Metadata Factsheet
PDF Generated On: Wed May 14 2025 06:38:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
1. Indicator name
Indicator on biodiversity information for monitoring the global biodiversity framework
2. Date Of Metadata Update
2024-09-01 12:00:00 UTC
3. Goals And Targets Addressed
3a. Goal
N/A
3b. Target
Target 21. Ensure that the best available data, information and knowledge are accessible to decision-makers, practitioners and the public to guide effective and equitable governance, integrated and participatory management of biodiversity, and to strengthen communication, awareness-raising, education, monitoring, research and knowledge management and, also in this context, traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technologies of indigenous peoples and local communities should only be accessed with their free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with national legislation.
4. Rationale
1. Biodiversity information is required to identify threats to biodiversity, to determine priority actions for conservation and sustainable use and to determine if such actions are effective. Biodiversity information, including traditional knowledge, will underpin assessments of progress towards all of the proposed goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
2. Despite the importance of traditional knowledge to biodiversity, there is limited information on how such information is being taken into account in decision making. In particular, the need for a measure of “the trends in which traditional knowledge and practices are respected through their full integration, safeguards and the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the national implementation of the Strategic Plan” was identified in COP decision XIII/28 but remains to be operationalised.
3. This indicator is necessary for countries to be able to assess their overall ability to access biodiversity data, information and knowledge required to guide action and report progress under the monitoring framework. The indicator should evaluate the availability of biodiversity information and knowledge for all dimensions of biodiversity required to monitor progress across all targets of the GBF.
4. It is recognized that:
(a) A single composite indicator may give an overall summary of status or progress, but appropriate disaggregation will be needed to assess which aspects of biodiversity information are lacking or needed to increase country scores.
(b) Because biodiversity information is cross cutting with other goals and targets of the KM GBF, information used for other indicators will be relevant.
(c) Metrics capturing information related to traditional knowledge are at the heart of the indicator and should be included.
(d) Information in national reports, including how well countries are able to report on all indicators and targets, may support this indicator.
5. There remains a need to establish quantitative national targets to indicate progress towards improving the coverage and completeness of biodiversity data used and produced by countries to monitor progress to the targets and goals of the GBF. This indicator should present information in a way that fosters action to fill gaps and improve strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the data (Leung and Gonzalez 2024).
5. Definitions Concepts And Classifications
5a. Definition
6. The number (or percentage) of headline indicators identified in a national monitoring framework where national biodiversity datasets, traditional knowledge, and monitoring schemes are available for use. Over time this would capture country-level trends in the access and use of data for governance, management and communication of biodiversity outcomes.
7. Three specific elements are recommended for reporting under this indicator:
(a) Metrics on the availability, amount, coverage and quality of information used to report on each biodiversity indicator within the national monitoring framework.
(b) An evaluation of how many targets take traditional knowledge into account in the assessment of trends or decisions required for each target.
(c) An enumeration of the number and coverage of biodiversity monitoring schemes currently active and providing data and knowledge on the basis of FAIR and CARE principles, needed to report trends in a headline indicator.
8. Definitions for data sources and indicators to do this are given below.
5b. Method Of Computation
9. A country reporting this indicator would provide the number (or percentage) of headline indicators in a national monitoring framework where national biodiversity datasets, traditional knowledge, and monitoring schemes are available for use.
10. Development of a national methodology for this indicator must consider that while most countries have national datasets and monitoring schemes for some species and ecosystems, these sources rarely cover all the biodiversity information needed for this headline indicator. Some countries may need to refer to international data sources and monitoring programs. Access and use of international databases can often be disaggregated to country level.
11. In the case of a global network such as GBIF, such disaggregations will in fact include a combination of species occurrence data from national sources, with data shared from institutions in other countries - emphasising the benefits of global cooperation in bringing together data from all sources.
12. An assessment of the availability of information sources captures one element of this indicator. Measures of data coverage and quality are also needed to assess growth in the availability of information of sufficient quality to guide decisions. We describe the indicators that can be used to assess these facets of information quality and source in the next section.
62. Indicators for data quality, data coverage and knowledge gaps
13. The following table summarizes the types of biodiversity information that can be used to assess the gaps, coverage, and quality of information needed to calculate this headline indicator. General examples are given for types of data or information sources, and these will differ from country to country. Countries may maintain a database of sources of biodiversity information and knowledge to report for headline indicator 21.1.
