Please post your comments related to the indicators for Goal B and Targets 9-12 in this thread

ON BEHALF OF THE AHTEG on indicators, for Goal B:
Should a common set of ecosystem services be identified to allow for a more consistent aggregation at the global level of national reporting? Or should the ecosystem services reported be determined nationally based on a common classification system? Please, provide a justification of your answer

ON BEHALF OF THE AHTEG on indicators, for Goal B:
Bearing in mind the need to keep the reporting burden low, what units of measure of ecosystem services can be used for the aggregation into the final indicator (e.g. monetary, biophysical)? Please, provide a justification of your answer

I represent the Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK). I share below two briefs relevant to the interpretation of and appropriate indicators for GBF targets relevant to pesticides pollution, including specifically Target 10, as well as Targets 15, and 18, and how these, combined, contribute to critical pesticide pollution reductions of at least half by 2030 mandated under Target 7. The briefs have been produced by the Pesticide Action Network International (PAN International) and the Third World Network (TWN) for the benefit of national policy makers and the AHTEG.

Brief 1 - Interpreting the Mandate for Action on Pesticides in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) – offers guidance for national policy makers concerning the significant increases in the application of agroecological farming practices mandated under Target 10 on Agriculture, and how these increases are required to facilitate the delivery of a reduction in the overall use and toxicity of pesticides (pesticide load / toxic load) of at least half by 2030 as required under Target 7. The brief outlines how eliminating the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) will be an effective contribution to achieving both the overall pesticide load reduction mandated by Target 7, and sufficient expansion of agroecology. The briefing will aid Parties’ development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and subsequent monitoring and reporting.

Brief 2 - Optimizing the Monitoring Framework Indicators for Pesticides in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) – offers recommendations to ensure monitoring and reporting against Target 10, on Agriculture, are of sufficient depth to capture the significant increases in agroecological farming practices mandated by that target. It recommends that that the AHTEG advises Parties to disaggregate reporting under Headline Indicator 10.1 by adding new Component Indicators, including: ‘proportion of agricultural area managed using agroecological practices’; ‘area of agricultural land certified organic’; and ‘Percentage increase in number of farmers implementing agroecological practices’. The brief also advises the AHTEG on the further development of appropriate scientific indicators for pesticide pollution reductions mandated by Target 7 – most of which are required in agriculture. Specifically, PAN/TWN recommend that the AHTEG advises parties to use the Danish Pesticide Load indicator, or an equivalent indicator, as the scientific methodology for national reporting on Headline Indicator 7.2.

PAN and TWN hope this guidance is of use in ensuring action to reduce pesticide pollution is well designed and will be effectively measured and reported. Requests for further information may be sent to jago@pan-uk.org, and/or twn@twnetwork.org

Thank you.

Jago Wadley, International Advocacy Manager, PAN UK.

https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/PAN-TWN-Optimising-the-KMGBF-Monitoring-Indicators-for-Pesticides.pdf

https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/PAN-TWN-KMGBF-Pesticides-Targets-Interpretation.pdf

Hello, I am Andrew Gonzalez, a member of the AHTEG on Indicators. I am seeking feedback and insights on Target 12 Urban green and blue spaces enhanced for human well-being: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/12/

The headline indicator for T12 is SDG 11.7.1 measuring the "Average share of the built-up area of cities that is green/blue space for public use for all."
https://www.post-2020indicators.org/metadata/headline/12-1

We are aware that this only partially covers the outcomes sought for T12.
My question to the forum: has anyone worked with other indicators, such as the City Biodiversity Index?
https://www.cbd.int/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/city-biodiversity-index
Could the CBI, or another index, usefully complement the SDG indicator for this target? Reflections on the challenges of obtaining the data and the technical capacities needed to calculate the CBI would be helpful.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Representation of the ocean in the GBF Monitoring Framework – comments by The Nature Conservancy

