Please post your comments related to the indicators for Goal D and Targets 14-23 in this thread.

Is there a link to the indicators that are to be commented on? For the other targets there is a linked document in the thread.

You are able to comment on any of the indicators referenced. You are also able to post documents. We have not included an documents in the thread, these have been posted by other users. The full list of indicators is available in CBD COP decision 15/5.

I am a principal researcher at International Institute for Environment and Development, co-chair of the Governance, Equity and Rights Specialist Group of the IUCN-WCPA and a member of the Human Rights and Biodiversity Conservation platform.  I am focusing on the closely linked Targets 3 and 22.

Whether or not this is what was intended, the main focus of Target 22 is now the procedural issues of participation in decision making, access to justice and access to information and protection of human rights defenders which are procedural human rights (as in Escazu and Aarhus conventions).  The clause respecting their (Ie IP&LC) cultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge is a condition that applies when any measures on decision-making, justice and information are planned and implemented (ie in effect a safeguard).  Although this condition is very important, the headline indicator for Target 22 must cover at least one element of the main focus of this target, ie participation, justice, information. The issue of rights to LTR can be either a second element of this headline indicator or a component indicator.  Note that substantive human rights are not covered in target 22 other than specifically for environmental defenders, and the right to LTR.
The headline indicator for Target 22 that is currently in the AHTEG documents – see below - does not serve the purpose and is confusing in seeming to refer to recognising land rights of environmental HR defenders, youth and persons with disabilities, and of women (which is an element of Target 23).  Presumably this is symptom of rushed discussions and not what was intended. 
Number of countries recognizing the legal rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, environmental human rights defenders, women, youth and persons with disabilities with respect to their traditional territories, cultures and practices 

Some recommendations
• Propose a) binary indicator on number of countries having binding commitments under national or international law to equitable decision-making, access to information and justice in environmental matters, AND b) headline indicator on human rights of environmental defenders based on the existing complementary indicator: Trends in number of environ-mental human rights defenders killed annually, disaggregated by country and gender…..
• If we can develop a viable indicator (ie meeting the five criteria) for equitable decision-making or access to information along with the condition that IP&LC culture and rights to lands, territories and resources are respected, then this should replace the binary indicator.  If we can only have one headline indicator and so have to choose between this and a headline indicator on human rights of environmental defenders then propose the former.

This comment is being posted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife:

While we generally support the proposed approach for reviewing the headline indicators and their associated metadata described in document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2, we believe that the guidance contained in paragraph 10(c) should be applied to both the goals and targets with headline indicators being considered by the AHTEG sub-group(s), as well as to the goals and targets that currently lack headline indicators. As we understand it, this broadening of the focus would allow the AHTEG to consider indicators for Targets 22 and 23, which are fundamental to a whole-of-society approach to implementation.

If the application of paragraph 10(c) is limited to the goals and targets that currently have headline indicators, not only may some of the identified gaps not be addressed, but it is possible that a greater imbalance among the goals and targets could emerge. Moreover, allowing 10(c) to apply to these Targets would align with and further the AHTEGs mandate to “address critical gaps to improve the monitoring framework...given the imbalance in available headline indicators and their interlinkages across goals and targets.”

This post is on behalf of WWF International. We would like to support the comments made in #2887. The focus of the AHTEG should be broadened to also consider indicators for targets 22 and 23, which are fundamental a human rights-based and whole-of-society approach to implementation of the KMGBF.

The The AHTEG should take into account the outcome of the Bonn expert meeting on indicators held in 2022, which 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 also be built on, e.g. as part of the disaggregation of headline indicators.

I am a natural capital evidence specialist from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), statutory adviser to the government and devolved administrations on UK and international nature conservation.

Together with colleagues from Stockholm Environment Institute, the JNCC have developed the Global Environmental Impacts of Consumption (GEIC) indicator which has been included as a component indicator against Target 16. The indicator was initially developed to monitor the overseas impacts of UK consumption; however, the results are relevant for global analyses of production and consumption activities.

We are currently working hard to refine and improve the indicator to ensure its effectiveness in driving sustainable consumption patterns. To assist us with this, we invite you to participate in a short 5 minute feedback survey on the indicator: https://forms.gle/rp3nSGmu5S6DNoZs5. We value your expertise and perspectives, which will help shape the future development and implementation of this important tool.

Please do not hesitate to contact us (UKGlobalImpacts@jncc.gov.uk) with any questions or concerns.