Table 1: The four types of biodiversity inforation and sources to be evaluated for each dimension of biodiversity need for indicator 21.1
We include a non-exhaustive list of examples for the rows of this table. This compilation of data and knowledge sources would also serve to assess the information available to calculate many other indicators. Each element would include traditional knowledge, national and international information sources.
| Information type Biodiversity dimension | Monitoring schemes (community-based, national & international) | Primary/raw data (number/completeness of relevant observation | Model-based information (assessing quality and coverage | Information produce relevant to indicator (e.g. data on trends and coverage per country) |
| Genetic diversity | e.g. Number of species covered by systematic population monitoring schemes | e.g. Time series of censused abundances from populations monitored for effective population size with genetic markers (e.g. individuals genotyped by non-invasive sampling). | e.g. Estimated effective population sizes (Ne) from genetic and demographic data across monitored populations | e.g. Number of populations with an effective population size (Ne) above 500 individuals, with coverage reported across taxa. |
| Population abundances | e.g. Number of species and taxonomic groups covered by systematic population monitoring schemes | e.g. Time series of abundances available from national monitoring or international datasets (e.g. Living Planet Database). | e.g. modelled trends in demographic rates estimated for monitored taxa. | e.g. Number of taxonomic groups covered by abundance trend metric (e.g. Living Planet Index, Wild Bird Index etc.) |
| Species (occurrences) | e.g. Number of species and taxonomic groups covered by distribution atlases | e.g. Number of occurrence records in GBIF or OBIS | e.g. modelled trends in species distributions across taxa (e.g. species distribution models). | e.g. Number of species and taxonomic groups covered by a national Red Lists of species |
| Ecosystem extent | e.g. extent of ecosystem types monitored for extent | e.g. Earth observation, satellite and remote sensing imagery for ecosystem mapping. | e.g. model based assessments of change in ecosystem extent accounting for data gaps | e.g. Number of ecosystems with Red List of Ecosystems assessments |
| Ecosystem condition | e.g. monitoring of composition, structure and functioning by remote sensing | e.g. in situ and local knowledge of ecosystem structure and functioning, such as vegetation canopy structure, net primary productivity, carbon storage | e.g. The national ecosystem condition accounts following the UN SEEA EA methodology. | e.g. Number of ecosystems with Red List of Ecosystems assessments |
| Ecosystem services/NCPs | e.g. Monitoring of ecosystem service variables | e.g. Time series of supply and use of ecosystem services gathered for national accounts. | e.g. The national flow and use ecosystem service accounts following the UN SEEA EA methodology. | e.g. The national stock and change in stock ecosystem asset accounts following the UN SEEA EA methodology . |
14. Multiple indicators are available to assess the quality, coverage and gaps in information available to a country when reporting under this indicator.
Survey gap analysis
15. Survey gap analysis is a tool designed to solve the problem of filling data gaps with additional surveys and monitoring. Based on the generalised dissimilarity modelling (GDM) approach, it uses continuous environmental data to help maximize financial resources for gathering new information on biodiversity status and trends. The methodology is provided by Funk et al. (2005) and Ferrier et al. (2007), with a practical application available via the “Where Next?” tool https://rpubs.com/jivelasquezt/516782 .
Sampling effectiveness index
16. This indicator on sampling effectiveness (SSEI) relates the realized geographic distribution of records held by a country to the distribution of data needed to adequately calculate an indicator (Oliver et al. 2021). The methodology for this indicator has been published and is available in documentation reported by Oliver et al. (2021) and made available on a per country basis by the Map of Life.
Species Information Index
17. This indicator captures how well existing data on localities of species occurrences covers the expected geographic range of a species. At the species level, the SII can be calculated across the entirety of the species’ expected range, ignoring national boundaries, or separately within each nation where it is expected to occur. The methodology is provided by Oliver et al. (2021) and made available on a per country basis by the Map of Life.
Ecosystem coverage
18. A measure capturing the quality of available ecosystem characterisations. This may comprise two aspects:
(a) Countries may report whether they have national (or sub-national) ecosystem maps that can support reporting on headline indicators A1 (Red List of ecosystems) and A2 (extent of natural ecosystems).
