· web viewinformal twenty-fourth meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and...

INFORMAL TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE (SBSTTA 24)

Agenda Item 3: Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Canada’s intervention

Given by: Dena Cator (ECCC)

Canada acknowledges the extensive work undertaken to develop the documents and recommendations for SBSTTA24 agenda item 3 on the proposed monitoring framework and indicators, but will be suggesting a number of changes in writing, some significant.

Of critical importance, Canada urges that the monitoring framework be developed in time to be adopted at CoP15, including at least the headline indicators – e.g. we recommend 20 or fewer - but also component and complementary indicators that have consensus agreement.

Canada can accept the proposed Technical Expert Group being formed at COP15 to focus on operationalization of the indicators as suggested and gap analysis but we feel that additional work on the monitoring framework needs to be completed before the formal meeting of SBSTTA24 as well OEWG3 and CoP15. This could include informal work with the Secretariat, Parties, stakeholders, relevant experts and also revision of agenda item 3 documents before the formal SBSTTA24 meeting. Both indicators and goal / target wording will need to continue to be discussed at OEWG3 in tandem.

We are extremely concerned that without these actions, we will have a repeat lag of years in adopting indicators for reporting. Much work is still needed to refine and shorten the list of indicators and address gaps.

Canada also strongly urges, as per COP Decision 14/34 paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19, that SBSTTA24 provide advice to the co-chairs and OEWG regarding the draft monitoring framework rather than directly to the COP. In this way, all elements of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework could be examined as a package, with Parties ensuring consistency and coherence amongst the various elements before forwarding it to COP15 for decision.

Canada broadly supports the criteria presented for selecting indicators as a part of the monitoring framework, such as indicators being existing, peer-reviewed, data rich and with data that can be nationally aggregated to the global level or vice versa. Canada also agrees with the system of headline indicators together with component / complementary indicators, though we have numerous comments on the indicators themselves. Notably, Canada is of the view that considerations should also be made for the inclusion of indicators relating to Indigenous peoples and also gender. Canada also continues to prioritize an ambitious framework that addresses the direct drivers of biodiversity loss, notably by setting a global 30% conservation target for marine and terrestrial areas, and working informally with the High Ambition Coalition on indicators for this, including on quality. Regarding the proposed 2020 baseline information and

1

recommendation, we think that this requires more analysis and advise square bracketing the text for the moment.

Canada was disappointed to not be able to review and comment on the ADD2 document as it was posted very late, only 1 week before this meeting. We were also very disappointed to not see, as Canada and other Parties have continued to request, all information on proposed indicators in one document, clearly outlining the indicator names and how they compare to the criteria regarding fitness for purpose.

Finally, Canada recognizes the important work undertaken by the Secretariat in producing GBO5 as a part of agenda item 3 and welcomes the report and its findings. We will submit minor edits on the relevant recommendations in writing, including adding a reference taking note of the 2nd edition of Local Biodiversity Outlooks.

Canada’s proposed changes to the draft recommendations

CBD/SBSTTA/24/3 i1

I. SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONSThe Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice may wish to adopt a recommendation along the following lines:

The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice,

Recognizing the importance of an effective monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and the need to keep this framework under review,

Having carried out a scientific and technical review of the updated goals and targets, and related indicators and baselines, of the updated draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, as well as the revised appendices to the framework,

1. Welcomes the proposed approach for the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework set out in the note by the Executive Secretary on the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework;2

2. Takes note of the list of headline indicators contained in annex I of the note by the Executive Secretary on the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework;3

3. Also takes note of the list of component and complementary indicators in the annex to the note by the Executive Secretary;4

4. Requests the Executive Secretary to update the monitoring framework, taking into account the comments made advice provided during the twenty-fourth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice and the draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework being made available to the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework at its third meeting, and to make the text of the monitoring framework available for the consideration of the Working Group at its third meeting;

5. Invites the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its third meeting under agenda item 9 on mechanisms for reporting, assessment and review of implementation (CBD/SBI/3/11) and the Co-chairs of the Working Group on the post 2020 global biodiversity framework in preparation for the third meeting of the Working Group to take into account:

1 CBD/SBSTTA23/INF/3 and CBD/SBSTTA23/INF/4.2 CBD/SBSTTA/24/3/Add.13 CBD/SBSTTA/24/34 CBD/SBSTTA/24/3/Add.1

2

https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/db7b/47dc/3d7cdffcad4fe70380cca4b2/sbstta-23-inf-04-en.pdf

(a) The comments made during SBSTTA24 on structure of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, including the list of proposed headline indicators annexed to the present recommendation;

(b) The outcome of the scientific and technical review of the updated goals and targets, and related indicators and baselines of the draft global biodiversity framework;5

6. Recommends that the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth meeting adopt a decision that includes the following elements, taking into account also the conclusions of the third meeting of the Subsidiary Body in Implementation and the third meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework consider and further revise the draft monitoring framework, including the recommended decision wording and proposed indicators when revising the draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework:

6.bis Invites the Open-Ended Working Group on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to consider and review, as needed, the following draft decision text as part of its recommendations to CBD COP15 on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and, as a part of it, the monitoring framework and headline indicators:

The Conference of the Parties

1. Adopts the monitoring framework [, including the headline indicators,] for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework contained in the note by the Executive Secretary;6

2. [Decides to use 2020, or the period from 2016 to 2020, or the closest year(s) for which data is available, as appropriate, as a reference period for monitoring the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework at the global level];

3. Also decides to keep the monitoring framework under review, enabling, among other things, the future incorporation of other relevant indicators;

4. Further decides that the headline indicators will be used by Parties in their national reports for reporting on their implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework;

5. Notes that the list of component and complementary indicators provides a flexible framework for Parties to adapt and use in their national reports, as appropriate and according to their national priorities and circumstances, as well as for use at the global level, as appropriate;

6. Welcomes the work of the United Nations Statistics Division to develop statistical standards for measuring biodiversity, the environment and their relationship with socioeconomic development as well as their support to national statistical offices to engage in the process for monitoring biodiversity;

7. Invites the United Nations Statistical Commission to support the operationalization of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework;

8. Recognizes the value of aligning national monitoring with the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting statistical standard in order to mainstream biodiversity in national statistical systems and to strengthen national monitoring systems and reporting;

9. Encourages Parties and invites other Governments and relevant organizations to increase their support, including financial resources, for subnational, national, regional and global biodiversity monitoring systems and in the compilation of biodiversity indicators;

10. Notes that some goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework do not currently have indicators that are adequate for national-level monitoring, and requests the

5 Based on the note by the Executive Secretary (CBD/SBSTTA/24/3/Add.2).6 Reference to be added.

3

Executive Secretary to work with the United Nations Statistical Commission, the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership and other relevant organizations to help address these gaps and to report to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting held prior to the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the progress made;

11. Decides to establish a technical expert group to advise on the further operationalization of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with the terms of reference contained in the annex to the present decision;

12. Requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources and in collaboration with relevant partners:

(a) To support Parties in compiling and using and reporting the headline indicators, and other indicators when relevant, including in their national reports and national planning processes;

(b) To conduct a review of the effectiveness of the monitoring framework and to present the results to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting held prior to the seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

Annex II

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON INDICATORS FOR THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK

1. The Group will work:

(a) To provide technical advice on remaining gaps in and the implementation of the indicators and for the monitoring framework forof the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, including advice on the use of harmonized and agreed indicator definitions, best practices for monitoring and national data sharing;

(b) To identify detailed metadata for each indicator of the monitoring framework, prioritizing first headline, then component and complementary indicators, for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, taking into account existing methodologies and standards which have been developed, including the Sustainable Development Goal indicators, the Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics and the System of Environmental Economic Accounts developed under the auspices of the United Nations Statistical Commission;

(b bis) To conduct a review of the effectiveness of the monitoring framework in measuring progress towards the achievement of post-2020 global biodiversity framework goals and targets and to present with the results presented to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting held prior to the seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

(b ter) T o provide recommendations to improve indicator relevance and scientific soundness.

(c) To provide advice on ways to fill temporal and spatial data gaps, including through the use of big data, including citizen science, remote sensing and other forms of data;

(d) To provide advice on capacity-building activities related to the monitoring of the global biodiversity framework.

