Please post your comments related to any general or cross-cutting issues related to the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in this thread.

Gary Geller, NASA, GEO BON, and the CEOS Ecosystem Extent Task Team.

What are the key obstacles to greater use of satellite data for indicators and monitoring?

Monitoring requires periodic measurements and these can be challenging for in situ data, which also tend to be spatially spotty and expensive. Satellite data are inherently periodic, usually global and spatially continuous, and frequently free, but typically do not directly measure biodiversity so require in situ data and models. This complementarity of in situ and satellite data is extremely valuable yet satellite data are not fully “mainstreamed” into the many indicators for which they can play an important role.

How can more value be extracted from the satellite data in support of the GBF?

Dr. Prasert Trakansuphakon . From Pgakenyaw Association for Suatainable Development (PASD) Indigenous Organization from Thailand.
Comments:
1.  The monitoring framework is very unbalanced. For instance, there are no headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23 and only one headline indicator related to indigenous peoples and local communities (on traditional occupations for Target 9). This is a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.  We would like to remind the AHTEG that, its mandate (Annex II (ToR AHTEG) includes (emphasis is added): “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:
i)                    Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”
As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”. As the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP 15. The AHTEG should therefore explore meaningful options for all targets, including T22 and T23.

[Note: the general point above can be deepened by this additional comment:]
In relation to this vital issue for IPLCs, women and youth, we have a comments on AHTEG document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2:
Paragraph 10 contains useful approaches, in its sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) However, paragraph 10 (c) should apply not only to the goals and targets being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), but also to the goals and targets that currently don’t have a headline indicator (e.g. Targets 22 and 23, which are fundamental for a whole-of-society approach to the implementation of the K-MGBF). That would allow the AHTEG to better fulfil its mandate to “…address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework….. given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across goals and targets”. If the application of paragraph 10 (c) is limited to the goals and targets being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), there is a risk of creating even more imbalance among goals and targets and not filling some of the identified gaps, because the AHTEG would consider component indicators that could be used as headline indicators only for those goals and targets that already have headline indicators (as the 5 sub-groups at the moment are asked to address only goals and targets that have headline indicators), further marginalising the targets  that don’t have headline indicators. Either the AHTEG or SBSTTA (or both) should address this point, which has major implications for the overall balance of the monitoring framework. 

2.   Cross cutting nature of IPLC, women and youth issues. Section C of the K-MGBF clearly states that the K-MGBF Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with the following (considerations, each with their own paragraph), inter-alia: Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; Different value systems; Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; Right to development; Human rights-based approach; Gender, Inter-generational equity. Section C must be fully taken into account in the development of indicators. The AHTEG and SBSTTA should consider:
How can issues related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, women, inter-generational equity and human rights-based approach be reflected in the headline indicators?
The Bonn expert meeting on indicators held in 2022 proposed that the headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23 (as there were two proposed headline indicators for those targets at that time) be considered as linked to indicators for all Goals and Targets, particularly for Targets 1, 2, 3 and 8. The work done by the Bonn expert meeting should be taken into account and built on, e.g., as part of the disaggregation of headline indicators.  This would provide a much better balanced and holistic monitoring framework, addressing the gaps identified at COP-15.

Nutdanai Trakansuphakon from Pgakenyaw Association for Sustianable development , Thailand. We are indigenous NGOs Organization in Thailand and work with indigenous community.

I have some comment.

Community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) and citizen science can play a very important role in monitoring the implementation of the K-MGBF. Decision COP-15/5 (in paragraph 6) invites Parties and relevant organisations to support CBMIS and citizen science and their contributions to the monitoring of the K-MGBF. The AHTEG and SBSTTA should address how best can CBMIS and citizen science be integrated as a cross cutting methodology.

Jantanee Pichetkulsampan
Inter Mountain Peoples Education and Culture in Thailand Association (IMPECT)
Indigenous Organisation in Thailand

The monitoring framework is very unbalanced. A major concern for indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth is that here are no headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23. This is a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.  We would like to remind the AHTEG that its mandate includes (emphasis is added): “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:
i)                  Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”

As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”. As the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP 15. The AHTEG should therefore explore meaningful options for all targets, including T22 and T23, particularly to monitor aspects of rights to land and resources of IPLCs and full, effective and equitable participation of IPLCs, women, youth and persons with disabilities.