(b) An attribute evaluation (for example, that can then be translated to a 0 - 100 scale) based on the spatial, temporal, and thematic resolution and accuracy of global ecosystem maps available in the country, based on maps of ecosystem functional groups in the Global Ecosystem Typology (https://global-ecosystems.org/).
19. Coverage of monitoring schemes and networks:
(a) Monitoring programs provide systematic and repeated biodiversity information needed to reliably assess trends in different dimensions of biodiversity.
(b) A count of the monitoring projects (e.g. by Biodiversity Observation Networks, and similar monitoring schemes) gathering relevant biodiversity data, including the scope and coverage of this information (e.g. taxonomic, geographic) in each country.
(c) Note: An open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes is needed to support the calculation of the change in the capacity of countries to monitor biodiversity and generate required information. For example, a dataset for population monitoring schemes (see Moussy et al. (2022)) is available on the IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group https://www.speciesmonitoring.org/schemes.html
(d) The GOOS BioEco Metadata Portal an open global meta-database of marine biodiversity monitoring schemes (https://bioeco.goosocean.org/).
20. Indigenous knowledge:
(a) This refers to the use of traditional knowledge in national monitoring frameworks and used in the equitable governance and management of biodiversity.
(b) The Indigenous Navigator (https://indigenousnavigator.org/) is a framework and set of tools for and by Indigenous Peoples to systematically monitor the level of recognition and implementation of their rights. By using the Indigenous Navigator, Indigenous organisations and communities, duty bearers, NGOs and journalists can access free tools and resources based on community-generated data. The Indigenous Navigator will be a valuable source of information that can be used to calculate a component related to which targets are using traditional knowledge to support decision making.
(c) Another source of information is the number of community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) active in a given country (Ferrari et al. 2015).
21. Relevant information from complementary indicators:
(a) Additional indicators are relevant and available to support reporting for indicator 21.1
(b) Growth in number of records and species in the Living Planet Database.
(c) Growth in species occurrence records accessible through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
(d) Growth in occurrence records accessible through the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS).
(e) Proportion of known species assessed through the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
(f) Number of assessments on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
(g) Number of assessments on the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (https://iucnrle.org/rle-inprogress).
(h) World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) bio-literacy survey (Biodiversity literacy in global zoo and aquarium visitors).
(i) Essential Biodiversity Variable data sets freely available for use on the EBV data portal (GEO BON). These are classified by EBV class and geographic extent.
(j) Growth in biodiversity observing and monitoring systems and technologies deployed.
5c. Data Collection Method
22. For the aspects of this indicator related to other indicators in the monitoring framework, this could be automatically calculated based on what is submitted through the national reporting processes.
23. For the aspects of this indicator related to data which is captured in international databases (for example GBIF), the information on record counts is already currently available. This source of information can be used to assess the completeness and inclusiveness of monitoring processes, from data to collection to indicator production. It also tracks the extent to which existing monitoring data is being shared into open data repositories using interoperable standards, enabling re-use and thus increasing availability of accessible data to support implementation of the GBF as required by Target 21.
5d. Accessibility Of Methodology
24. The metadata and methodology for the elements of this indicator are fully public. The SSEI and SSI are available online.
5e. Data Sources
25. The data sources are existing databases for biodiversity observation monitoring, community based monitoring databases and biodiversity indicator databases.
5f. Availability And Release Calendar
26. This indicator would be included in the national reports and follow the release calendar for the 7th and 8th national reports.
5g. Time Series
27. Parties would be asked to report data from 2020 to the most recent year available. Additionally, it would be encouraged to go as far back as possible in time in order to see how monitoring systems are developing over time.
5h. Data Providers
28. National governments are the primary data provider. GEO BON, IIFB, GBIF, OBIS, IUCN and other organizations maintain information relevant to this indicator. However, this indicator would be reported through the national reporting process.
5i. Data Compilers
29. Countries, including subnational and local counterparts, are the data compilers.
5j. Gaps In Data Coverage
30. This indicator is currently being developed. It is expected that it could be operationalized in the 7th national report as the indicator will aim to capture gaps in monitoring systems. An overestimation of the gaps may occur, and this would reflect poor data flows between data collection on the ground and national governments.