I work with Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples International Center for Policy Research and Education) under its Climate and Biodiversity program. As the KMGBF is underpinned by the whole of society approach and (human) rights based approach/es, as explicitly stated in Section C of the framework, headline indicator/s on participation and rights of IPLCs, women and youth is critical in operationalizing the framework.
Furthermore, elements of Targets 22 are cross-cutting and may be useful in more holistic assessment and monitoring of other issues/target. As such, AHTEG and SBSTTA must ensure substantial space is allotted to discussing these cross-cutting issues of IPLCs, women and youth.
In identifying possible indicators for Target 22 and 23, 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 (e.g. https://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/resources-menu/publications-menu/resource-book/80-indicators-relevant-for-indigenous-peoples ) as well as monitoring initiatives (e.g. https://indigenousnavigator.org/). 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.

I am submitting as the global data and land monitoring lead at the International Land Coalition (ILC), a 300+ member coalition working across 84 countries and representing an estimated 77 million people globally.

ILC has been working for the better part of the last six years to monitor trends in land governance and land tenure, specifically, for diverse types of tenure and by sex. Likewise, we have been working to identify the data sources – official and complementary, including citizen-generated data – available to support the monitoring of such trends. As such, this submission will focus on the centrality of a land tenure indicator to the realization of the KMGBF, but will also consider aspects of women's land rights and violence against defenders, to a lesser extent. 

Decision 15/5 calls upon the AHTEG to review the proposed GBF and address crucial gaps, recognizing that the framework will continue to evolve and improve through time. Currently,  the GBF presents important gaps, specifically related to Target 22 and Target 23, targets that are central to recognition of the role that Indigenous Peoples and local communities and women, in particular, play in the achievement of the KMGBF.  The binary indicators proposed in the place of headline indicators for these Targets do not sufficiently monitor the centrality or complexity of these targets. Other well-established indicators – recognized in the SDGs – provide a basis for developing indicators that would better suit the goals of the GBF, could be monitored with and by IPs and LCs and would ultimately yield more valuable information.

The present submission will unpack these views in more detail below.

Land is a crucial, central and cross-cutting element of the GBF, present explicitly and implicitly in a number of the GBF Targets. Land has also been previously recognized, including through an explicit land tenure indicator, in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. It is also a critical indicator for Traditional Knowledge, as the preservation of traditional knowledge is inextricably linked to the preservation of traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, which in turn is linked to the land, territories and resources associated with the traditional knowledge. (See attached document re: the importance of a land tenure indicator to the 8(j) program of work.) In spite of the cross-cutting importance of land tenure to the realization of the GBF there is not currently any mandatory or headline indicator on land. Land tenure – the relationship that farmers, Indigenous peoples, local and other traditional communities have to the land they live, work and depend on – underpins a number of the GBF Targets and will be central to Parties' ability to realize them.

Furthermore, there is long-standing support for the inclusion of a land tenure indicator in the GBF. The land tenure indicator considered for inclusion in the GBF framework – currently a compound indicator – is a component of the compound indicator originally adopted in decision XIII/28, retained in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

The relevance of a broad land tenure indicator to the GBF was further reinforced in the expert workshop on the monitoring framework for the post-2020 GBF in Bonn. In CBD/ID/OM/2022/1/2, the land tenure indicator was given a ranking of 1-2, where the highest possible ranking of 1 represented "broad support for inclusion as a headline indicator and meets the assessment criteria (methods, data available, etc)." In addition, the land tenure indicator was considered to imply low capacity building needs among implementing parties. Most notably, when the expert group assessed the indicator for linkages to other GBF goals, Targets and sections, it concluded that the land tenure indicator was relevant to "All." The expert assessment further advanced the case for a land tenure indicator aligned to SDG 1.4.2 as a headline indicator for Target 22, relevant to and underpinning the overall advancement of the goals outlined in the GBF.

While the land tenure indicator was not retained as a headline indicator in Decision 15/5, the same decision called for the AHTEG to take up unresolved questions and critical gaps remaining in the GBF.

The AHTEG TORs included in CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 asked the group to address critical gaps in the GBF and to consider reviewing the GBF on an ongoing basis, as needed:

"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.” In the same decision, Parties decided "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."

Currently, there are no headline indicators for T22 or T22, representing a major, critical gap, and rendering the GBF imbalanced and unprepared to monitor central aspects of land tenure, the contributions of IPs and LCs, women's land rights, and the risks incurred by environmental human rights defenders. In place of headline indicators proposed for T22 and T23, binary indicators have currently been proposed. However, as described in the document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/3, the binary indicators are insufficient to capture the nuances of both targets and, simultaneously, are far too generic and complex to be answered with a "yes" or "no."