(d bis) Notes that some goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework do not currently have indicators that are adequate for national-level monitoring, and requests the Executive Secretary to To work with the United Nations Statistical Commission, the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership and other relevant organizations to help address these gaps for those goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework that do not currently have adequate indicators for national-level monitoring and to report to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,

4

Govt of Canada, 2021-02-07,

Annex 1 – as one of the elements in the official document – needs to be considered under the draft recommendation and proposed wording as part of the official decision.


This has been transferred from paragraph 12b of the COP15 recommendations above.

Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting held prior to the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the progress made;

2. The group will undertake its work on the basis of:

(a) Experience under the Convention with indicators and monitoring;

(b) Experience of the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership and other relevant programs of work (e.g. OECD);

(c) Experience with developing indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals and under the United Nations Statistical Commission;

(d) Recent developments on issues related to the indicators and their metadata.

3. The group will be composed of 30 technical experts nominated by Parties, including representatives of national statistical offices, and experts in the relevant social and biological sciences, and up to 15 representatives nominated by observer organizations, including indigenous and local community organizations, members of the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, as well as a representative of the United Nations Statistical Commission. The Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, will select experts from nominations submitted by Parties and organizations with due regard to representation of different areas of technical expertise while recognizing that all experts will need knowledge of biodiversity, and to geographical representation, gender balance and to the special conditions of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries, small island developing States, and countries with economies in transition. Except as otherwise determined in these terms of reference, the modus operandi for ad hoc technical expert groups will apply, mutatis mutandis, to this technical expert group.

4. The Group will nominate two co-chairs from among the selected experts.

5. The Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice will be invited to participate in the group ex officio.

6. The Group may also invite other experts, as appropriate, from national Governments, civil society, academia and the private sector to contribute their expertise and experiences on specific issues related to the terms of reference of the Group.

7. The Group will primarily conduct its work electronically but will also meet physically if possible and subject to the availability of resources, normally meeting at least twice during the intersessional period.

8. The reports of the Group will be made available to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at meetings prior to each meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

__________

CBD/SBSTTA/24/3Add.1

II. PROPOSED MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK

A. Background

3. A draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework was prepared on the basis of:

(a) The indicators identified in decisions XIII/28 and X/3;

(b) Existing reporting processes under the Convention and its Protocols;

5


This has been transferred from paragraph 10 in the COP15 recommendations above.

https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-03-en.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-28-en.pdf

(c) The indicators used for monitoring the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals;

(d) Indicators developed by the members of the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership and other relevant programs of work (e.g. OECD);

(e) Information provided to the Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework at its second meeting.

4. The draft monitoring framework was made available for peer review from 24 June to 15 August 2020.7 The Secretariat received 233 submissions from 53 Parties, 1 other Government and 179 observers.8 The peer review comments included general comments on the design of a monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework as well as specific comments on indicators. Many of the comments highlighted the need for a simple monitoring framework which is nationally relevant, imbued with a clear monitoring logic, is aligned with existing processes and agreed measurement frameworks and is structured around agreed headline indicators.

5. An analysis of the use of indicators in the fifth and sixth national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity was also undertaken to, among other things, further inform the development of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.9 The analysis highlighted the need for indicators which are built on national data sources and which are nationally relevant. Among its main findings were:

(a) The total number of indicators used in the national reports significantly increased from an average of 49 indicators in the fifth national reports to 84 indicators in the sixth national reports;

(b) In the sixth national reports, nationally compiled indicators were used 11 times more frequently compared to indicators from global data providers;

(c) The proportion of indicators used in the national reports derived from global sources increased slightly between the fifth and sixth national reports, while the proportion of indicators from national data sources decreased slightly;

(d) While there remains a strong bias towards the use of indicators related to Strategic Goals B (direct pressures on biodiversity) and C (the status of biodiversity) of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, there was a marked improvement in indicator use across all Strategic Goals, particularly for Goals A (underlying causes of biodiversity loss) and E (implementation);

(e) The proportion of indicators in the sixth national reports which matched those on the list of indicators developed by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-202010 and recommended as generic indicators increased significantly, to 30 per cent, compared to the fifth national reports. In the fifth national reports, the proportion was 22 per cent. Though the proportion is increasing, the analysis still indicates a minimal utilization of the recommended indicators by Parties in their national reports.

6. The draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework was updated to take into account the comments received through the peer review process noted above as well as the results of the analysis of the fifth and sixth national reports.

B. Proposed monitoring approach

7. In the light of the above, a monitoring framework composed of three groups of indicators is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework:

7 See notification 2019-108.8 All of the peer review comments are accessible from https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/submissions/2020-0459 The analysis was conducted by NatureServe with funding from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.10 See UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/19/INF/5 .

6

https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-19/information/sbstta-19-inf-05-en.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-19/information/sbstta-19-inf-05-en.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/submissions/2020-045


(a) Group 1 - Headline indicators: A minimum set of high-level indicators which capture the overall scope of the goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework which can be used for tracking national progress, as well as for tracking regional, subnational and global progress. These indicators could also be used for communication purposes. Additionally, some countries may wish to use a subset of these indicators or only the goal level headline indicators for high-level communication and outreach;

(b) Group 2 - Component indicators: A set of indicators for monitoring each component of each goal and target of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework at the national and subnational level as well as for tracking regional and global progress;

(c) Group 3 - Complementary indicators: A set of indicators for thematic or in-depth analysis of each goal and target These indicators will be used at the global level, and, as appropriate at regional and national levels. However, these indicators may be less relevant or applicable, for a majority of countries. Some of these indicators have significant data collection gaps or are highly specific.

8. Within these three groups, a range of indicator types are proposed for the goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. [The indicators proposed for the goals focus on outcomes (i.e. the status and trends of biodiversity), and the benefits biodiversity provides to people, as well as the conditions necessary for implementing the framework. The indicators proposed for the targets aim to monitor the actions taken to reach the targets and their impacts]. To the extent possible, each indicator has been included in the monitoring framework only once. However, for some of the proposed component and complementary indicators, there is some duplication owing to the linkages that exist within the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

9. All of the indicators in the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should meet the following criteria at a minimum:

(a) Fitness for purpose (as reflected in Inf Doc 16)

(b) The data and metadata related to the indicator are (or will be soon e.g. within a year or two) publicly available;

(c)[(b)] The methodology for the data product is either published in a peer reviewed academic journal or has gone through a scientific peer review process and is publicly available;

(d)[(c)] There is evidence that the indicators will be regularly updated with on average a time lag of less than five years between updates;

(e)[(d)] There is an existing mechanism for maintaining the indicators, including, for example, by a member of the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, an intergovernmental organization or a well-established scientific or research institution.

10. Consideration should also be made for the inclusion of indicators relating to Indigenous peoples and also gender throughout the framework.

11. Further headline indicators should meet additional criteria as specified below.

C. Group 1 - Headline indicators

12.[11.] Headline indicators constitute a minimum set of high-level indicators which capture the overall scope of the goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and which are necessary for tracking progress towards them. They are nationally relevant indicators which can be used by all Parties, and at the subnational, regional and global levels. In addition, headline indicators should constitute one of the main components of the national reports and support national and subnational planning processes. These indicators should use methodologies agreed by Parties and be calculated based on national data provided and/or validated by Parties, including through their national statistical offices. Headline indicators would allow for consistent, standardized and scalable tracking of global goals and targets. To facilitate the use of these headline indicators at the national and subnational level, capacity-building activities and other support would likely be needed in many countries.

7

Govt of Canada, 04/02/21,

Canada does not agree that indicators for goals should only be outcome-oriented and indicators for targets only be action-oriented. We currently don’t believe that all the goals are purely outcome oriented and all the targets are purely action oriented. Suggest that this text is square bracketed for the moment and possibly deleted.

13.[12.] In order to maximize uptake and minimize the reporting burden, the proposed list of headline indicators comprises a small number of indicators which are intended to capture the overall scope of a goal or target in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The headline indicators may not capture all components of a goal or a target but for analytical purposes can be complemented, as appropriate, with the component and complementary indicators.

14.[13.] The proposed headline indicators in this document were identified on the basis of the minimum criteria set out in paragraph 9 8 and the following criteria:

(a) The indicators currently exist or have a high likelihood of being available by the fifteenth sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties;

(b) The indicators have been or are likely to be agreed through a scientific or intergovernmental process and where there is an existing body that will continue to review and revise the methodology as needed, such as the indicators identified for monitoring implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;

(c) The indicators are nationally relevant at a national scale, including the ability of the indicator to be disaggregated and aggregated from global to national and subnational and aggregated from subnational to national to global scales without creating bias.