5k. Treatment Of Missing Values
31. Datasets may not be of adequate quality or coverage which represents important sources of uncertainty. This uncertainty can be assessed and addressed to guide the collection of better information. This indicator is assessing where there are missing values and thus this category does not apply
6. Scale
6a. Scale Of Use
32. National, regional and global
6b. National Regional Indicator Production
33. Data would primarily be compiled at the national level.
6c. Sources Of Differences Between Global And National Figures
34. In some cases, data may flow to the global level without flowing to the national level or vice versa. This could create discrepancies between the global and national figures. Identifying and resolving discrepancies would help make progress toward Target 21.
6d. Regional and global estimates & data collection for global monitoring
35. As GEO BON, IIFB, GBIF, IUCN and other organizations maintain biodiversity information these organizations would be in a position to provide regional and global data on this indicator which Parties could choose to use, where relevant.
7. Other MEA And Processes And Organisations
7a. Other MEA And Processes
36. This indicator is relevant for all the biodiversity MEAs as it could inform where information is available and lacking.
7b. Biodiversity Indicator Partnership
No
8. Disaggregation
N/A
9. Related goals, targets and indicators
N/A
10. Data reporter
10a. Organisation
Guidelines for indicator development are being prepared by GEO BON, with other partner organizations and groups (GBIF, OBIS, IUCN, IIFB, Birdlife and research centres and universities).
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD)
Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON)
10b. Contact Person
Andrew Gonzalez (andrew.gonzalez@mcgill.ca), GEO BON; Jillian Campbell (campbell7@un.org, SCBD)
11. References
Ferrari, M. F. F. et al. (2015) Community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Biodiversity 16: 57-67.
Ferrier, S. et al. (2007) Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Diversity and Distributions, 13: 252-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00341.x
Funk, V. A. et al. (2005) Survey-gap analysis in expeditionary research: where do we go from here? Biological Journal for the Linnean Society 85: 549-567.
Leung, B. and Gonzalez, A (2024) Global monitoring for biodiversity: Uncertainty, risk, and power analyses to support trend change detection. Science Advances 10: eadj1448
Moussy et al. (2022) A quantitative global review of species population monitoring. Conservation Biology 36: e13721
Oliver, R. Y. et al. (2021). Global and national trends, gaps, and opportunities in documenting and monitoring species distributions [Data set]. PLOS Biology. https://doi.org/10.48600/MOL-3Y3ZDW77
1. Indicator name
Indicator on biodiversity information for monitoring the global biodiversity framework
2. Date Of Metadata Update
2024-09-01 12:00:00 UTC
3. Goals And Targets Addressed
3a. Goal
N/A
3b. Target
Target 21. Ensure that the best available data, information and knowledge are accessible to decision-makers, practitioners and the public to guide effective and equitable governance, integrated and participatory management of biodiversity, and to strengthen communication, awareness-raising, education, monitoring, research and knowledge management and, also in this context, traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technologies of indigenous peoples and local communities should only be accessed with their free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with national legislation.
4. Rationale
1. Biodiversity information is required to identify threats to biodiversity, to determine priority actions for conservation and sustainable use and to determine if such actions are effective. Biodiversity information, including traditional knowledge, will underpin assessments of progress towards all of the proposed goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
2. Despite the importance of traditional knowledge to biodiversity, there is limited information on how such information is being taken into account in decision making. In particular, the need for a measure of “the trends in which traditional knowledge and practices are respected through their full integration, safeguards and the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the national implementation of the Strategic Plan” was identified in COP decision XIII/28 but remains to be operationalised.
3. This indicator is necessary for countries to be able to assess their overall ability to access biodiversity data, information and knowledge required to guide action and report progress under the monitoring framework. The indicator should evaluate the availability of biodiversity information and knowledge for all dimensions of biodiversity required to monitor progress across all targets of the GBF.
4. It is recognized that:
(a) A single composite indicator may give an overall summary of status or progress, but appropriate disaggregation will be needed to assess which aspects of biodiversity information are lacking or needed to increase country scores.
(b) Because biodiversity information is cross cutting with other goals and targets of the KM GBF, information used for other indicators will be relevant.
(c) Metrics capturing information related to traditional knowledge are at the heart of the indicator and should be included.
(d) Information in national reports, including how well countries are able to report on all indicators and targets, may support this indicator.
5. There remains a need to establish quantitative national targets to indicate progress towards improving the coverage and completeness of biodiversity data used and produced by countries to monitor progress to the targets and goals of the GBF. This indicator should present information in a way that fosters action to fill gaps and improve strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the data (Leung and Gonzalez 2024).