If organisations have time to make more submissions, here is a longer version with 4 points. This does not cover yet other important matters (e.g. on Target 15 and other targets), which should also be developed in due course.

Section on General or cross-cutting issues related to the monitoring framework

1.  The monitoring framework is very unbalanced. For instance, there are no headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23 and only one headline indicator related to indigenous peoples and local communities (on traditional occupations for Target 9). This is a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.  We would like to remind the AHTEG that, its mandate (Annex II (ToR AHTEG) includes (emphasis is added): “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:
i)                    Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”
As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”. As the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP 15. The AHTEG should therefore explore meaningful options for all targets, including T22 and T23.

[Note: the general point above can be deepened by this additional comment:]
In relation to this vital issue for IPLCs, women and youth, we have a comments on AHTEG document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2:
Paragraph 10 contains useful approaches, in its sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) However, paragraph 10 (c) should apply not only to the goals and targets being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), but also to the goals and targets that currently don’t have a headline indicator (e.g. Targets 22 and 23, which are fundamental for a whole-of-society approach to the implementation of the K-MGBF). That would allow the AHTEG to better fulfil its mandate to “…address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework….. given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across goals and targets”. If the application of paragraph 10 (c) is limited to the goals and targets being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), there is a risk of creating even more imbalance among goals and targets and not filling some of the identified gaps, because the AHTEG would consider component indicators that could be used as headline indicators only for those goals and targets that already have headline indicators (as the 5 sub-groups at the moment are asked to address only goals and targets that have headline indicators), further marginalising the targets  that don’t have headline indicators. Either the AHTEG or SBSTTA (or both) should address this point, which has major implications for the overall balance of the monitoring framework. 

2.   Cross cutting nature of IPLC, women and youth issues. Section C of the K-MGBF clearly states that the K-MGBF Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with the following (considerations, each with their own paragraph), inter-alia: Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; Different value systems; Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; Right to development; Human rights-based approach; Gender, Inter-generational equity. Section C must be fully taken into account in the development of indicators. The AHTEG and SBSTTA should consider:
How can issues related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, women, inter-generational equity and human rights-based approach be reflected in the headline indicators?
The Bonn expert meeting on indicators held in 2022 proposed that the headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23 (as there were two proposed headline indicators for those targets at that time) be considered as linked to indicators for all Goals and Targets, particularly for Targets 1, 2, 3 and 8. The work done by the Bonn expert meeting should be taken into account and built on, e.g. as part of the disaggregation of headline indicators.  This would provide a much better balanced and holistic monitoring framework, addressing the gaps identified at COP-15.

3.    Community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) and citizen science can play a very important role in monitoring the implementation of the K-MGBF. Decision COP-15/5 (in paragraph 6) invites Parties and relevant organisations to support CBMIS and citizen science and their contributions to the monitoring of the K-MGBF. The AHTEG and SBSTTA should address how best can CBMIS and citizen science be integrated as a cross cutting methodology.

Section on Goal A and Targets 1-8
Target 3: The headline indicator 3.1 “Coverage of protected areas and OECMs” should be reviewed and revised based on important aspects of the final text of Target 3, particularly the text highlighted in bold:
“Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.” There was no sufficient time to address these issues of crucial importance to indigenous peoples and local communities in the monitoring framework at COP-15; these need to be addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.

The monitoring framework is very unbalanced. A major concern for indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth is that here are no headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23. This is a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.  We would like to remind the AHTEG that its mandate includes (emphasis is added): “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:

i)                  Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”


As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”. As the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP 15. The AHTEG should therefore explore meaningful options for all targets, including T22 and T23, particularly to monitor aspects of rights to land and resources of IPLCs and full, effective and equitable participation of IPLCs, women, youth and persons with disabilities.

Ruth Spencer, A local Community representative from Antigua and Barbuda. The monitoring framework needs balance. A major  area of concern for indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth is that here are no headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23. This is a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.  We would like to remind the AHTEG that its mandate includes (emphasis is added): “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:
i)                  Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”

As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”. As the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 were not  adequately or sufficiently discussed  in Montreal at COP 15.The responsibility now rests with  The AHTEG to  explore meaningful options for all targets, including T22 and T23, particularly to monitor aspects of rights to land and resources of IPLCs and full, effective and equitable participation of IPLCs, women, youth and persons with disabilities. We need our voices and concerns to be heard as we are making major contributions at the local level and our work need to be reflected in the reporting and missing indicators will not do justice to our contributions to Nature and Biodiversity. The GBF will be inadequate without these indicators

My name is Lakpa Nuri Sherpa. I work with the largest regional network of Asian Indigenous Peoples' Organizations known as Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP).

