Metadata Factsheet

1. Indicator name

1.1 Percent of land and seas covered by biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans

1. In COP DEC 15/5, the indicators for Target 1 and Headline indicator 1.1 were approved with two footnotes:

(a) b: a binary indicator was proposed for inclusion for this goal or target and will be further considered by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group

(b) * an agreed up-to-date methodology does not exist for this indicator. The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group will work with partners to guide the development of these indicators

2. As per the recommendation, a binary indicator was developed for Target 1 with a metadata description including proposed definitions on biodiversity-inclusive approach, participatory approach to spatial planning, effective management processes [addressing land and sea use change] and integrated spatial planning. Categorical responses can only be based on national data since it is about national processes.

3. For the headline indicator 1.1. it was recognized that

(a) it overlaps with indicators for other goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as well as SDG indicators,

(b) it covers multiple cross-cutting issues and provides opportunities to identify synergetic issues and leverages for other targets;

(c) it is highly relevant for the traditional knowledge indicators (particularly the traditional knowledge indicator on participation).

4. The further development of a methodology was impacted by the following factors:

(a) While most countries have spatial plans, qualitative aspects are usually not measured; the indicator suggests a fusion of spatial/quantitative and qualitative data with aspects of processes, outcomes and impacts to be measured, which is usually in the form of an index or equivalent, which is currently not in existence;

(b) There was no partner to provide an institutional home and guide the development of the methodology for this indicator;

(c) IPBES has in its program to develop an approved methodological assessment on integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and connectivity for consideration in 2027 (Decision IPBES-10/1).

5. It is recommended for this headline indicator to:

(a) Work with binary indicators until the methodology of the headline indicator is operational.

(b) In accordance with the IPBES progress, identify and delegate a lead organization to develop the methodology for the indicator, based on good practices and examples, and to be in charge of data collection and evaluation.

6. The below provides a summary of the current status of development of this indicator.

2. Date of metadata update

2024-09-01 12:00:00 UTC

3. Goals and Targets addressed

3a. Goal

3b. Target

Headline indicator for Target 1. Ensure that all areas are under participatory, integrated, and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land and sea use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

4. Proposed rationale

7. Target 1 relates to land-use and sea-use change, a major direct driver of biodiversity loss. To achieve the 2050 Vision and the proposed Goals, the loss of existing intact and wilderness areas through land/sea use change must be avoided, reduced and reversed. More effective and comprehensive spatial planning, which accounts for biodiversity and the objectives of the Convention, will be crucial in accomplishing this. Therefore, an indicator tracking the percentage of land and seas covered by spatial plans that integrate biodiversity would be directly relevant to this target and help to monitor progress towards its attainment.

8. Biodiversity inclusive spatial planning is also relevant for most of the other proposed targets in the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Given competing demands for land and sea areas and potential trade-offs, biodiversity-inclusive integrated spatial planning across all landscapes and seascapes (i.e. marine spatial planning) will be needed to allow socioeconomic development to continue while also conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services in line with the levels of ambition suggested above, and to ensure connectivity between natural habitats.

9. Currently spatial planning is practiced variously and unevenly among countries and currently there is no global synthesis available to assess the proportion of the earth that is considered to be “under spatial planning”. This is partly because there is no standard definition of what constitutes a spatial plan and a range of approaches and tools for planning are used at different scales.

10. Currently there is no indicator which is under development or operational to fully track the progress on the land and sea area under biodiversity inclusive spatial planning. However, there are SDG indicators related to marine spatial planning and intercoastal zone management (14.2.1), sustainable agricultural area (2.4.1) which also corresponds to headline indicator 10.1 and sustainable forest management (15.2.1), which also corresponds to headline indicator 10.2, which incorporate elements of spatial planning. A selection of further initiatives and examples gathering information on elements of biodiversity inclusive spatial planning is provided under point 5e for guidance. No comprehensive and systematic overview and methodology exists as of today and as such this represents a gap which needs to be addressed. There is some limited information related to conservation strategies, ecoregional plans and integrated coastal zone management. However, how up to date this information is and the extent to which these plans are operational is uncertain. Similarly, the extent to which such plans can be considered representative of spatial planning more generally is also uncertain.

11. The traditional knowledge indicators (discussed at the 12th Meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions in November 2023) are cross-cutting indicators that underpin the achievement of several Goals and Targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. SBSTTA-25 (October 2023) “Requests the Expert Group to fully take into account the work of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity on traditional knowledge indicators in order to further enhance the monitoring framework”; (SBSTTA-25/1, paragraph 12). It is important to point out that indigenous peoples and local communities lands, recognized and secure, could represent biodiversity-inclusive planning in practice (at certain scales).

12. Traditional knowledge indicators with notable relevance to this indicator on spatial planning are the following: “Land use change and land tenure in the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and local communities”.

13. Addressing the intersession between the headline indicator on spatial planning and this traditional knowledge indicator can also support Parties to operationalise parts of Section C of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, particularly the section on “contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities”.