15.[14.] For indicators that met the criteria above, further preference was given to:

(a) Indicators for which regular compilation is feasible, and preferably with a history of reporting, with data and metadata for the data set which is publicly available and nationally validated, which adheres to open data standards, and for which a global programme exists for monitoring;

(b) Indicators that are already being used by some national and subnational Governments, ideally where there is an opportunity to work with the United Nations Statistical Commission to promote the use of the indicator (for example, indicators aligned with the United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounts or included in the Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics);

(c) Indicators where subnational or geospatial disaggregation is possible.

16.[15.] For some of the proposed goals and targets in the updated zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework it was not possible to identify indicators which are currently operational, and which meet the above criteria. Where this was the case, an indicator formulation is presented in a way to capture the main scope of the goal or target; however, these indicators would require further development to become operational. These indicators have been denoted with an asterisk (*) in the table in the annex below. Parties The Technical Expert Group may wish to consider how these gaps could be filled, including by selecting indicators from the lists of component and complementary indicators and report to Parties.

17.[16.] Based on the above criteria and preferences and bearing in mind the need to keep the number of headline indicators small while also covering the broadbreadth of issues addressed by the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, a set of 47 headline indicators have been identified. A total of 11 of these indicators are related to the goals of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and 36 are related to targets. The proposed headline indicators are presented in CBD/SBSTTA/24/3, annex I. They are also included in the annex below along with the component and complementary indicators. A subset of the headline indicators could be used for communication purposes. For example, the headline indicators related to the goals could be used to raise awareness of the progress towards the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. In addition, headline indicators could be used nationally to communicate progress on national priorities, successes and challenges.

18.[17.] To help with the operationalization of the proposed headline indicators, the Subsidiary Body may wish to consider recommending that the Conference of the Parties establish an informal advisory group to provide advice on indicator methodologies, identify metadata, technical issues related to the use of the indicators, filling indicator gaps, needed capacity-building activities, and on the development of tools to

8


It also needs to be listed for each headline indicator (though these are not criteria):•Which goal / target and component of the goal / target the indicator is measuring.•Name of the indicator.•What institution is responsible for providing the data (e.g. a national institution or if a global institution, which one – e.g. UNEP-WCMC for the WDPA).•What measurement units does the indicator provide (e.g. km2 area conserved) – does this match the target wording.

support the visualization of indicators among other things. Draft terms of reference for such a group are presented in CBD/SBSTTA/24/3, annex II.

D. Group 2 - Component indicators

19.[18.] Component indicators represent a set of indicators for monitoring each component of each of the goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework at the subnational, national, regional and global level. Parties should be encouraged to use these indicators, including in their national reports and relevant planning processes, where nationally relevant and appropriate.

20.[19.] The proposed list of component indicators is contained in the annex to this document. They were identified using the same criteria as the headline indicators. However, they relate to the components of the goals and targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework rather than directly to goals and targets. Many of the component indicators are disaggregations of the headline indicators. This level of indicator also includes disaggregated information which is not included at the headline level.

E. Group 3 - Complementary indicators

21.[20.] Complementary indicators are a set of indicators for thematic or in-depth analysis of each goal and target. These are indicators which are primarily applicable at the global and regional levels. They should meet the criteria listed in paragraph Error: Reference source not found above.

III. OPTIONS FOR BASELINES AND REFERENCE PERIODS FOR THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK

22.[21.] In recommendation 23/1, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice requested the Executive Secretary to invite written submissions from Parties and others on, among other things, views on possible baselines for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Pursuant to this request, submissions were invited between 3 December 2019 and 3 February 2020.11 Views on baselines and reference periods were also shared during the second meeting of the Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.12

23.[22.] Baselines provide context for evaluating progress at the national, regional, subnational or global scales. They can be set with reference to a directly observable record/state or can be inferred using models or proxies if direct observations are not possible. In the context of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, baselines could be set for specific indicators or for the framework as a whole. In addition, they could be linked to a specific date, for an average of several dates or a more general period of history depending on the variability of the indicator and the context of the issue on which it informs. Through the process for developing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, different perspectives on possible baselines for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework have been suggested. These include, pre-human disturbance, pre-industrial, 1970, 1992, 2000, 2010, and 2020.

24.[23.] In the light of the above, the Subsidiary Body may wish to note that different baselines may be appropriate for different purposes, while using 2020, or the period 2016-2020, as appropriate, as the global reference year or reference period for monitoring progress towards the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and its associated goals and targets. This could provide the most feasible starting point for tracking the implementation of the global biodiversity framework as the aim would be to track actions and interventions taken after 2020 (as opposed to prior to 2020). However, longer-term time series for the indicators should still be made available when possible. In cases where data for 2020 is not available, data from the next closest available year could be used (for example 2019 or 2021). Further, in cases where an indicator has high annual variability, an average of five years is proposed (from 2016 to 2020) to indicate recent rates of change. This reference year would allow more indicators to be used in monitoring progress in implementation by allowing more recently developed indicators to be used. It would also provide a continuation from the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-

11 The submissions received are accessible from https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/submissions/2019-10812 CBD/WG2020/2/4.

9


2020. Additionally, using a 2020 reference year, or 2016-2020 reference period would reduce the reporting burden on Parties as they would not need to identify and draw on historic records.

CBD/SBSTTA/24/2

The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

1. Takes note Welcomes of the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, its Summary for policymakers and takes notes of the second edition of the Local Biodiversity Outlook ;

(…)

3. Takes note Welcomes of the following general conclusions from the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook:

a. Biodiversity is critical to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, the full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement and other international environmental agreements contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;

b. (…)

c. On the current trajectory, biodiversity, and the services it provides, will continue to decline, but it is not too late to slow, halt and eventually reverse this trend;

(…)

4. Invites the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its third meeting and the Open-ended Working Group to take into account the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, its Summary for policymakers and the second edition of the Local Biodiversity Outlook when developing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework;

5. Encourages Parties, and invites subnational, local and other Ggovernments and as well as relevant organizations, as appropriate, to use and take steps to disseminate widely the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook and its findings, including by translating the report into local languages and producing other appropriate communication products for different stakeholders.

Canada’s comments on the indicator tables

Note that Canada’s questions and comments on the tables are continuing to evolve. Also note that all of our comments and questions on headline indicators are in the CBD/SBSTTA/24/3 Annex I table while all comments and questions on component and complementary indicators are in the CBD/SBSTTA/24/3Add.1 Annex table. Note as well that Canada’s input and comments on the indicators do not necessarily indicate support or not for the current draft goals and targets.

CBD/SBSTTA/24/3

Annex I

PROPOSED HEADLINE INDICATORS FOR THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK

10


In order to be able to properly understand the reasons for and further evaluate the proposed headline indicators in this annex table, we need all the information requested and spread across various documents in one table. E.g. the table should contain columns for the criteria outlined in the ADD 1 document, such as whether the data is national and aggregated to the global level or vice versa, as well as what the indicator names are and who administers the data. See: CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/16.

Proposed goal or target Proposed indicators13Possible

disaggregations

Links to Sustainable

Development Goals

Goal A. The area, connectivity and integrity of natural ecosystems increased by at least [X%] supporting healthy and resilient populations of all species while reducing the number of species that are threatened by [X%] and also maintaining genetic diversity

2030 Milestones

(i) The area, connectivity and integrity of natural ecosystems increased by at least [5%]

(ii) The number of species that are threatened is reduced by [X%] and the abundance of species has increased on average by [X%]

A.0.1 Extent Area of selected natural ecosystems (forest, savannahs and grasslands, wetlands, mangroves, saltmarshes, coral reef, seagrass, macroalgae and intertidal habitats)

By ecosystem type

6.6.1, 11.3.1, 15.1.1, 15.3.1

A.0.2 Living Planet Index

By species group

A.0.3 Red list index

+ Red List

By species group

15.5.1

A.0.4 Species habitat index By species group

A.0.5 The proportion of populations maintained within species*

A.0.6 The number / proportion of populations/breeds within species with a genetically effective population size > 500 *

By species group

Goal B. Nature’s contributions to people have been valued, maintained or enhanced through conservation and sustainable use, supporting the global development agenda for the benefit of all peoples

2030 Milestones

(i) Nature contributes to the sustainable nutrition and food

B.0.1 Population benefiting from ecosystem services*

By ecosystem type and type of service

B.0.2 Value of all final ecosystem services (Gross Ecosystem Product)*

By ecosystem type and type of service

13 Indicators marked with an asterisk “*” are not fully developed or operational. The wording of these indicators represents a possible indicator which could be used to measure the goal or target; however, additional research would be needed to fully operationalize the indicator. Alternatively, a component or complementary indicator could be used to replace the headline indicator. It is expected that the proposed technical expert group, with the partners involved with each indicator, would be responsible for identifying how these indicators could be finalized.