As a regional network of Indigenous Peoples' Organization working in 14 Countries in Asia, AIPP expresses its major about the absence of headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23. We identify this as a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA. 

We would like to remind the AHTEG that, its mandate (Annex II (ToR AHTEG) includes: “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:

i) Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”

As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”.

As the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP 15. The AHTEG should therefore explore meaningful options for all targets, including T22 and T23, particularly to monitor aspects of collective rights of Indigenous Peoples to their land, territories and resources; and full, effective and equitable participation of Indigenous Peoples, women, youth and persons with disabilities.

This post is on behalf of WWF International.

We would like to support the comments in post #2887 (in the discussion thread for Indicators for Goal D and Targets 14-23), which argued for a broadening of the focus of the AHTEG to also address targets 22 & 23, which currently lack a headline indicator.

While developing a methodology for indicators that do not have an existing methodology is important, this will not be sufficient to meet the Terms of Reference of the AHTEG “to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework”.

The AHTEG must also address targets that currently lack headline indicators because:
- The suite of headline indicators is very unbalanced - it lacks indicators to sufficiently monitor progress on two key aspects of the KMGBF: how well a whole-of-society and a human rights-based approach are being implemented (i.e. targets 22 and 23), and and how well the drivers of biodiversity loss are being addressed (e.g. the footprint of consumption in target 16).
- The monitoring framework is not yet finalised. In para 3 of Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5, the COP “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate”. At COP15, discussions on the drafting of targets occurred in parallel to the drafting of indicators, meaning that for some goals and targets, indicators were proposed before the final text of the goals and targets was agreed. As a result meaningful headline indicators for the final versions of targets including 16, 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP.

We would also note that binary indicators are not an adequate substitute for a headline indicator as they lack the ability to meaningfully measure qualitative and quantitative aspects of the achievement towards goals and
targets.

This comment is made on behalf of the UNCBD Women's Caucus:

Section C of the K-MGBF clearly states that the K-MGBF Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with the following (considerations, each with their own paragraph), inter-alia: Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; Different value systems; Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; Right to development; Human rights-based approach; Gender, Inter-generational equity. Section C must be fully taken into account in the development of indicators.
In this regard we strongly invite the AHTEG and SBSTTA to discuss deeply “How can issues related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, women, inter-generational equity and human rights-based approach be reflected in the headline indicators?” By answering this question when dealing with each of the Targets’ indicators, a human rights based approach will more likely crosscut along the Monitoring Framework, and consistency will be achieved.
Additionally, we want to bring the AHTEG members attention to the proposal made by the Bonn expert meeting on indicators held in 2022: The headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23 (as there were two proposed headline indicators for those targets at that time) be considered as linked to indicators for all Goals and Targets, particularly for Targets 1, 2, 3 and 8.
The work done by the Bonn expert meeting should be taken into account and built on. For example, the disaggregation of headline indicators or an overarching principle on data disaggregation (by population group, age, sex, etc.).  This would ensure a more balanced monitoring framework that addresses key gaps identified at COP-15.

We are concerned about the imbalance across the Targets and their headline indicators. Some Targets have incomplete headline indicators (e.g. Target 5), and some do not have any headline indicators at all (e.g. Targets 22 and 23). In order for the AHTEG to better fulfil its mandate to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, we recommend the expert group and its sub groups review all Targets, including those that do not have any headline indicators, and develop new headline indicators where necessary.

The comments below are made on behalf of the Human Rights and Biodiversity Working Group” (HR&BD WG) -  sub working group on Indicators. The HR&BD WG is a group consisting of diverse organizations and people which was set up in 2020 to collaboratively support the inclusion of a human rights-based approach (HRBA) in the global biodiversity framework.

General or cross-cutting issues related to the monitoring framework

1.   A major concern for indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth is that there are no headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23. This is a major gap that needs to be urgently addressed by the AHTEG and SBSTTA.  We would like to remind the AHTEG that, its mandate (Annex II (ToR AHTEG) includes (emphasis is added): “The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators will work:

i)                    Support the work to address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework, in particular on headline indicators that do not have an existing methodology, and advise on their implementation at the national level. Attention should be paid to fill gaps under Goals B, C and D and Targets 2, 13 and 14 to 22, given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;”

As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate”, as the discussions related to the drafting of targets and indicators overlapped, meaningful indicators for targets 22 and 23 weren’t sufficiently discussed at COP 15. The AHTEG should therefore explore meaningful indicator options for all targets, including T22 and T23, particularly to monitor aspects of rights to land and resources of IPLCs and full, effective and equitable participation of IPLCs, women, youth and persons with disabilities.

