Birdlife Policy Brief on indicators

Page 1

BirdLife Policy Brief for CBD COP-10, Nagoya

Indicators The world’s biodiversity is being lost faster than ever. As we destroy it, we lose its capacity to deliver ecosystem services such as crop pollination, freshwater provision and climate regulation upon which we all depend. Concerted and coordinated action by governments, businesses and civil societies is urgently needed to halt the loss of species and reverse the degradation and destruction of natural habitats. The world’s governments have made commitments through the CBD to tackle this issue and are poised to adopt a new Strategic Plan with 20 targets for 2020 to help frame and focus action. It is vital that effective indicators are developed and used to report against these targets in the years to come. These measures must be robust enough to be reliable and sensitive enough to demonstrate progress, or provide early warning of continued deterioration. In Nagoya discussions relevant to or informed by indicators include: • review of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/1/Add 2) • the revised strategic plan and 2020 targets (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/9) • consideration of the format of the fifth national reports (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/11).

Further development and use of indicators to assess progress in CBD implementation BirdLife recommends that: 1. Details of these indicators should not be discussed at COP-10. Rather, an AHTEG should be established to develop the 2011–2020 indicator set and milestones. 2. Selection and development of indicators for the CBD 2020 targets should build on the substantial work already successfully undertaken by the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP). A similar follow-on project should be quickly established to facilitate technical collaboration. 3. The indicators should be linked within a ResponsePressure-State-Benefits framework that makes it clear if, and how, policy responses are making a difference, by monitoring their implementation, effects in reducing pressures, consequences for the state of biodiversity, and impacts on the benefits that people derive from nature (see BirdLife/Cambridge University/UNEP-WCMC leaflet on Joined-up indicators guide policy better)

4. Further development of many indicators will be needed. For most, additional data need to be collected and there are substantial gaps to be filled (e.g., on the benefits from biodiversity and ecosystem services). 5. Wherever possible, indicators should be scalable at local, national, regional and global levels. 6. Through SBSSTA and IPBES, processes for regular assessment and reporting on biodiversity indicators should be put in place. 7. Significant additional effort and investment (including in capacity-building) are needed to support indicator development and assessment, including the costs of maintaining and sharing data, development and use, reporting and dissemination. 8. Current biodiversity monitoring efforts (national, regional and global), which are often fragile and under-resourced, must be put on a more sustainable footing. In particular, Parties need to institutionalise and resource effective and sustainable monitoring (involving multiple stakeholders) at the national level.

w w w. b i r d l i f e . o r g


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
Birdlife Policy Brief on indicators by BirdLife International - Issuu