11


Our main concern with this indicator is that, in our view, it does not measure progress against this goal. In other words, it will not give us a clear picture as to whether or not we have met the goal. Secondly, it is unclear how we would determine the value of an ecosystem service. For example, are there calculations to determine what is the value of photosynthesis (i.e. what is the value of the air we breathe). Would Parties use the same methodology to calculate these values, and if not, how will we be able to compare data. Also, establishing a global value of all ecosystem services would be a great challenge in itself over the next decade, let alone doing it in time to measure progress over this decade. With theses points in mind, we are not in a position to support this headline indicator.


Such an indicator would need to be disaggregated by ecosystem type and type of goods and services, even if the proposed headline indicator is amended to better reflect a shift towards sustainable use or the quality of the benefits and how it improves livelihoods.Ce type d’indicateur serait effectivement à notre portée, il est important de maintenir la possibilité de désagréger. Un indicateur agrégé est iréaliste.


Given that Canada wishes to see the focus of this goal shift towards sustainable use, we are of the view that the headline indicators proposed are not appropriate and need further work. We believe that this headline indicator is a bit too general. One could argue that everyone is benefiting from ecosystem services. Nature underpins virtually every aspect of our daily life. If Parties were to adopt a goal on nature’s contributions to people, we would need to be more specific in how we measure it and perhaps talk about the quality of the benefits, and how it improves the livelihoods. As such, we are not in a position to support this indicator as currently drafted. Though perhaps with more specificity, some estimates of populations benefitting from selected ecosystem services, particularly provisioning services, may be an option – more investigation is needed on this.


An indicator on the viability of populations or the genetically effective population size needs to be added. Although we are flagging this here, we understand that the indicator is not ready yet and this would be new for most countries to report on. More explanation of this indicator can be found in Hoban et al. 2020. Simpler wording could be “The proportion of populations within species sufficiently large to maintain genetic diversity” or “The proportion of populations maintained at genetically safe sizes (A.0.X) by species group”. This last formulation would give more flexibility to estimate the genetically viable population size per species or per species group, rather than opting for a blanket N>500.


Canada could support this indicator which is based on Hoban et al. 2020 indicator 2: “The proportion of sub populations [or geographic range] maintained within species”. We understand that this indicator is not operational yet but Hoban et al. believe it will be possible for countries to start reporting on it after Hoban et al. develop guidelines in 2021/2022 to standardize the approach. It would compare the number of genetically distinct populations relative to a historic baseline or would be a percentage of the species’ historic range.


Pour toutes les espèces ? Pour les espèces en situation précaire ainsi qu’un échantillon représentatif d’espèces communes pour chaque groupe d’espèces ?


Qu’est-ce qui est entendu par « préservées » ? Besoin d’une définition claire. Comprend les populations encore présentes et viables ** par rapport à une année de référence X ? Le seuil de viabilité des populations se définit généralement espèce par espèce, et il n’est pas nécessairement connu pour chaque espèce, mais il serait un indicateur intéressant à considérer.


Et/ou par types d’habitats ou d’écosystèmes ?


It appears that the Species Habitat Index is in development. One concern is that it appears to rely heavily on GBIF, which contains some gaps in species distribution as we understand. Thus we would not recommend Species habitat index to be a headline indicator at this time.


Extinctions can be measured by the Red List, which was also a focus of Aichi Target 12. National Red List assessments are aggregated to produce the global Red List and also global assessments can be disaggregated to country-level. We are not sure yet if this needs to be a headline indicator but given the problems with the current goal wording relating to species, this is one of the elements that needs to be tracked instead.


The IUCN Red List Index measures overall global species extinction risk trends over time. This is a robust, already used and peer-reviewed indicator that can be nationally aggregated and globally disaggregated to national level as we understand so agree with this as a headline indicator that would be able to measure species recovery over time. Canada strongly feels that 3 elements of species status (in addition to genetic diversity) should be measured in the framework to fully assess species health and recovery – 1) extinctions (at the very least, we don’t want any more species extinctions – we understand this to be achievable as per for example Bolam et al. 2020), 2) overall species extinction risk (we want to make sure that we are ‘bending the curve’ of biodiversity loss so that we see species’ conservation status improving - less species threatened) and 3) species population abundance (we want to ensure that even ‘least concern species’ whose populations are declining start to improve again).


The Living Planet Index (LPI) indicator proposed as we understand is more appropriate to measure ‘population abundance of species increasing’ rather than ‘ecosystem integrity and connectivity’. Canada has the Canadian Species Index Indicator which is based off of the Living Planet Index so it would be well suited to us for national reporting.


SDG 15.1.1 is: “Forest area as a proportion of total land area”. So should the proposed indicator here be ‘area as a proportion of total land area’? Also, one potential issue to consider with using % / proportion of ‘total land area’ is some of the ecosystems could include non-forested ecosystems such as wetlands, grasslands, shrub steppe, and barrens. Some of these may have been forested before anthropogenic or natural disturbance, however many of these are natural vegetation types associated with specific biogeoclimatic conditions.


What is the name of the actual indicator that would be used to determine ‘natural’ areas? And does ‘natural’ mean areas with high ecological integrity, to match with the goal wording? This relates to target 1 as well.


Does this indicator for area of selected ‘natural ecosystems’ measure and differentiate ‘natural’ forest, grasslands, etc.? The actual mechanism for measurement needs to be named or this will be open to interpretation and will need defining (e.g. is ‘natural’ forest never cut, has the same ecological composition / age as original forest, has been restored to a particular level)? Also, what is the measure of the data and how is it collected – e.g. is this through aerial / satellite data and can it measure ‘naturalness’ / ‘integrity’?


Suggest matching the wording ‘area’ with ‘extent’ in A.0.1 so that the indicator wording will match the goal/target language as much as possible, so that in general, it’s clear what headline indicator is being used for what element of the goal/target.


Canada could be in a position to support this indicator though more information is needed and this may be challenging to report upon for marine / coastal areas, seagrasses and grasslands for example while forests, agricultural areas and wetlands would be more readily available now / in the near future.


Par rapport à quelle année ou période de référence (baseline)? 2020? 2016-2020?


Par rapport à quelle année ou période de référence (baseline)? 2020? 2016-2020?


Par rapport à quelle année ou période de référence (baseline) ? 2020 ? 2016-2020 ?


This could be measured for example through “The proportion of populations sufficiently large to maintain genetic diversity has increased [by X%], and the proportion of genetically distinct populations maintained is [X%]”.


Par rapport à quelle année de référence (baseline)?


Canada is aware that SBSTTA24 is not commenting on goal / target wording but there is a fundamental issue with this goal wording that will influence the headline indicator(s) chosen.Regarding “reducing the number of species that are threatened by X%”: (i) perversely, it could be met by allowing species to go extinct, (ii) it could also be met even if most threatened species substantially deteriorate in status.Thus we will not comment on the % here and would like to revisit the wording and indicators at the same time.


Par rapport à quelle année ou période de référence (baseline) ? 2020? 2016-2020?