Target 22: Number of countries recognizing the legal rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, environmental human rights defenders, women, youth and persons with disabilities with respect to their traditional territories, cultures and practices

Target 23: Number of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control

For Target 22, the proposed binary indicator is comprised of at least six sub-indicators related to the legal rights of Indigenous Peoples (1), the legal rights of local communities (2, as not necessarily equal to those of IPs), the legal rights of environmental human rights defenders (3), the legal rights of women (4), the legal rights of youth (5) and the legal rights of person with disabilities (6), and could potentially include more sub-indicators as it asks these questions with respect to their 1) traditional territories, 2) cultures and 3) practices. It would not be realistic to obtain meaningful information on all of these elements then be asked to indicate a "yes" or "no" that would represent all of them. In doing so, important and meaningful information would be obscured.

For Target 23, the proposed binary indicator risks overlooking nuances in the legal framework and to what extent it supports women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control. The use of the phrasing "guarantees women's equal rights" does not provide clarity on which women's rights are being prioritized, and risks casting a net that is too wide to get meaningful or comparable information from Parties. Do we want to know if women and girls have equal inheritance rights as men and boys? Do we want to know if joint registration of property is compulsory? Do we want to know if customary laws have an explicit protection of women's land rights?

The questions proposed in CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/3, by which Parties will report information, are likewise insufficient to prompt meaningful information sharing by Parties. The option to respond categorically, rather than by "yes" or "no," would already indicate an improvement. But for these indicators to be meaningful, they should have a clear, well-developed methodology that can be disaggregated to account for diverse types of tenure, gender, etc.

To the list of Questions for consideration by the Expert Group in CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/3, it could be useful to add an additional question asking whether or not Experts think the proposed binary indicators are sufficient to monitor the Target in question or if an alternative, possibly non-binary headline indicator should be brought to the AHTEG's attention for further consideration.

As noted in other communication, there are well-established SDG indicators with clear methodologies that can provide guidance on indicators that could close critical gaps in T22 and T23.

For T22, on land tenure: SDG 1.4.2 is a well-established, internationally validated indicator with a clear, reproducible methodology, metadata, and available data, having been operationalized in the context of Agenda 2030. The limitations to SDG 1.4.2 data – not all countries have this data, some is partial and does not account for IPs and LCs – do not detract from this, but instead underline the opportunity presented by the indicator, which could be contextualized for the GBF with the support of custodians, Parties, and with crucial support through the article 8(j) program of work. Such an indicator could integrate official data sources and complementary, third-party and community-led data sources with a focus on Indigenous peoples and local communities. The GBF could be the first to champion this kind of contextualized SDG indicator with the backing of diverse stakeholders. More detail on the kind of methodology and sources of data that could be used for this kind of indicator in the attached 8(j) submission of views.

For T23, on women's land rights: Both SDG 5.a.1 (compatible with 1.4.2 for joint data collection) and SDG 5.a.2 provide well-established, internationally validated indicators with clear, reproducible methodology, metadata, and available data, having been operationalized in the context of Agenda 2030.

It is important to note that the binary indicator described in Target 22 –  # of countries where the legal framework guaranteeing women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control – corresponds to SDG indicator 5.a.2, which measures the strength of the legal framework to provide equal rights to land for women. Currently, SDG 5.a.2 is a Tier II indicator with a clearly defined methodology and data available in 40 countries. FAO – a representative of which sits on the AHTEG – is the custodian. While the language proposes 5.a.2 as a binary indicator, it does not necessarily need to be: indicator 5.a.2 includes six proxies or aspects of women’s land rights, access and control that can be met – or not – in the existing legal framework. States report against these six proxies, with a country being awarded a score between 1-6. This indicator could track the evolution of those proxies over time or could set a threshold (or specific proxies) that needs to be met in order for a country to have met this indicator.

On protection of environmental human rights defenders: SDG 16.10.1 provides a well-established, internationally validated indicator with a clear, reproducible methodology, metadata, and available data, having been operationalized in the context of Agenda 2030. The fact that the custodian of this indicator, too – OHCHR – is sitting on the AHTEG, represents an important opportunity to further develop this indicator and contextualize it in the framework of the GBF, focused on environmental human rights defenders.