In relation to this vital issue for IPLCs, women and youth, we have comments on AHTEG document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2:
Paragraph 10 contains useful approaches, in its sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) However, paragraph 10 (c) should apply not only to the goals and targets being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), but also to the goals and targets that currently don’t have a headline indicator (e.g. Targets 22 and 23, which are fundamental for a whole-of-society approach to the implementation of the K-M GBF). That would allow the AHTEG to better fulfil its mandate to “…address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework….. given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across goals and targets”. If the application of paragraph 10 (c) is limited to the goals and targets being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), there is a risk of creating even more imbalance among goals and targets and not filling some of the identified gaps, because the AHTEG would consider component indicators that could be used as headline indicators only for those goals and targets that already have headline indicators (as the 5 sub-groups at the moment are asked to address only goals and targets that have headline indicators), further marginalising the targets  that don’t have headline indicators. Either the AHTEG or SBSTTA (or both) should address this point, which has major implications for the overall balance of the monitoring framework. 

In this same document, Annex II contains useful questions to guide the AHTEG Annex II to review indicator metadata for headline indicators. We would however suggest adding a question on ‘How can a human rights based approach be reflected in the indicator?’ And another question posing: ‘How can intergenerational equity be reflected in the indicator?’ in order to promote a monitoring framework that truly upholds Section C of the K-M GBF.

Additionally, we would like to stress the that the AHTEG’s mandate also includes:
“ iv) Keep the list of binary, component and complementary indicators under review;”
Many binary indicators as they are currently phrased, can be misleading: For example, for T23 the suggestion is “Number of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control” - however, this data reveals most countries have achieved this target, but says nothing about how the law is implemented or enforced nor the differences in protection afforded in law and in practice by different, sometimes overlapping legal frameworks within plurilateral systems. We therefore feel it is very important for the AHTEG to also include under binary indicators, questions on  implementation and monitoring of the law and access to justice. We also recommend the AHTEG discuss the binary indicator approach and consider going beyond a categorical yes/no style indicator, to be more meaningful: for example, by offering several multiple choice options covering whether (1) a law is in place, (2) a law is in place and integrated into relevant aspects of the NBSAP, (3) a law is in place, integrated into the NBSAP and a system is in place for monitoring progress, or (4) a law is in place, integrated into the NBSAP, a system is in place for monitoring progress, and progress is being reported through the country’s national report.

2.   Cross cutting nature of IP and LC, women and youth issues. Section C of the K-M GBF clearly states that the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with the following (considerations, each with their own paragraph), inter-alia: Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; Different value systems; Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; Right to development; Human rights-based approach; Gender, Inter-generational equity. Section C must be fully taken into account in the development of indicators. The AHTEG and SBSTTA should consider how issues related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, women, inter-generational equity and human rights-based approach be reflected in the headline indicators. The Bonn expert meeting on indicators held in 2022 proposed that the headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23 (as there were two proposed headline indicators for those targets at that time) be considered as linked to indicators for all Goals and Targets, particularly for Targets 1, 2, 3 and 8. The work done by the Bonn expert meeting should be taken into account and built on, e.g. as part of the disaggregation of headline indicators.  This would provide a much better balanced and holistic monitoring framework, addressing the gaps identified at COP-15.

3. Cross-cutting indicator for tracking a human rights-based approach across the framework [also relevant to groups on T1-8 and T14-23]

Proposed binary indicator to track a HRBA in national planning and reporting (adapted from the version reviewed by the Bonn expert meeting):
Extent to which human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, are integrated into national biodiversity planning, policies and reporting [instead of: Processes and tools to monitor the implementation of a right to a healthy environment] (e.g. included in NBSAPs and reported in national reports)

●  Paragraph 7 of Section C requires the GBF to be implemented, reported and evaluated consistent with a human rights-based approach (HRBA), and acknowledges the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.  However, the loss of the human rights elements from Goal B at the very end of the GBF negotiation process led to the corresponding loss of the associated draft headline indicator that would have tracked a HRBA across the entire framework, and human rights-related indicators are limited elsewhere in the monitoring framework.  We are therefore proposing an updated binary indicator to measure this critical element.