Proposed goal or target Proposed indicatorsPossible

disaggregations


Development Goals

security, access to safe drinking water and resilience to natural disasters for at least [X] million people

(ii) Nature is valued through green investments, ecosystem service valuation in national accounts, and public and private sector financial disclosure

Goal C. The benefits, from utilization of genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably

2030 Milestones

(i) Access and benefit sharing mechanisms are established in all countries (ii) Benefits shared increased by [x%]

C.0.1 Amount of monetary benefits (in United States dollars) received by countries from utilization of genetic resources as a result of an ABS agreement, including traditional knowledge

By beneficiary (including indigenous peoples and local communities and gender)

C.0.2 Number of research and development results or publications shared as a result of an ABS agreement

By beneficiary (including indigenous peoples and local communities and gender)

Goal D. Means of implementation is available to achieve all goals and targets the Framework

2030 Milestones

(i) By 2022, means to implement the Framework for the period 2020 to 2030 are identified or committed

(ii) By 2030, means to implement the Framework for the period 2030 to 2040 are identified or committed

D.0.1 Index of coverage of national biodiversity strategies and action plans with formal processes for ensuring that women, indigenous peoples and local communities and youth are engaged and which capture means of implementation*

D.0.2 National and subnational funding for implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework*

By funding source

Target 1. By 2030, [50%] of land and sea 1.0.1 Percentage of land By type of 6.5.1, 14.2.1

12


Indicator D.0.2 is not an existing indicator so it is unclear what mechanism will be used to capture this information. Canada could support this indicator if tied to the submission of resource mobilization reports by Parties and changes to the indicator wording would see this specified.


Despite being a new indicator, Canada strongly supports the intent of proposed headline indicator D.0.1. Canada believes that the information sought in this indicator should be available for Parties to report against. However, as it would be new for Canada as well, we would need additional guidance on how the index would be built. Also, Canada would suggest that it be divided into two separate indicators in order to ensure clear information is being captured on both key elements identified, with D.0.1 focusing on the inclusion of women, IPLCs and youth in NBSAPS and D.0.1 bis focusing on the inclusion of cost assessments in NBSAPS.So the new formulation could be as follows:D.0.1 Index of coverage of national biodiversity strategies and action plans with formal processes for ensuring that women, Indigenous and local communities and youth are engaged. D.0.1 bis Index of coverage of national biodiversity strategies and action plans that include an assessment of means of implementation.


Owing to the delay in adopting the post2020-GBF, the timeline for this may need to be revised, e.g. to the end of 2022.


Canada has concerns. This would only be measured by countries that require ABS agreements, and ‘research and development results or publications’ constitute a fraction of non-monetary benefits. Without ABS agreements where the Mutually Agreed Terms are known, countries cannot measure those things ‘shared as a result of an ABS agreement’. Also, what type of publications would be included here? Is this just referring to peer-reviewed publications?


Canada has concerns – amount of monetary benefits is likely concealed in confidential agreements, and this would only be measured by countries that require ABS agreements. Also, non-monetary benefits need to be taken into account too, though this may be the intended focus of C.0.2. Countries will likely have challenges in being able to report on this information at the moment.


What would be the baseline for this %? 2020 ? 2016-2020 ?There would need to be a clear number here. Also, quantification in this way would be unrealistic.


disaggregations


Development Goals

areas globally are under spatial planning addressing land/sea use change, retaining most of the existing intact and wilderness areas, and allow to restore [X%] of degraded freshwater, marine and terrestrial natural ecosystems and connectivity among them

covered by landscape scale land-use plans for terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems*

plan and 15.2.1

Target 2. By 2030, protect and conserve through well connected and effective system of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures at least 30% of the planet with the focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity

2.0.1 Protected area / OECM coverage of important biodiversity areas

By ecosystem type

Linked to 14.5.1, 15.1.2,15.4.1 (national definition of important areas)

2.0.2 Species Protection Index

By ecosystem type

Protected area and OECM establishment (World Database on Protected Areas - WDPA and database on OECMs)

15.1.2. 15.4.1, 14.5.1

Target 3. By 2030, ensure active managementactions to enable wild species of fauna andflora recovery and conservation, and reducehuman-wildlife conflict by [X%]

3.0.1 Protected areas management effectiveness e.g. Red List, Red List Index

3.0.2 Species recovery programmes (Number of threatened species for which global, national or subnational action/recovery plans are (i) up to date, and (ii) being implemented) *

Target 4. By 2030, ensure that the harvesting, trade and use of wild species of fauna and flora, is legal, at sustainable levels and safe.

4.0.1 Proportion of traded wildlife species that is are legal and safe (not poached, illicitly trafficked or unsustainable)

By species group

Linked to 15.7.1 and 15.c.1

4.0.2 Proportion of fish By type of fish 14.4.1

13


Canada thinks that different headline indicators should be selected. They do not encompass the scope of the target. In our view, the headline indicators should address two things: Addressing illegal, unsustainable activities related to the harvesting, trade and use of wild species. Ensuring that all legal activities related to the harvesting, trade and use of wild species is sustainable. Additionally, we think that we should promote indicators, which are worded to encompass all wild species not just wildlife.Finally, we note that the indicators fail to address harvesting and use of wild species. Further work should be done to find indicators that address these elements, since they are key elements of the target.Regarding indicator 4.0.1 specifically, Canada could support this indicator if it was modified. Our primary concern with this headline indicator is that it has a very narrow scope. As a first step, we suggest replacing the term “wildlife” with “wild species”. Secondly, we could broaden the scope by also measuring “harvest” and “use” as per the target language. Alternatively, if it is not possible to bundle these three activities we could add a headline indicator specific to the harvesting and use of wild species, should one be available and functional.


Il n’est pas pertinent d’identifier le nombre d’espèces sauvages commercialisées, ce qui est nécessaire pour une telle proportion. Il faudrait plutôt centrer l’indicateur sur les espèces problématiques. Bien qu’ambitieux, un indicateur du nombre d’espèces sauvages non légales et sûres serait préférable.


We assume that ‘active management actions’ in the target wording is linked to the suggested headline indicator ‘species recovery programmes’ so suggest this could be further elaborated upon to be more specific and say for example “Number of threatened species for which global, national or subnational action/recovery plans are (i) up to date, and (ii) being implemented”. There is a question of whether only threatened species should be included or all species, though they should be a priority.


Il faudrait ajouter une mesure de l’approche de planification territoriale pour éviter les conflits d’usage dommageables aux espèces menacées, qui pourrait aussi constituer un indicateur.


In the French version of the document - Rétablissement vs reconstitution (problème de traduction). Similar for the target wording.


Canada strongly feels that 3 elements of species status (in addition to genetic diversity) should be measured in the framework to fully assess species health and recovery – 1) extinctions (at the very least, we don’t want any more species extinctions measured by the Red List – we understand this to be achievable as per for example Bolam et al. 2020), 2) overall species extinction risk measured by the Red List Index (we want to make sure that we are ‘bending the curve’ of biodiversity loss so that we see species’ conservation status improving - less species threatened) and 3) species population abundance (we want to ensure that even ‘least concern species’ whose populations are declining start to improve again). Of these, we feel that likely the Red List Index is most appropriate for a headline indicator though ideally in tandem with the Red List as well to be able to track extinctions specifically.


Cet indicateur ne devrait-il pas plutôt être associé à la cible 2 qui traite d’aires protégées et de systèmes de gestion efficaces les concernant ? Au niveau de la cible 3, l’indicateur phare associé ne devrait-il pas permettre de faire ressortir les mesures de gestion efficaces permettant la conservation des milieux naturels et des espèces fauniques et floristiques en dehors des réseaux d’aires protégées ? La bonification du réseau d’aires protégées est une action incontournable vers l’atteinte de cette cible sur les espèces menacées. Toutefois, il ne faudrait pas que l’indicateur se limite aux aires protégées, qui ne sont pas la seule solution pour conserver et rétablir les EMV. Il faudrait ajouter la faune dans la cible et une mesure de l’approche de planification territoriale pour éviter les conflits d’usage dommageables aux EMV pourrait aussi constituer un indicateur.


Canada is confused by this suggested headline indicator because species are not conserved only in / through Protected Areas (PAs) but through many different methodologies (e.g. such as OECMs and also other conservation approaches and sustainable management / use outside of PAs and OECMs. Protected area management effectiveness is very important but more relevant for Target 2 on PAs and OECMs.Canada would suggest instead adding headline indicators to mirror Goal A – e.g. the Red List, Red List Index to capture the status of species (linking to recovery and conservation in the target wording) in addition to species management actions.


Canada notes that there are no suggested indicators at all for human-wildlife conflict. In addition, although important, we do not believe human-wildlife conflict to be a major driver of global species loss in the same way as habitat loss and over / unsustainable exploitation, so suggest that this be removed. As a result, Canada will not be commenting on the % target element.