It is also important to note the potential for citizen-generated data and other community-based monitoring initiatives to contribute meaningfully to the indicators listed above. There are a number of civil society-led datasets that could contribute to a modified 1.4.2, specific to IP and LCs, which are better described in the 8(j) submission of views, attached. In practice, there are a number of important actors that are already generating data on land tenure of IPs and LCs using diverse sources within the data ecosystem. Likewise, citizen-generated data has long contributed to official data for SDG 16.10.1. Currently, ILC is co-leading the ALLIED data working group in an effort to build a joint database of non-lethal attacks on environmental human rights defenders. Finally, there are complementary datasets and analysis that can also act as a stand-in for SDGs 5.a.1 and 5.a.2 on women's land rights. 

While the CBD has been a leader in this field, support for citizen-generated and complementary data sources has been building globally, as such data sources are recognized as important and necessary in order to build inclusive, representative and timely datasets that are able to monitor important development frameworks, such as the GBF and the SDGs, among others. Earlier this year, the Hangzou Declaration endorsed at the UN World Data Forum underscored intentions to expand collaboration with more parts of the data ecosystem through a recently launched programme on citizen-generated data. In March, 2023, the report of the 54th UN Statistical Commission welcomed activities of the UN Statistical Division on citizen-generated data (CGD), including the establishment of a Collaborative on Citizen data. ILC will contribute to the development of this collaborative and hopes that the proposed indicator on land tenure could be further advanced in these and other contexts. 

In summary, the AHTEG has an important opportunity to reconsider how to best address the critical gaps identified in T22 and T23. Given the centrality of T22 and T23, cross-cutting and relevant to a number of inter-connected GBF goals, the use of simplified binary indicators will fail to capture the complex, nuanced and crucial information needed to monitor the implementation of these Targets. There are ready-to-use indicators with communities of practice that could be contextualized and operationalized for use in the GBF, helping to close these critical gaps.

ILC remains available to support development of these indicators and hopes the AHTEG takes advantage of this opportunity to develop better defined, more inclusive indicators that can be co-monitored and validated by Parties, Indigenous peoples and local communities and other relevant organizations.

This post is on behalf of WWF International. As per the reasons outlined in our post #2916 (in the general or cross-cutting issues thread), we believe that the focus of the AHTEG should be broadened to also consider targets that currently lack headline indicators. Target 16 is one of these.

Unsustainable footprint of consumption and overconsumption, driven in particular by wealthier nations, are key drivers of biodiversity loss and must be measured by at least one headline indicator.

WWF recommends that one of the component indicators for target 16 be moved to a headline indicator. Any of the options below would be represent an adequate way to measure progress on the footprint of consumption in this decade:
- ‘Material footprint per capita’ - is already an SDG indicator
- ‘Global environmental impacts of consumption’ - is very comprehensive way to measure footprint of consumption
- ‘Ecological footprint’ - a widely used indicator and easy to communicate to the general public

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

The current version of the monitoring framework is unbalanced and raises serious concerns about women's rights and gender equality, particularly in relation to land rights. Indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth share a common concern about the lack of headline indicators for Targets 22 and 23. This glaring gap requires urgent attention and action by the AHTEG and SBSTTA to rectify the situation.
The AHTEG mandate includes 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;”
And iv) Keep the list of binary, component and complementary indicators under review;
As Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/5 implies, the monitoring framework is not finalised yet. And calls for its comprehensive review and subsequent development at the sixteenth meeting, while emphasising the need for ongoing evaluations of the monitoring framework:
As regrettably, the discussions at COP 15 did not pay sufficient attention to the discourse on meaningful indicators for Goals 22 and 23, the AHTEG should be exploring meaningful indicator options, with emphasis on headline indicators for targets 22 and 23; as well as establish guidelines regarding disaggregate data by sex for all indicators that relate to people.
To do so, the AHTEG should consider meaningful options that address the protection of land and resource rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), with particular attention to women. In parallel, the selected indicators should address their full, effective and equitable participation, as well as that of youth and persons with disabilities. Addressing these concerns will promote a monitoring framework that truly upholds Section C of the KM GBF, further details in a separate comment.
Additionally we want to stress how binary indicators can be misleading:
Table 1. (pages 25-26 from DEC/15/5) provides suggestions of the type of questions to be asked in national reporting (to get a binary answer). 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” data from the SDGs shows us that most countries do have legal frameworks – this would imply that most countries have already achieved Target 23.
We propose that a headline indicator related to the implementation of the Gender Plan of Action (2023-2030) be used to measure progress towards meeting Target 23. The Gender Plan of Action includes specific activities to be led by countries that address the relevant elements of Target 23. The methodology could be based on a number of questions to be answered by countries in regards to the actions that have taken place at the national level. Then a value number would be calculated based on the answers provided by countries to track progress.
Other resources suggested: https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/12122022-briefs-cop15-gender-indicators-final.pdf