●  In 2022, the OHCHR reviewed the integration of human rights in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs; https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Integrating-Human-Rights-in-NBSAP.docx#:~:text=OHCHR%20has%20undertaken%20an%20in,design%2C%20contributing%20to%20poor%20implementation) and reported integration of the following rights into the NBSAP (planning) process:
○  Right to a healthy environment (tracking progress against Section C, para 7)
○  Right to access to information (tracking progress against Section C, para 7, and Target 21)
○  Right to participation in decision-making (tracking progress against Section C, para 7, and Targets 1, 3, 22 and 23)
○  Right to access to legal remedies (tracking progress against Section C, para 7, and Target 22)
●  This can act as a baseline for the application of a HRBA in implementation of the GBF, which can be tracked over time by conducting a similar review of subsequent NBSAPs, to evaluate progress at national and global levels (see table below, extracted from the OHCHR 2022 report).  Similarly, the extent to which these aspects are monitored and reported in National Reports can be tracked over time in the same way.
●    While binary and limited in scope, when disaggregated this indicator could also serve to fill a key gap in indicators associated particularly with Targets 22 and 23, for which no headline indicators currently exist, as well as the rights-aspects of Targets 1 and 3.

Mirna Fernandez, Policy Co-coordinator at the Global Youth Biodiversity Network

The lack of headline indicators for many targets is quite concerning. Without these, we will not get a complete picture of what we are trying to achieve through the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Network, which is to address both direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. It will be crucial to bring this issue to the SBSTTA discussions and encourage a decision to open the possibility to suggest headline indicators for the targets which don’t have those, in order to ensure a balance in the implementation that will look after the full achievement of all targets in the framework.
We understand from the TORs for the AHTEG that this is within their mandate and should be further discussed at the upcoming SBSTTA meeting and COP16. As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet, para 3 states “Also decides to consider a review of the monitoring framework in order to finish its development at its sixteenth meeting, and thereafter keep the monitoring framework under review, as appropriate;”.
An intermediate solution might be that some component and complementary indicators could be readily usable for those targets without headline indicators, and the AHTEG should look into these proposed component and complementary indicators as a way to fill gaps in the monitoring framework, which is quite unbalanced right now. Binary indicators can work as a temporary solution while operationalized indicators are not available, but if there are suitable indicators, then they could be used at the headline level to create more balance and encourage its operationalization.
Finally, we ask the AHTEG to consider the principles from the Section C, including Human Rights-based approaches and Intergenerational Equity as an integral part of the development and assessment of the indicators. Section C of the K-MGBF clearly states that the framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with the following (considerations, each with their own paragraph), inter-alia: Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; Different value systems; Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; Right to development; Human rights-based approach; Gender, Inter-generational equity. The AHTEG and SBSTTA should consider especially how issues related to IPLCs, women, intergenerational equity and human rights-based approach can be reflected in the headline indicators. These will probably be the only tool in many cases at the national level for the most marginalized groups who are also key actors for the implementation of the framework to push for their full and effective participation, helping to achieve many more targets and fulfill the vision that we all have to live in harmony with nature.

Viviana Figueroa on behave of the IIFB

Other general comments
● Participation and rights related indicators are crucial in operationalizing the whole of society approach of the framework
● In identifying possible indicators for Target 22, it might be useful to review the activities Parties have reported in the progress towards achievement on Aichi Biodiversity Target 18  (CBD/WG8J/11/2).
● In document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/3, distinction of the collective rights of IPLCs to their lands, territories and resources must be made from the rights of women and girls, children and youth and PWDs in the proposed binary indicator for Target 22.
● In relation to Target 21, traditional knowledge has long been recognized in the framework as contributing to many aspects of biodiversity. In the same manner, IPLCs have also initiated their own monitoring frameworks with indigenous-relevant indicators  as well as monitoring initiatives. Traditional knowledge and these monitoring efforts should also be considered in the discussions of AHTEG and SBSTTA as cross-cutting contributions of IPLCs to the implementation of the framework.
Many thanks

As co-chair of the Global Ocean Alliance, the UK is keen to raise the profile of marine-relevant indicators in the development of the monitoring framework, including at the ongoing AHTEG meetings. Marine indicators are currently under-represented in the suite of available headline indicators. As such, we would like to use this forum to stimulate discussion on opportunities to identify, develop or refine indicators to ensure we can capture global progress in marine commitments across the GBF.