The World Database on Protected Areas and database on OECMs need to be included as a headline indicator to measure 30%, as was used to measure Aichi Target 11’s 17% and 10%. This is suggested as a headline indicator in: CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/16 (which shows that this is a robust indicator as per the designated criteria) and the WDPA is already an SDG indicator.


Suggest deleting Species Protection Index as a headline indicator as it is not directly relevant to the component and lacks scientific peer review as we understand.


This indicator fulfils key criteria as outlined in Inf Doc 16 though the actual mechanism used for collecting the data / unit of measurement needs to be clarified for PA / OECM coverage of important biodiversity areas (e.g. what will be measured / counted here – it could include as an example proportion of KBAs covered by PAs or OECMs’, though many the indicator would really need to consider whether KBAs are effectively stewarding their trigger elements (e.g. on a 10y rotating time scale, as KBAs are intended to be reviewed every 10y) - this relates to ‘status of KBAs’ which is listed as a complementary indicator). We understand that PA coverage of KBAs is an existing indicator for the SDGs. Also, for marine areas, is it possible to track PA / OECM coverage of EBSAs for example?


There is no suggested mechanism (indicator name) for measuring ‘intact’ (high ecological integrity) areas, which is a major gap, as the purpose of this target cannot just be spatial plans. Some suggest that aerial-based surveys (e.g. forest cover) could suffice, but that could be a rough proxy at least in some cases vs something more integrated and directly considering biodiversity / ecosystem health. In addition, land use / marine use plans are often not just biodiversity conservation focused – usually they are broader plans that also consider use across a landscape / seascape, so this would need to be thought through in terms of the sustainable use targets.Also, no mechanism (indicator name) is being proposed to assess restoration progress, though this might be possible at the global level via UNCCD.The wording of the proposed indicator also needs re-working to include the ocean – land use plans are not appropriate for marine ecosystems. Also, the notion of landscapes is less common in some areas, which can be problematic for an indicator.However plans could feature specific geodata (mapping) of natural habitats of importance and ecological networks/connectivity (with habitat cores and linkage corridors) so that governments, including subnational governments, can use this as a basis on which to make informed decisions. A tally of how many of these governments have access to such landscape-scale, up-to-date geodata might be a basic indicator to start with. How many governments take connectivity into account in their land-use plans as well. Then measuring improvements in natural area coverage, connectivity, etc. within prioritized ecological networks in these plans could be a way forward.


Un indicateur applicable pourrait être construit autour de l’intégration de la notion de connectivité dans la planification spatiale correspondante.Considérer les plans d’aménagement à l’échelle des gouvernements infranationaux, ainsi que ceux des gouvernement locaux compilés à l’échelle infranationale.


Si l’année 2020 ou la période 2016-2020 est choisie comme année de référence pour la cible de restauration, les dommages significatifs en termes de perte, de dégradation et de fragmentation d’habitats liés aux activités anthropiques des 50 dernières années risqueraient de ne pas être considérés dans l’atteinte du pourcentage en question.


disaggregations


Development Goals

stocks within biologically sustainable levels

Target 5. By 2030, manage, and where possible control, pathways for the introduction of invasive alien species, achieving [50%] reduction in the rate of new introductions, and control or eradicate invasive alien species to eliminate or reduce their impacts, including in at least [50%] of priority sites.

5.0.1 Rate of invasive alien species spread

5.0.2 Rate of invasive alien species impact

By pathway 15.8.1

Target 6. By 2030, reduce pollution from all sources, including reducing excess nutrients [by x%], biocides [by x%], plastic waste [by x%] to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and human health

6.0.1 Proportion of water with good ambient water quality (freshwater and marine)

By water body type

14.1.1a and 6.3.2

6.0.2 Plastic debris density By location (beach, floating, sea column, sea floor)

14.1.1.b

6.0.3 Pesticide use per area of cropland

By pesticide type

6.0.4 Proportion of municipal solid waste collected and managed in controlled facilities out of total municipal solid waste generated by cities

By waste type 11.6.2

Target 7. By 2030, increase contributions to climate change mitigation adaption and disaster risk reduction from nature-based solutions and ecosystems based approached, ensuring resilience and minimising any negative impacts on biodiversity

7.0.1 Total climate regulation services provided by ecosystems*

By ecosystem type

Target 8. By 2030, ensure benefits, including nutrition, food security,

8.0.1 Number of people using wild resources for

By type of resource

14


Canada does not support this indicator: As per the rationale for not going beyond the scope of the CBD for the target wording, the same goes for proposed headline indicators. In addition, we should strive to have, as much as possible, headline indicators that already exist so that Parties can start assessing progress on them as soon as possible and avoid repeating the mistakes from Aichi. It is not clear that all Parties will be in a position to report on this proposed headline indicator and what metrics should be used to do so? Canada is of the view that indicators, and mostly headline indicators, should look at biodiversity positive outcomes whenever possible.In this sense, Canada could propose the BERI index as an alternative headline indicator. This already existing index, which was proposed as a complementary indicator for Goal A (A.1.1.30), can be aggregated/disaggregated based on ecosystem types, countries or ecoregions: ALT 7.0.1 Bioclimatic Ecosystem Resilience Index (BERI) : assesses the extent to which a given spatial configuration of natural habitat will promote or hinder climate-induced shifts in biological distributions. Results can be aggregated to report on status and trends for any desired set of reporting (ecoregions, countries or ecosystem types). Also, another alternative could be:ALT 7.0.2 Red List Index (impacts of climate change): This already existing indicator looks at the impact of climate change at the species level and the risk posed by climate change to their survival.In all target propositions (current 7 and alt. 1 and 2), a baseline could be established to limit confusion in reporting. 2020?


Pas réaliste de quantifier les flux de GES de l’ensemble des écosystèmes, ce n’est même pas prévu dans les inventaires nationaux qui se concentrent sur les écosystèmes gérés.


This proposed headline indicator should be moved to be a complementary indicator. Reporting on this would have some challenges.Les déchets qui ne sont pas gérés dans des installations contrôlées proviennent essentiellement de deux sources : dépôts sauvages et jetés intentionnellement ou non dans les lieux publics. Aucune donnée n’existe à ce sujet. Il serait beaucoup plus réaliste d’évaluer un indicateur de résultat, ce qui est déjà mieux suivi, comme une densité de déchets dans certains milieux naturels ou dans des espèces fauniques, ce qui est la problématique réelle. Les efforts actuels en GMR (gestion des matières résiduelles) contribuent déjà à cet indicateur.


Suggest total pesticides (and would possibly need to focus on measuring those purchased rather than used for the moment)


Issues such as runoff may need to be considered. Further, the issue with pesticides may not be their use per se but how they are used.Some suggestions on indicators with regards to pesticides (not all suggested as headline indicators):1. Percentage of Parties that establish and implement risk management / mitigation measures that mitigate run-off to edge-of-field waterbodies and to terrestrial habitats.2. Percentage of Parties that conduct scientifically sound environmental risk assessments that support that mitigate run-off to edge-of-field waterbodies and to terrestrial habitats measures.3. Adoption rate to precision agriculture to reduce the footprint of pesticide applications.4. Reduction in the frequency of exceedance of regulatory acceptable concentrations for aquatic ecosystems (if baseline is available).Determining the frequency of exceedance of regulatory acceptable concentrations can be drawn from the environmental risk assessment section conducted for the registration of pesticides by relevant authorities, i.e. US EPA, EFSA; PRMA Canada, AVPMA Australia, MAFF Japan etc.Indicators could also be developed to assess trends in pesticide use training for farmers. Additionally, measures to assess trends in land use stewardship that have a positive impact on biodiversity such as crop rotation, use of cover crops, adoption of conservation tillage, and other measures supporting habitat for birds and insects such as hedges and flower strips. Other activities relevant for the stewardship life cycle are summarized here: https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf_files/Crop-Protection-Stewardship-Vision-2020.pdfFAO maintains global data regarding the use of pesticides and herbicides. Despite of the existence of data, the rationale and appropriate use of inputs must be promoted. One indicator that should be considered is, therefore, the existence of regulations to approve and monitor the use of inputs considering safety instructions and requirements. Another indicator could be the implementation of programs to recycle inputs packages as a manner to control and avoid contamination of residues of the products. Another indicator could be promote the use of integrated pest management practices, according to climate and regional characteristics, aimed at achieving effective control practices.