5. Definitions Concepts And Classifications
5a. Definition
6. The number (or percentage) of headline indicators identified in a national monitoring framework where national biodiversity datasets, traditional knowledge, and monitoring schemes are available for use. Over time this would capture country-level trends in the access and use of data for governance, management and communication of biodiversity outcomes.
7. Three specific elements are recommended for reporting under this indicator:
(a) Metrics on the availability, amount, coverage and quality of information used to report on each biodiversity indicator within the national monitoring framework.
(b) An evaluation of how many targets take traditional knowledge into account in the assessment of trends or decisions required for each target.
(c) An enumeration of the number and coverage of biodiversity monitoring schemes currently active and providing data and knowledge on the basis of FAIR and CARE principles, needed to report trends in a headline indicator.
8. Definitions for data sources and indicators to do this are given below.
5b. Method Of Computation
9. A country reporting this indicator would provide the number (or percentage) of headline indicators in a national monitoring framework where national biodiversity datasets, traditional knowledge, and monitoring schemes are available for use.
10. Development of a national methodology for this indicator must consider that while most countries have national datasets and monitoring schemes for some species and ecosystems, these sources rarely cover all the biodiversity information needed for this headline indicator. Some countries may need to refer to international data sources and monitoring programs. Access and use of international databases can often be disaggregated to country level.
11. In the case of a global network such as GBIF, such disaggregations will in fact include a combination of species occurrence data from national sources, with data shared from institutions in other countries - emphasising the benefits of global cooperation in bringing together data from all sources.
12. An assessment of the availability of information sources captures one element of this indicator. Measures of data coverage and quality are also needed to assess growth in the availability of information of sufficient quality to guide decisions. We describe the indicators that can be used to assess these facets of information quality and source in the next section.
62. Indicators for data quality, data coverage and knowledge gaps
13. The following table summarizes the types of biodiversity information that can be used to assess the gaps, coverage, and quality of information needed to calculate this headline indicator. General examples are given for types of data or information sources, and these will differ from country to country. Countries may maintain a database of sources of biodiversity information and knowledge to report for headline indicator 21.1.
Table 1: The four types of biodiversity inforation and sources to be evaluated for each dimension of biodiversity need for indicator 21.1
We include a non-exhaustive list of examples for the rows of this table. This compilation of data and knowledge sources would also serve to assess the information available to calculate many other indicators. Each element would include traditional knowledge, national and international information sources.
| Information type Biodiversity dimension | Monitoring schemes (community-based, national & international) | Primary/raw data (number/completeness of relevant observation | Model-based information (assessing quality and coverage | Information produce relevant to indicator (e.g. data on trends and coverage per country) |
| Genetic diversity | e.g. Number of species covered by systematic population monitoring schemes | e.g. Time series of censused abundances from populations monitored for effective population size with genetic markers (e.g. individuals genotyped by non-invasive sampling). | e.g. Estimated effective population sizes (Ne) from genetic and demographic data across monitored populations | e.g. Number of populations with an effective population size (Ne) above 500 individuals, with coverage reported across taxa. |
| Population abundances | e.g. Number of species and taxonomic groups covered by systematic population monitoring schemes | e.g. Time series of abundances available from national monitoring or international datasets (e.g. Living Planet Database). | e.g. modelled trends in demographic rates estimated for monitored taxa. | e.g. Number of taxonomic groups covered by abundance trend metric (e.g. Living Planet Index, Wild Bird Index etc.) |
| Species (occurrences) | e.g. Number of species and taxonomic groups covered by distribution atlases | e.g. Number of occurrence records in GBIF or OBIS | e.g. modelled trends in species distributions across taxa (e.g. species distribution models). | e.g. Number of species and taxonomic groups covered by a national Red Lists of species |
| Ecosystem extent | e.g. extent of ecosystem types monitored for extent | e.g. Earth observation, satellite and remote sensing imagery for ecosystem mapping. | e.g. model based assessments of change in ecosystem extent accounting for data gaps | e.g. Number of ecosystems with Red List of Ecosystems assessments |
| Ecosystem condition | e.g. monitoring of composition, structure and functioning by remote sensing | e.g. in situ and local knowledge of ecosystem structure and functioning, such as vegetation canopy structure, net primary productivity, carbon storage | e.g. The national ecosystem condition accounts following the UN SEEA EA methodology. | e.g. Number of ecosystems with Red List of Ecosystems assessments |
| Ecosystem services/NCPs | e.g. Monitoring of ecosystem service variables | e.g. Time series of supply and use of ecosystem services gathered for national accounts. | e.g. The national flow and use ecosystem service accounts following the UN SEEA EA methodology. | e.g. The national stock and change in stock ecosystem asset accounts following the UN SEEA EA methodology . |
14. Multiple indicators are available to assess the quality, coverage and gaps in information available to a country when reporting under this indicator.
