevant paper regarding capacity building needs related to genetic diversity:

Hoban, S. et al. (2025) How can biodiversity strategy and action plans incorporate genetic diversity and align with global commitments? BioScience, 75(1): 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae106

The request to identify 'needs and gaps based on existing sources of information' could lead to us, and others, spending a very long time trying to catalogue a range of publications. Is it worth, and possible to consider what a reasonable set of needs and gaps might be, given that 'capabilities' are made up from a range of components. Capability might include access to tools and guidance, techncial and scientific specialism and resources (e.g. number of people in an environment dept), and other elements. 

For example, this pre-print https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/10072/ considers challenges facing  small island developing states in meeting monitoring requirements of the GBF. It draws on experience from 4 SIDS and breaks the challenges down in to parts of the data and reporting 'pipeline'.

Could we adopt a similar approach to identify needs, rather than spending a long time trying to capture everything that has been done? The pre-print does also emphasise the disparity in human capability between CBD Parties (as judged by population size).

This may make it easier to identify areas where the TSCs could help, or indeed other actors.

WILDLABS (a partnership of WWF, WCS, CI, and Fauna & Flora) has conducted several assessments of the State of Conservation Technology, which I mentioned during the meeting. The original paper can be found here: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13871, and the web report is here: https://wildlabs.net/state-of-conservation-technology. The 2023 report is attached, and the 2025 update is forthcoming. These highlight available biodiversity monitoring tools, as well as gaps and opportunities from both the practitioner and technology development perspectives. Of particular note for capacity building are the disproportionate barriers to access reported by women and respondents in developing countries.

I have also attached a few resources from WWF, which could be useful in the identification of further needs and gaps: a guide on applying a human rights–based approach to the GBF, a discussion paper on whole-of-society and multi-stakeholder processes, and a training module on advancing gender equality and women’s rights in GBF implementation. Finally, flagging the 30×30 Solutions Toolkit and matchmaking platform to help countries address technological, technical, and institutional gaps in implementing Target 3: https://www.30x30.solutions/

Although the paper looks specifically at monitoring gaps for SIDS, I agree that it presents and interesting approach that could help to streamline the process of identifying gap.

An Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT together with Asia Pacific Forest Genetic Resources conducted a study in 2022 revealing that the rich native tree diversity in South and Southeast Asia is at risk of potential extinction. The region-wide and spatially explicit threat assessment focused on 63 socio-economically important native trees in Asia, showing that all species are highly vulnerable to at least one of the common threats in the region’s landscapes, namely habitat conversion, overexploitation, overgrazing, fire, and climate change. These forest landscapes, therefore, urgently require coordinated and targeted conservation and restoration initiatives to prevent further destruction and biodiversity loss that undermines ecosystem functioning. In the region’s mega-diverse countries, the combined multi-species maps help identify target areas where conservation and restoration actions generate most synergies between species and, thus, optimize the use of land and resources. The maps also allow identifying synergies between countries in conserving the species’ genetic resources the foundation of climate-resilient seed sources for forest and landscape restoration programmes.

UNEP-WCMC and the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on indicators have undertaken several capacity needs assessments for monitoring implementation of the KMGBF. Please see CBD/COP/16/INF/4 for an example.

In addition, UNEP-WCMC has prepared a capacity needs assessment tool which we have provided to SCBD for the NBSAP Regional Dialogues, to help assess national capacity for monitoring national implementation of the KMGBF. This is also being used by the TSCCs that are part of the National Monitoring Support initiative

The report of our meeting at the start of October states: 12. Based on the inputs provided by the Informal Advisory Group, the Secretariat will, in line with paragraph 6 of decision 16/3, prepare a draft recommendation, which will be submitted for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its sixth meeting in February 2026 and the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth meeting in October 2026.

May I ask Secretariat colleagues what is the deadline for input from IAG that can contribute to the draft recommendation? It would be very helpful if we can work during November to provide input.