Canada would suggest reshuffling the proposed indicators. Canada disagrees with all the proposed headline indicators and would suggest that they be moved under the component or complementary indicators. The proposed headline indicators do not tell use about the resilience of biodiversity to the threat of pollution. Also, the indicators should focus on the key pollutants as per IPBES. Canada could propose the following alternative (and already existing) headline indicators: Red List Index (impacts of pollution)Identification of levels of pollutants that are not detrimental (indicator adopted under Aichi Target 8) -The component indicators could be structured around each key pollutant identified and their levels (could be disaggregated by country or biomes), as well as their impact on main ecosystem services. -Canada would also propose an indicator that would assess the impacts of pollution on traditionally valued biodiversity/species.Indicators 6.0.1, 6.0.2 and 6.0.3 should all be moved to be component indicators.




Levels of pesticides found in terrestrial or aquatic compartments within the range of assessed levels of acceptable and environmentally safe concentrations resulting from authorized use should not be considered pollution.


The difference between a biocide and pesticide needs to be clear - suggest using the definition from the Global Chemical Outlook-II, UNE, 2019 “Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, termiticides, nematicides, rodenticides and fungicides”. These products are largely used for crop protection in agriculture. While biocides (including bactericides, preservatives and disinfectants) are included in this economic segment, they are largely used in manufacturing, medical facilities, commercial facilities, schools and residences.If pesticides are used as the monitoring element, then it should encompass all types of pesticides (fungicides, insecticides, acaricides, herbicides and rotenticides)






An indicator on the rate of invasive alien species impact may be hard to evaluate. There is little information on the socio-economic impacts of IAS. There may be more information on the impacts of IAS on specific ecosystems.


This would be an interesting indicator but would likely be difficult for countries to report on. Would suggest an alternative headline indicator that focuses on the # of regulated species and regulations in place to prevent the establishment of invasive species.


Besoin de définir les sites prioritaires et la méthodologie pour leur identification à différentes échelles.


Terms like “introductions” and “priority places” could benefit from clarifications – including via baselines. Considering that efforts to manage IAS and their introductions have been ongoing for some time, we could recommend that a baseline for this target and its indicators should be established before 2020 – possibly using 1992 (establishment of the Convention) and tying this to Article 8(h) of the Convention.


Par rapport à quelle année ou période de référence (baseline) ? 2020 ? 2016-2020 ? Une cible de réduction de 50 % des voies d’introduction est pertinente et pourrait réaliste, selon la définition des termes de la cible et des années ou périodes de référence établies. Par contre, la partie de la cible internationale portant sur l’éradication, le contrôle et la gestion des EEE devrait d’une part, être modifiée afin de se concentrer sur la gestion des impacts uniquement (enlever la notion d’éradication) et d’autre part, être revue à la baisse.


Given that this headline indicator pertains to one specific taxonomic group, fish, we would suggest labelling it as a component indicator. Alternatively, we would replace “fish stocks” by “wild species”. As such, this indicator would fill the current gap related to the component of this target, which seeks to ensure that all legal activities related to the harvesting, trade and use of wild species is sustainable.Regarding fish stocks in particular, suggest changing the wording as it has led to confusion (same indicator as SDG 14.4.1). The title denotes the status of fish stocks but the definition for the same SDG indicator in the United Nations Statistics Division E-Handbook on SDG Indicators is – "the proportion of fish stocks or species that are exploited within the level of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)." This should be clarified if this is used and recommend ‘sustainable fish harvest’ related to this target.


disaggregations


Development Goals

livelihoods, health and wellbeing, for people, especially for the most vulnerable through sustainable management of wild species of fauna and flora.

energy, food or culture (including firewood collection, hunting and fishing, gathering, medicinal use, craft making, etc)*

8.0.2 Percentage of the population in traditional employment

By sex and indigenous status

Target 9. By 2030, support the productivity, sustainability and resilience of biodiversity in agricultural and other managed ecosystems through conservation and sustainable use of such ecosystems, reducing productivity gaps by at least [50%].

9.0.1 Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture

2.4.1

Target 10. By 2030, ensure that, nature based solutions and ecosystem approach contribute to regulation of air quality, hazards and extreme events and quality and quantity of water for at least [XXX million] people.

10.0.1 Population living in areas with clean air and clean and accessible water*

10.0.2 Ecosystems providing reduced coastal erosion, flood protection and other services)*

By sex 1.5.1, 11.5.1, 13.1.1

Target 11. By 2030, increase benefits from biodiversity and green/blue spaces for human health and well-being, including the proportion of people with access to such spaces by at least [100%], especially for urban dwellers

11.0.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is green/bluespace for public use for all

11.7.1

Target 12. By 2030, increase by [X] benefits shared for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through ensuring access to and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge

12.0.1 Numbers of users that have shared benefits from the utilization of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources with the providers of the resources and/or knowledge

By sex and indigenous status of user (head of user organization)

15


Canada does not support ‘number of users’ - it is meaningless, even for jurisdictions with strong Nagoya compliance measures. Suggest deleting this indicator. This would also require users or providers to provide ABS information so the data would likely be challenging for countries to be able to provide.


Benefits should include monetary and non-monetary benefits albeit that the objective of conservation of biodiversity under the CBD should be taken into consideration when allocating benefit sharing contributions, it is important to note that monitoring always should keep in mind that benefit sharing contributions will not be sufficient to finance all efforts required for biodiversity conservation; and that the broader financing of biodiversity conservation is linked to the ongoing discussions on broader approaches to resource mobilisation, rather than relying primarily on Access and Benefit Sharing.


Canada could possibly support this indicator as a starting point but this may be new to report upon so there would be need to be more information and on how to implement this. However we note that this indicator is focused on the quantity of green/blue space and not on the quality.Canada could also suggest indicator 11.1.1.1 as a headline indicator (more details under 11.1.1.1)Although this target does not link to the direct drivers of biodiversity loss nor to the three objectives of the CBD, Canada recognizes the importance of green/blue spaces for human health and well-being. Furthermore, we know that when people experience and benefit from nature, they are more likely to appreciate and care for it. Many studies have demonstrated that connectedness to nature is a strong predictor of positive conservation behavior. We also recall from OEWG-2 that Parties were very receptive of this target. With that in mind, Canada could make some suggestions to keep the elements found in this target related to access to green/blue space but include an educational/public awareness component. Education and public awareness are elements are currently lacking in the framework. Awareness has been incorporated in target 19 but it is not appropriately integrated.


One potential idea would be to add an indicator of the number of cities of more than 150,000 inhabitants (or other threshold) that have identified blue/green spaces (or corridors) over their territories, prioritized action and implemented them to maintain or restore these spaces or corridors, and enabled access to them.Similarly, another possible idea could be adding a headline indicator on the percentage cover of urban canopy in cities with more than 150,000 inhabitants (or other threshold).




Some of the Headline Indicators have data types that don’t match their possible disaggregation(s). For example, headline indicator 10.0.2 is looking to measure “Ecosystems providing reduced coastal erosion, flood protection and other services”, but it wants data disaggregated “by sex”. Either the indicator or the disaggregation should be adjusted so they agree. For example if you changed the indicator to “Population benefitting from ecosystem services that provide protection from…”, then you could break down by sex because your dataset is about people, while also specifying the ecosystem service they’re receiving. Improving this will improve the clarity of the datasets being asked for – and what’s important about them.


Canada does not support as is but could possibly support with changes, though noting that this might be difficult to report on currently. Canada is of the view that headline indicators should be already existing indicators to allow Parties to start reporting on targets as soon as possible. In the absence of such a suitable existing indicator, Canada could support with changes in order to reflect other ecosystem services such as adaptation and mitigation. Then we would need to raise the question of metrics: i.e. quality of services vs quantity?


Canada is of the view that we should strive to have, as much as possible, headline indicators that already exist so that Parties can start assessing progress as soon as possible and therefore avoid repeating the mistakes from Aichi. Additionally, Canada is of the view that indicators, and mostly headline indicators, should look at biodiversity positive outcomes whenever possible.Regarding indicator 10.0.1– Canada does not support it. This has no clear linkage to biodiversity. In addition, we should avoid using numbers of humans as indicators in general, since targets could be met through population growth rather than improved management.A new alternative to 10.1.1: A reference to the most vulnerable ecosystems and marginalised peoples, to recognise the differentiated impacts of climate change and the need to safeguard these groups


Is the proposal to use the same indicator as is already used for SDG 2.4.1? (http://www.fao.org/3/ca5157en/ca5157en.pdf)


What is meant by sustainable agriculture? There needs to be a clear understanding of what this, as many practices in agriculture contribute to the sustainability of such ecosystems.