Survey gap analysis
15. Survey gap analysis is a tool designed to solve the problem of filling data gaps with additional surveys and monitoring. Based on the generalised dissimilarity modelling (GDM) approach, it uses continuous environmental data to help maximize financial resources for gathering new information on biodiversity status and trends. The methodology is provided by Funk et al. (2005) and Ferrier et al. (2007), with a practical application available via the “Where Next?” tool https://rpubs.com/jivelasquezt/516782 .
Sampling effectiveness index
16. This indicator on sampling effectiveness (SSEI) relates the realized geographic distribution of records held by a country to the distribution of data needed to adequately calculate an indicator (Oliver et al. 2021). The methodology for this indicator has been published and is available in documentation reported by Oliver et al. (2021) and made available on a per country basis by the Map of Life.
Species Information Index
17. This indicator captures how well existing data on localities of species occurrences covers the expected geographic range of a species. At the species level, the SII can be calculated across the entirety of the species’ expected range, ignoring national boundaries, or separately within each nation where it is expected to occur. The methodology is provided by Oliver et al. (2021) and made available on a per country basis by the Map of Life.
Ecosystem coverage
18. A measure capturing the quality of available ecosystem characterisations. This may comprise two aspects:
(a) Countries may report whether they have national (or sub-national) ecosystem maps that can support reporting on headline indicators A1 (Red List of ecosystems) and A2 (extent of natural ecosystems).
(b) An attribute evaluation (for example, that can then be translated to a 0 - 100 scale) based on the spatial, temporal, and thematic resolution and accuracy of global ecosystem maps available in the country, based on maps of ecosystem functional groups in the Global Ecosystem Typology (https://global-ecosystems.org/).
19. Coverage of monitoring schemes and networks:
(a) Monitoring programs provide systematic and repeated biodiversity information needed to reliably assess trends in different dimensions of biodiversity.
(b) A count of the monitoring projects (e.g. by Biodiversity Observation Networks, and similar monitoring schemes) gathering relevant biodiversity data, including the scope and coverage of this information (e.g. taxonomic, geographic) in each country.
(c) Note: An open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes is needed to support the calculation of the change in the capacity of countries to monitor biodiversity and generate required information. For example, a dataset for population monitoring schemes (see Moussy et al. (2022)) is available on the IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group https://www.speciesmonitoring.org/schemes.html
(d) The GOOS BioEco Metadata Portal an open global meta-database of marine biodiversity monitoring schemes (https://bioeco.goosocean.org/).
20. Indigenous knowledge:
(a) This refers to the use of traditional knowledge in national monitoring frameworks and used in the equitable governance and management of biodiversity.
(b) The Indigenous Navigator (https://indigenousnavigator.org/) is a framework and set of tools for and by Indigenous Peoples to systematically monitor the level of recognition and implementation of their rights. By using the Indigenous Navigator, Indigenous organisations and communities, duty bearers, NGOs and journalists can access free tools and resources based on community-generated data. The Indigenous Navigator will be a valuable source of information that can be used to calculate a component related to which targets are using traditional knowledge to support decision making.
(c) Another source of information is the number of community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) active in a given country (Ferrari et al. 2015).
21. Relevant information from complementary indicators:
(a) Additional indicators are relevant and available to support reporting for indicator 21.1
(b) Growth in number of records and species in the Living Planet Database.
(c) Growth in species occurrence records accessible through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
(d) Growth in occurrence records accessible through the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS).
(e) Proportion of known species assessed through the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
(f) Number of assessments on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
(g) Number of assessments on the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (https://iucnrle.org/rle-inprogress).
(h) World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) bio-literacy survey (Biodiversity literacy in global zoo and aquarium visitors).