Viviana Figueroa on behave of the IIFB

Comments on AHTEG document CBD/IND/AHTEG/2023/2/2
Indicators for Goal D and Targets 14-23
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. 
Many thanks

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 reductions in pesticides pollution and increases in agroecological farming practices, including specifically Targets 15 and 18, 10, and how action on these contribute to mandated outcomes under Targets 7 and 10. 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 on why Target 15 requires new policies mandating improved corporate monitoring, assessment, and disclosure on pesticide-related impacts and risks, and corporate provision of information to customers on how to reduce pesticide use and toxicity in their value chains, including through the increased uptake of agroecology, in line with national goals on pesticide pollution reductions of at least half by 2030 mandated by Target 7, and sustainable agriculture as mandated by Target 10. The brief also highlights the relevance of national reforms action under Target 18, on incentives harmful for biodiversity, to ensure subsidies, tax regimes, and other incentives no longer support the use of pesticides and highly hazardous pesticides (in line with outcomes mandated under Target 7), and support the roll out of agroecology mandated by Target 10.
Brief 2 - Optimizing the Monitoring Framework Indicators for Pesticides in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) – offers recommendations for the AHTEG on ways to ensure Monitoring Framework indicators for Target 15 capture relevant information on specific government policies mandating improved corporate reporting on biodiversity impacts and risks (rather than merely changes in company reporting), and that indicators for Target 18 capture disaggregated data reflecting how financial incentives reforms relate to specific Targets of the KMGBF, including positive incentives that promote pesticide pollution reductions mandated under Target 7.

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

The Global Environmental Impacts of Consumption (GEIC) indicator, a component indicator under Target 16, uses economic modelling and multiple data sources to generate estimates of the global environmental impacts and risks associated with countries’/territories’ consumption and production activities. These impacts encompass a broad spectrum, including deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water stress. In the latest data release which occurred earlier this week (14 November), the GEIC indicator has undergone notable enhancements. It now offers an expansive assessment of deforestation effects on a global scale, broadening the scope from tropical forests to all forest ecosystems. Furthermore, the timescale has been extended up to 2021, a significant augmentation from the previous release, which only covered data until 2018. The GEIC indicator now provides estimates of the impacts associated with consumption by 141 consumer countries/territories (representing 96.4% of the global population) and 19 consumer ‘rest-of-world’ regions; this is compared to 44 consumer countries/territories and five consumer ‘rest-of-world’ regions in the previous release. These profound developments underscore the GEIC indicator’s growing importance as a leading instrument in the realm of environmental impact assessment.

The comprehensive global dataset is accessible via the Commodity Footprints dashboard (https://commodityfootprints.earth/)

Following this update, the development team will be running a Global Biodiversity Framework introductory webinar on the 14th of December 11:30 – 12:30 GMT/UTC. Please register here: https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/621b7698-c5fa-42bb-a184-72e45cf000ed@444ee4e8-b2fd-491d-8c31-8b0508370a6b

UNEP-WCMC invites CBD Parties and observers, and other interested organisations and individuals to review the first draft of an Indicator Specification Template, which provides information on a proposed indicator methodology to monitor progress towards Target 22 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. To submit comments, please download a copy of the Indicator Specification Template (below), edit the file using Microsoft Word’s track changes function and/or adding comments and please email your feedback to Ms. Ayesha Wijesekera at ayesha.wijesekera@unep-wcmc.org by Wednesday, 31 January 2024.
 
The indicator methodology is being developed under the project “Transformative Pathways: indigenous peoples and local communities leading and scaling up conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity” (Transformative Pathways), funded by the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection of Germany, and led by the Forest Peoples Programme. The indicator methodology seeks to measure progress towards Target 22, specifically the component that relates to the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making by indigenous peoples and local communities.

The draft of the Indicator Specification Template presents a first proposal for the elements of the indicator methodology. The review of the Indicator Specification Template aims to be a first step in the process of co-designing, testing, and reviewing the indicator methodology with CBD Parties, and indigenous peoples and local communities’ representatives participating in CBD processes.

The different versions of the indicator methodology will be shared with the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and relevant CBD meetings. The final version will be made available for consideration at COP 16. 

For any questions related to the development of the indicator methodology, please contact Mrs. Carla Bengoa, Programme Officer, UNEP-WCMC at carla.bengoa@unep-wcmc.org   

Further information about the “Transformative Pathways” project can be found at https://transformativepathways.net/