Dear Madam, Sir
The Nature Conservancy is grateful for the opportunity the AHTEG on Indicators has provided for observers to provide comments on the proposed monitoring framework for the Global Biodiversity Framework through the online discussion forum.
Attached to this cover note you will find a short set of recommendations for how to improve the representation of the ocean in the framework without significant increases to the reporting burden of parties.
We believe it is of utmost importance that the ocean is adequately represented in the monitoring framework to ensure that the area covering over 70% of the planet’s surface can benefit from the ambitious action the Global Biodiversity Framework sets out to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity.
A full list of recommendations is in the attached document but in summary we recommend that:
- Indicator 5.1 (Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels) should be replicated under targets 9 and 10 given the inclusion of fisheries in those target. This will ensure a more holistic assessment of whether delivery of targets 9 and 10 is on track without increasing the reporting burden on contracting parties.
- For Target 10 additional indicators are required to ensure that aquaculture is part of the monitoring framework as there currently are no indicators for this critical and growing sector.
We would be very happy to provide additional information on all of our recommendations in any format helpful to the AHTEG.
Best wishes,
Andreas Hansen
Senior Policy Advisor, Ocean and Conservation Finance
Global Policy, Institutions and Conservation Finance

Dear Colleagues,
I am sharing this post on behalf of the UN Biodiversity Lab Partnership (CBD, UNDP, UNEP, UNEP-WCMC). We have compiled a recommended spatial data list to support the efforts of the AHTEG on Indicators.

The document is available as a view-only Google Doc here: https://bit.ly/SpatialData_AHTEG_Indicators

This proposal is based on our review of the Monitoring Framework of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Decision 15/5) and the associated metadata for each indicator (available on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Indicators Website) against existing spatial data, aiming to identify gaps and develop the GBF indicators for use at country level.

The data included in the document are global data that (1) our team of spatial data experts believe can support the calculation, planning and monitoring for a particular goal, target, or indicator and (2) that are not already mentioned in the metadata for the Monitoring Framework. These datasets aim to support countries to fill spatial data gaps where national data is not available.

In the document, we have provided an overview of the work, methods, and four data tables:
• Table 1: Headline Indicators – 29 datasets.
• Table 2: Component Indicators – 23 datasets.
• Table 3: Complementary Indicators – 9 datasets.
• Table 4: Relevant GBF Data – 16 datasets.

The document spans all GBF Goals and Targets for which spatial data can be used to calculate the indicators. They are clearly organized by goal and target number to enable easy review for Goal B and Targets 9-12.

We hope this might be useful to Parties and to the AHTEG on Indicators. We welcome any questions or comments.

Best wishes,
Annie Virnig (anne.virnig@undp.org)

I am contributing in my role as Chair of the IUCN SSC Phylogenetic Diversity Task Force (http://www.pdtf.org). We believe it to be a significant oversight of the monitoring framework to omit an explicit biodiversity element from the headline indicators for Goal B in favour of a single aggregate headline indicator that does not yet exist and is likely to be calculated with minimal biodiversity input (B.1 Services provided by ecosystems, SEEA). Indicator B.1 risks being adapted to utilise information related only to physical monetary ecosystem services and assets, and thus has the potential to not capture trends in, or benefits directly from, biodiversity at all. This would neglect the entire set of non-monetary benefits and options that biodiversity provides, which must be secured for both biodiversity and people. This oversight has the potential to further detach Goal B from the wider biodiversity focus of the framework, and I note the limited engagement with Goal B compared to Goal A on this forum. 

There are several ways to bolster the biodiversity elements of mandatory reporting against our progress towards Goal B. For example, Goal B’s stated aim opens with: “Biodiversity is sustainably used and managed…”, yet the indicators that would monitor this are overlooked in the headline slots (several of which already exist), are instead relegated to component and complementary indicators.  Further, Goal B’s text ends with “…for the benefit of present and future generations…”, yet there is no mandatory reporting on indicators associated with the capacity for biodiversity to provide NCPs for these future generations, essential for intergenerational equity. IPBES’s indicator for the ‘maintenance of options’ (i.e. maintenance of known and currently unknown benefits) is the maintenance of Phylogenetic Diversity (PD). The maintenance of PD has been shown to be effective for retaining benefits from biodiversity for both plants (1,2,3) and birds (4), and this indicator exists, with data available for at least one time point for vertebrates (5) & cycads (6). More details can be found at http://www.pdtf.org/cbd and in the attached brief.

Elevating one or more of these existing complementary or component indicators to a headline indicator would prevent the potential for a failure for Goal B to capture the multiple non-monetary benefits biodiversity provides, which is likely to happen if it is monitored with the solely economic-focused reporting of indicator B.1. It would also ensure the GBF maintains the necessary strong link to biodiversity in Goal B from the perspective of both value and sustainable use.

1. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05587
2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03616-x
3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01414-2
4. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh4686
5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45119-z
6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14138