5. Definitions, concepts and classifications

5a. Definition:

Indicator definition

14. This indicator is linked to the corresponding headline binary/categorical indicator 1.1 "Number of countries using participatory, biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning or effective management processes to address land and sea use change" and is based on the same concepts and definitions (table 1).

Table 1. Definition and concepts for indicator

Other key concepts and definitions

15. Areas of high biodiversity importance: Locations that contain populations of threatened or geographically restricted species; highly significant extents of threatened or geographically restricted ecosystems; ecosystems of high ecological integrity; high significance for the maintenance of biological processes (e.g. migration, reproduction, refugia etc.); high irreplaceability; or high significance for ecological connectivity. Locations that include culturally important biodiversity [or species and ecosystems (for indigenous peoples and local communities).

5b. Method of computation

16. N/A. This proposed indicator will be supplemented by the information gathered through binary indicator 1.1 for the time being and until a comprehensive and systematic methodology can be provided.

5c. Data collection method

17. No data collection is planned for this indicator yet. However, information gathered through binary indicator 1.1 and experience drawn from that will inform the methodology for collecting quantitative data at a later stage..

5d. Accessibility of methodology

N/A

5e. Data sources/methods and documentation on processes

18. No comprehensive and uniform data sources have been identified, and there is need to consider/describe sources and processes at the national level.

19. Elements of spatial planning are covered by the Sustainable Development Goals indicators:

(a) Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (2.4.1),

i. headline indicator 10.1

(b) Marine spatial planning and intercoastal zone management (14.2.1)

i. headline indicator 10.2

20. In addition to partial overlap with:

(a) Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas (14.5.1),

(b) Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type (15.1.2), C

(d) headline indicator 3.1 Coverage of protected areas and OECMs.

21. Further examples of relevant data sources/methods are:

(a) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381921

(b) https://www.mspglobal2030.org/wpcontent/uploads/2...

(d) https://macbio-pacific.info/

(e) https://www.mapsofhope.org

(f) https://unbiodiversitylab.org/en/,

(g) https://www.cbd.int/protected/2021globalreport.sht...

(h)https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yCMmZXBMH48dRvXlOtbDOsA5T6-nC1fX

22. For community-based monitoring and information systems see:

(a) https://pipap.sprep.org/

(b) and relevant publications by the SPACES coalition:

i. https://production-wordpress.spacescoalition.org/content//uploads/2022/12/202205_SPAC

ii. https://spacescoalition.org/en/resources

From the CBD discussion forum:

23. WCS: a few examples of spatial assessment and planning processes that are biodiversity inclusive and participatory, noting that these thresholds are not clearly defined as of yet and there is a great diversity in approaches.

(a) South Africa: https://www.sanbi.org/biodiversity/building-knowle...

(b) Seychelles: https://seymsp.com/the-initiative/

(d) China (regional): https://journal.hep.com.cn/laf/EN/10.15302/J-LAF-1...

(e) United States/Northeast: https://neoceanplanning.org

(f) United States/Mid-Atlantic: https://www.midatlanticocean.org/ocean-planning/ab...

(g) Palau: https://www.spc.int/updates/blog/blog/2023/05/biod...

(h) Niue: https://niueoceanwide.com

(i) Malaysia. 4th National Physical Plan: The Planning Agenda for Prosperous, Resilient and Liveable Malaysia https://rmke12.ekonomi.gov.my/ksp/storage/event/96... _physical_plan_for_a_prosperous_resilient_and_liveable_malaysia.pdf

24. From WWF international:

(a) *Indonesia: Indonesia’s national resource report on spatial planning in coastal areas, with a focus on preventing/reducing the impacts of emergency issues, including natural disasters, climate change and sea-level-rise, considers issues and approaches in spatial planning, lessons from around the world, and specifically the application in Indonesia.

(b) https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/44333

(c) *UK: Guiding principles for Marine Spatial Planning produced by Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link), a nature coalition in England bringing together 80 organizations. https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/assets/uploads/Guiding...

25. Examples on "participatory" marine spatial planning from Spain: (a) “Real Decreto 150/2023, de 28 de febrero, por el que se aprueban los planes de ordenación del espacio marítimo de las cinco demarcaciones marinas españolas” (https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-5704) (participatory process included engagement of representatives of the fishing and wind energy sectors.

(b) In the context of marine protected areas, it has been developed a governance strategy and a guidance for participatory processes within the Life project INTEMARES (access to the Guidance document: https://intemares.es/sites/default/files/a10_guia_procesos_en.pdf).

(c) Following this methodology, several participatory process have been established for the development of the management plans of marine protected areas. As an example, more information about the participatory process developed for the marine protected area “El Cachucho” can be found at https://intemares.es/procesos-participativos/cachu... and the resulting management plan at https://intemares.es/sites/default/files/real_decr...