(i) Essential Biodiversity Variable data sets freely available for use on the EBV data portal (GEO BON). These are classified by EBV class and geographic extent.
(j) Growth in biodiversity observing and monitoring systems and technologies deployed.
5c. Data Collection Method
22. For the aspects of this indicator related to other indicators in the monitoring framework, this could be automatically calculated based on what is submitted through the national reporting processes.
23. For the aspects of this indicator related to data which is captured in international databases (for example GBIF), the information on record counts is already currently available. This source of information can be used to assess the completeness and inclusiveness of monitoring processes, from data to collection to indicator production. It also tracks the extent to which existing monitoring data is being shared into open data repositories using interoperable standards, enabling re-use and thus increasing availability of accessible data to support implementation of the GBF as required by Target 21.
5d. Accessibility Of Methodology
24. The metadata and methodology for the elements of this indicator are fully public. The SSEI and SSI are available online.
5e. Data Sources
25. The data sources are existing databases for biodiversity observation monitoring, community based monitoring databases and biodiversity indicator databases.
5f. Availability And Release Calendar
26. This indicator would be included in the national reports and follow the release calendar for the 7th and 8th national reports.
5g. Time Series
27. Parties would be asked to report data from 2020 to the most recent year available. Additionally, it would be encouraged to go as far back as possible in time in order to see how monitoring systems are developing over time.
5h. Data Providers
28. National governments are the primary data provider. GEO BON, IIFB, GBIF, OBIS, IUCN and other organizations maintain information relevant to this indicator. However, this indicator would be reported through the national reporting process.
5i. Data Compilers
29. Countries, including subnational and local counterparts, are the data compilers.
5j. Gaps In Data Coverage
30. This indicator is currently being developed. It is expected that it could be operationalized in the 7th national report as the indicator will aim to capture gaps in monitoring systems. An overestimation of the gaps may occur, and this would reflect poor data flows between data collection on the ground and national governments.
5k. Treatment Of Missing Values
31. Datasets may not be of adequate quality or coverage which represents important sources of uncertainty. This uncertainty can be assessed and addressed to guide the collection of better information. This indicator is assessing where there are missing values and thus this category does not apply
6. Scale
6a. Scale Of Use
32. National, regional and global
6b. National Regional Indicator Production
33. Data would primarily be compiled at the national level.
6c. Sources Of Differences Between Global And National Figures
34. In some cases, data may flow to the global level without flowing to the national level or vice versa. This could create discrepancies between the global and national figures. Identifying and resolving discrepancies would help make progress toward Target 21.
6d. Regional and global estimates & data collection for global monitoring
35. As GEO BON, IIFB, GBIF, IUCN and other organizations maintain biodiversity information these organizations would be in a position to provide regional and global data on this indicator which Parties could choose to use, where relevant.
7. Other MEA And Processes And Organisations
7a. Other MEA And Processes
36. This indicator is relevant for all the biodiversity MEAs as it could inform where information is available and lacking.
7b. Biodiversity Indicator Partnership
No
8. Disaggregation
N/A
9. Related goals, targets and indicators
N/A
10. Data reporter
10a. Organisation
Guidelines for indicator development are being prepared by GEO BON, with other partner organizations and groups (GBIF, OBIS, IUCN, IIFB, Birdlife and research centres and universities).
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD)
Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON)
10b. Contact Person
Andrew Gonzalez (andrew.gonzalez@mcgill.ca), GEO BON; Jillian Campbell (campbell7@un.org, SCBD)
11. References
Ferrari, M. F. F. et al. (2015) Community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Biodiversity 16: 57-67.
Ferrier, S. et al. (2007) Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Diversity and Distributions, 13: 252-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00341.x
Funk, V. A. et al. (2005) Survey-gap analysis in expeditionary research: where do we go from here? Biological Journal for the Linnean Society 85: 549-567.
Leung, B. and Gonzalez, A (2024) Global monitoring for biodiversity: Uncertainty, risk, and power analyses to support trend change detection. Science Advances 10: eadj1448
Moussy et al. (2022) A quantitative global review of species population monitoring. Conservation Biology 36: e13721
Oliver, R. Y. et al. (2021). Global and national trends, gaps, and opportunities in documenting and monitoring species distributions [Data set]. PLOS Biology. https://doi.org/10.48600/MOL-3Y3ZDW77
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.