We propose some questions below, but would not want to limit discussion to these topics:
1. What are the key priorities for marine indicators?
2. Should the headline indicators capture marine elements for each target, or only some targets?
3. Are there binary indicators that could be used for marine elements of the framework?
4. Are there opportunities to coordinate monitoring activities across regions, and should this be considered in the monitoring framework development (e.g. through Regional Seas groups)?

Responding to post #2953, WWF International would like to share some thoughts on the questions posed by the UK. We agree that marine indicators need to be better represented in the monitoring framework. Apologies for the long post, these notes are also attached in a Word doc. We would welcome further discussion on any aspects.

1. What are the key priorities for marine indicators?

Marine and coastal biodiversity conservation and sustainable use require specific indicators and approaches for monitoring implementation that do not always coincide with terrestrial indicators and governance structures. Qualitative indicators are also important and should be prioritised.
In general terms, several instruments and mechanisms have been developed under the Convention (as well as under other relevant treaties and bodies) that directly contribute to the implementation of the GBF. Examples include:
a. the ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSA) criteria and process for description of areas that meet the criteria. EBSAs can contribute as indicators for several GBF targets, including Targets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14;
b. CBD voluntary guidelines on several issues, including on biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) (Decision XI/18 (2012); UNEP/CBD/COP/11/23)  (relevant for Target 14 on mainstreaming biodiversity within and across economic sectors; as well as Target 5 with respect to sustainable fishing);
c. Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) (Target 1): CBD decision XIII/9 (2016) makes recommendations on marine spatial planning (MSP). The decision also references the report of the Expert Workshop to Provide Consolidated Practical Guidance and a Toolkit for Marine Spatial Planning (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/20/INF/6) that could guide implementation of Targe 1. Furthermore, the role of the ecosystem approach in MSP and in implementing Target 1 is of utmost importance in accordance with the COP decision XIII/9, which encouraged Parties and others to strengthen the application of the ecosystem approach in MSP. Guidance on the ecosystem approach is provided by CBD decisions V/6 (2000) and VII/11 (2004). 
d. Coral Reefs: The Priority actions to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 10 for coral reefs and closely associated ecosystems contained in the Annex to decision XII/23 (2014) continues to be relevant for the achievement of GBF Targets 2, 3, 4, 5 and others.
e. Ecologically Representative and well-connected MPAs: Implementation of the scientific guidance for selecting areas to establish a representative network of MPAs, including in open ocean waters and deep sea habitats (Annex II), and Four initial steps to be considered in the development of representative networks of MPAs (Annex III) should be a priority on the implementation of Target 3.
f. Fisheries (Targets 5, 9, 10, 14): Decision XIII/3 (2016) adopted recommendations on actions to mainstream biodiversity into the fisheries sector, including through: the implementation of  existing fisheries legal and policy instruments; making use of EBSA and vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME)  information in fisheries management; the use of existing FAO guidance on ecosystem approach to fisheries; the implementation of the Priority actions to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 10 for coral reefs and closely associated ecosystems; the strengthening of existing fisheries governance mechanisms in particular the precautionary approach to conserve and recover endangered species. 
g. Climate change and ocean acidification nexus (Target 8, but also applicable to targets 5, 14, among others): Decision XIII/11 (2016) adopted the Voluntary specific workplan on biodiversity in cold-water areas within the jurisdictional scope of the Convention contains relevant recommendations, including on: the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation of impacts of global and local stressors in these areas; and identification and protection of refugia sites; prediction of species and habitats vulnerable to stressors.   Decision XI/18 (2012) deliberates on progress made in the implementation of the specific workplan on coral bleaching, and inter alia, recognises the need for coral ecosystems’ managers to apply ecosystem-based adaptation measures. The same decision XI/18 took note of the elements in Annex III to document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/6 as guidance for practical responses to the impacts of ocean acidification on marine and coastal biodiversity, and encourages Parties, other Governments and relevant organisations to use this guidance (para 24). Furthermore, the Priority actions to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 10 for coral reefs and closely associated ecosystems (contained in the annex of the decision XII/23) continues to be relevant in the implementation of this Target 8.
h. Marine pollution (Target 7) on underwater noise: Decision XII/23 (2014) encouraged Parties and other Governments to avoid, minimise and mitigate the potential significant adverse impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise by, inter alia: defining and differentiating types or intensities of underwater noise by source; combining acoustic mapping with habitat mapping of sound-sensitive species in spatial risk assessments; using spatio-temporal management based on knowledge of species distribution patterns in relation to noise; conducting impact assessments (para 3). Decision XIII/10 (2016) takes note of the updated report ‘Scientific synthesis of the impacts of underwater noise on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats’ and invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organisations to use this information (para 1).
i. Marine pollution (Target 7) on marine debris: Decision XIII/10 took note of the Voluntary practical guidance on preventing and mitigating the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats present in the annex of the decision (para 5). It urges Parties and encourages other Governments, relevant organisations and other actors to prevent and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats, taking into account the Voluntary practical guidance (para 6).