Suggested references from the CBD discussion forum:

26. *WWF South West Indian Ocean Seascape (SWIO Seascape) Regional Programme (a) South West Indian Ocean Annual Report 2022 | WWF SWIO (wwf-swio.org)

27. *Heart of Borneo - WWF Spatial Planning Experiences in Borneo

(a) Please use "spatial" and "government" in a keyword search to find relevant information in the report.

(b) This report examines the systematic conservation planning methods used by WWF and assesses its roles, results (outputs, outcomes) and contributions to the conservation effort in Kalimantan, Sabah and Sarawak. It also captures the challenges and lessons learned and presents it from a consolidated Borneo perspective for sharing with relevant stakeholders within and beyond Borneo.

28. *Viet Nam - Informing a national target for protected areas in Viet Nam under the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

(a) Please use "spatial" and "government" in a keyword search to find relevant information in the report.

(b) This report provides a global assessment of Viet Nam’s PA network important biodiversity and NCP features, using both national (where available and accessible) and global data, and it discusses how a further spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

29. *Tanzania and Mozambique - Ruvuma transboundary landscape

(a) Please see the Solutions chapter which states:

(b) “We need to take a holistic, transboundary landscape approach if we’re to secure key terrestrial habitats and their associated wildlife populations and increase benefits for local people and the national economies of Tanzania and Mozambique. Such an approach means multiple stakeholders and partners can collaborate in a well-coordinated and strategic manner to tackle many challenges across several sectors”.

(d) "Developing spatially explicit land-use plans jointly, in a consultative manner, with multiple stakeholders and including the valuation and mapping of natural capital".

30. *Amazon - 2022 Living Amazon Report

(a) Please use the keyword "planning" to find occurrences of "territorial planning", "basin-wide planning" or "governmental planning" in the report.

(b) This report outlines the current status of the Amazon biome and basin, summarizes key pressures and drivers of change, and outlines a conservation strategy for this decade that would enable the vision of a Living Amazon to become a reality going forward.

5f. Availability and release calendar

Not yet available for this proposed indicator, but available for headline binary/categorical indicator 1.1

5g. Time series

N/A

5h. Data providers

See 5e for a selection of data sources/methods/process for elements of headline indicator 1.1.

5i. Data compilers

See 5e for a selection of data sources/methods/processes for elements of headline indicator 1.1.

5j. Gaps in data coverage

Possible issues related to sensitivity over sharing spatial data should be considered

5k. Treatment of missing values

N/A

6. Scale

6a. Scale of use

Scale of application (please check all relevant boxes):

Global: ☐ Regional: ☐ National ☒

31. Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation:

(a) Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level: ☐

(b) National data is collated to form global indicator: ☒

6b. National/regional indicator production

N/A

7. Other MEAs, processes and organisations

7a. Other MEA and processes

32. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) approved methodological assessment on integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and connectivity (for consideration by the Plenary at its fourteenth session in 2027) will feed into process to define and operationalise this indicator.

33. As the custodian agency for SDG 14.2.1, UNEP collects spatial data on marine plans within the national jurisdiction through sea regional plans.

34. See under point 5e for a selection of examples and initiatives?

7b. Biodiversity Indicator Partnership

8. Disaggregation

35. Recommended disaggregations, once the proposed indicator becomes operational, relate closely to the headline binary/categorical indicator 1.1 and could be combined (area and %):

(a) % land/sea covered by plans that biodiversity-inclusive to different degrees

(b) % land/sea covered by plans that are participatory to different degrees

(d) % within a plan/effective management process that is under active implementation

(e) Optional: % sector (agriculture, forestry etc., where these exist as separate spatial plans)

(f) Optional: % for subnational units (provinces etc.)

36. Suggestion for gender disaggregation:

(a) % of biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans that have included the meaningful participation of women in their design and implementation

37. Some potentially inspirational questions in the ActionAid VGGT Toolkit, though these would need to be further modified for spatial planning. ILC collects data according to Indicator 1.2 – Target groups, including women, youth and holders of customary rights have access to and are supported to engage in multi-stakeholder platforms – though it is not specific to spatial planning.

9. Related goals, targets and indicators

38. As made available by CBD guidelines for target 1, progress towards this target will directly

support the attainment of Goals A and B and targets 2, 3, 5, 10 and 12 of the Framework. Conversely,

progress towards targets 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 will help to reach Target 1.

39. Elements of Target 1 are also addressed in the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals,

including targets 2.4, 14.2, 14.5, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5 and 15.9.

40. This proposed indicator encompasses PAs and OECMs which are also reported under indicator

3.1. See also under points 3a, 3b and 5e for further linkages.

10. Data reporter

10a. Organisation

GEOBON for the headline binary/categorical indicator

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

10b. Contact person(s)

N/A

11. References

N/A

Feedback: UNEP-WCMC is keen to ensure that our data is accurate and up to date. We welcome any feedback on the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information on this site. If you see any errors or missing information, please get in touch.