Implementation at the national, regional and global levels (where appropriate) of these instruments would constitute an important way to monitor progress towards several GBF targets with respect to the marine environment.

2. Should the headline indicators capture marine elements for each target, or only some targets?

Headline indicators should capture marine elements for at least most of the targets. Some targets are cross-cutting (especially those under Goal D), but it will still be important to measure progress towards those with respect to the marine environment.

3. Are there binary indicators that could be used for marine elements of the framework?

Yes, all binary indicators should be applicable to the marine environment.

4. Are there opportunities to coordinate monitoring activities across regions, and should this be considered in the monitoring framework development (e.g. through Regional Seas groups)?

The Sustainable Ocean Initiative (SOI), especially the SOI Global Dialogue process provides a sound platform for regional and cross-regional cooperation. However, it is an informal process – which adds valuable outputs to the current landscape of formalised processes (e.g. UNEP RSOs meetings, FAO RFBs meetings, OSPAR-NEAFC + Collective Arrangement meetings, among others. For the purposes of measuring progress, however, a more formalised avenue for sharing of information from (and across) regions would be advisable. This could be adopted by a COP decision at COP 16. The current framework already recognises the role of regions in implementing the GBF. A formalised process for collecting and assessing such contributions would be beneficial to the monitoring framework as a whole and equally, it would serve as a platform to share best practices across regions and global processes.

It would therefore be advisable that COP 16 invites regional and other global competent bodies to share information on how they are planning to implement the GBF targets, and on the actions they have been already undertaking that could contribute to such implementation.

Other considerations:

With respect to Target 3, it would be advisable to procedurally ensure that submissions of OECMs to the WCMC’s OECM database be based on a template/pro-forma based on the criteria and sub-criteria contained in Annex III of decision 14/8 (2018). The completed pro-formas contained in the report of the ICES WKTOPS could provide some insights on minimum standards for inclusion of such information in the WCMC database.

Human-nature interactions are the underlying process shaping global biodiversity. This is recognised in the Global Biodiversity Framework, where for instance, Targets 4-6 aim to resolve human-wildlife conflict, reduce wildlife exploitation, and manage invasive species. Target 16 encourages people to make sustainable choices, and Target 22 specifies that the full spectrum of human diversity (e.g. race, gender and religion) is captured in the decision-making process.

To meet these targets, we urgently need to develop tools capable of describing these human-nature interactions and derive indicators that can track any changes. Typically, rich combinations of qualitative and quantitative data are needed to describe these human-nature interactions but these approaches lack the ability to scale globally. However, the rapid expansion of the internet - now covering more than 66% of the global population, and with an increase of 30 percentage points in the last decade -, combined with analytical advances in conservation culturomics and iEcology have opened a plethora of new opportunities. For the first time, we can now use human-nature interaction data from diverse internet sources (e.g. Wikipedia, Google trends, Facebook, Reddit etc.) to produce indicators of change in human-nature interactions. These social indicators are ready to be incorporated into the GBF, and are highly complementary to the biodiversity focussed indicators.

We elaborate further in a new Conservation Letters publication: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12991

Dr Diogo Verissimo
Dr Thomas F. Johnson
Dr Joseph Millard
Prof Uri Roll

Kirsty Leong, from WWF International

WWF would like to share some inputs towards the discussions by the AHTEG ahead of its in-person meeting in March 2024. The attached brief covers proposals for:
I. Headline indicators for goals and targets currently without one
II. Binary indicators
III. Headline indicators needing a methodology and disaggregation
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or requests for further information.
Wishing everyone a happy new year!