Canada supports the selection or development of indicators for each managed ecosystem to efficiently track progress toward this target. Linkages with other international fora’s indicators should be promoted where possible. The headline indicator only addresses agriculture. In our view, the monitoring framework should address, at a minimum, agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry. For example, an indicator including sustainable forestry should also feature.Regarding indicator 9.0.1: As currently drafted, the headline indicator only addresses agriculture. We fear that other key sectors of managed ecosystems including aquaculture and forestry will not be addressed appropriately.


Reducing a productivity gap by 50% is not realistic as the gap is relatively small. The numerical target focuses on reducing the productivity gap without offering metrics to measure it (it can be difficult to quantify potential yield/productivity in a realistic way). Given the proposed indicator, it seems more appropriate for the target to aim for an increase of X% in the agricultural area under productive and sustainable agricultural practices.




‘By gender’ may be a better option here.


Canada is not in a position to support this indicator at this time. More information is needed on the pertinence of this indicator and why it was selected. Also, how would this indicator measure progress against target 8? In addition, how to define ‘traditional employment’.


It’s not clear what the value added is of the headline indicators proposed for this target. For example, one could argue that the first headline indicator 8.0.1 could be the whole population using wild resources for energy, food or culture in some ways. There also seems to be a disconnect between the target and the indicators. How is the percentage of the population in traditional employment measuring progress against this target? Is there an agreed upon definition of “traditional employment”? Should this target remain in the framework, much more work would be needed to identify indicators that measure progress against this target.Regarding indicator 8.0.1 – Canada believe that the headline indicator is too general. One could argue that everyone is benefiting from ecosystem services. Nature underpins virtually every aspect of our daily life. If Parties were to adopt a goal on nature’s contributions to people, we would have to be more specific in how we measure it and perhaps talk about the quality of the benefits, and how it improves the livelihoods. As such, we are not in a position to support this indicator, as currently drafted. Some aspects of the indicator would be more easily reported on than others.


disaggregations


Development Goals

12.0.2 Number of access and benefit-sharing permits or their equivalent granted for genetic resources (including those related to traditional knowledge)

By type

12.0.3 Extent to which Number of countries with legislative, administrative or policy frameworks to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits have been adopted and shared on the ABS Clearing-House *

15.6.1

Target 13. By 2030, integrate biodiversity values into policies, regulations, planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts at all levels, ensuring that biodiversity values are mainstreamed across all sectors and integrated into assessments of environmental impacts

13.0.1 Extent to which national targets for integrating biodiversity values into policies, regulations, planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts at all levels, ensuring that biodiversity values are mainstreamed across all sectors and integrated into assessments of environmental impacts*

15.9.1a*

13.0.2 Integration of biodiversity into national accounting and reporting systems, defined as implementation of the System of Environmental Economic Accounting

15.9.1b

Target 14. By 2030, achieve reduction of at least [50%] in negative impacts on biodiversity by ensuring production practices and supply chains are sustainable

14.0.1 Potential population and species loss from terrestrial and marine human modification*

By species group

16


It is important to consider that loss often occurs due to a combination of multiple contributions, rather than one cause alone. Moreover, considering the time and scale of trends over time is important, not just looking at absolute loss.


We find it problematic that the two headline indicators proposed are not currently functional and for 14.0.1 would not be easily measurable. It is also unclear how we will be able to attribute the loss of biodiversity to production vs other drivers of biodiversity loss.




It is unclear how this indicator works. We need clarification on the type of data that will be generated from this indicator. Similar indicators, adopted for Aichi Target 2, were inefficient. However, this could be a possibility for an indicator. Also, subnational accounting and reporting systems should be added.


Given past experiences with Aichi target 2, notably the weaknesses of its overall measurability, Canada supports strengthening the indicators to enhance monitoring and reporting of progress toward this new proposed target.At this time, the measurability of this target is problematic. This would be new to report upon so guidance would be needed on common definitions and parameters. Canada is of the view that additional work is needed to find operational indicators in order for this target to be considered. We recall from the first version of the zero-draft that there was a reference to strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments in the target. While we do not think that this element should be included in the target itself, it would be a great indicator for this target.Regarding indicator 13.0.1 - According to section 18.a.1 of the framework, NBSAPs should include all targets and actions. In view of this, this indicator is redundant and does not have any value added. In addition, whether or not Parties have a national target on this element of the framework is not an indicator of the progress made to implement target 13.


Canada supports indicator 12.0.3, although with modification – it is not clear how frameworks will be evaluated (‘extent to which’?), and who will evaluate. Canada would prefer to incentivize the sharing of such information, for greater clarity, by placing it on the ABS Clearing House (see 12.1.1.6).


Canada could support this but recognizes this likely only covers Parties that require Prior Informed Consent for access to genetic resources and TK. Also this would be new to report upon so would require an investment to do so and would likely be challenging for countries at this time.


Another indicator could be the ratio of requested and granted access requests.


Within a reasonable timeframe. Inter alia the number of access permits whose conditions enabled the actual use of genetic resources in R&D Projects.


disaggregations


Development Goals

14.0.2 Corporate sustainability reporting includes impacts on biodiversity*

By industrial classification

Linked to SDG 12.6.1

Target 15. By 2030, eliminate unsustainable consumption patterns, ensuring people everywhere understand and appreciate the value of biodiversity, make responsible choices commensurate with 2050 biodiversity vision, taking into account individual and national cultural and socioeconomic condition

15.0.1 Biomass material footprint per capita

By type of material

8.4.1,12.2.1

Target 16. By 2030, establish and implement measures to prevent, manage or control potential adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity and human health reducing these impacts by [X].

16.0.1 Extent to which necessary Number of countries with legal, administrative, technical and other biosafety measures are in place to prevent, manage and control risk associated with the use and release of LMOs likely to have potential adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity*

Target 17. By 2030, redirect, repurpose, reform or eliminate incentives harmful for biodiversity, including [X] reduction in the most harmful subsidies, ensuring that incentives, including public and private economic and regulatory incentives, are either positive or neutral for biodiversity

17.0.1 Biodiversity-relevant taxes, charges and fees on payments for ecosystem services and on biodiversity relevant tradable permit schemes as a percentage of GDP

By type of instrument

17.0.2 Potentially harmful elements of government support to agriculture, fisheries and other sectors (environmentally harmful

By sector

17


Canada would suggest that headline indicator 17.0.1 be revised in order to more accurately reflect the existing SDG indicator which looks at revenue generated and finance mobilised from biodiversity-relevant economic instruments, defined as revenue generated and finance mobilised from biodiversity-relevant economic instruments, covering biodiversity-relevant taxes, fees and charges, and positive subsidies. To note that, under the SDGs, new on-going work is underway to collect data on payments for ecosystem services and biodiversity offsets -- including the finance they mobilise for biodiversity through the EPOC’s PINE database.An alternative could be: “17.0.1 Revenue generated and finance mobilised from biodiversity-relevant economic instruments (SDG – 15.a.1/15.b.1)”.




The indicator (and target) should focus on living modified organisms rather than biotechnology – i.e. focusing on implementation of CBD Art. 8(g).This could also be reworded, less subjectively than ‘extent to which the necessary legal…’, as ‘Number of Parties with legal…’What would the possible disaggregations be – possibly type of measure?


Measures should be focused on preventing identified risks of adverse impacts where possible. The measures that are addressing potential risks of adverse impacts should be focused on their assessment in order to identify those that may plausibly lead to adverse impacts.


Par rapport à quelle année ou période de référence (baseline) ? 2020 ? 2016-2020 ?One of the main issues with this baseline is the fact that there are no recorded impacts from biotechnology. How can this be reduced from 0?


Possibilité d’ajouter un indicateur phare sur le nombre de Parties (et de gouvernements infranationaux ?) qui ont adopté des lois ou règlements visant à réduire l’impact des produits de consommation sur les milieux naturels ou les espèces au niveau des lieux de production ou d’exploitation, à distance des lieux de consommation ?


This suggested indicator does not meet the headline indicator criteria to be nationally relevant as CSR reporting is done across supply chains and not at the country level. Further, the criteria to use indicators with publicly available data and metadata which is nationally validated, and for which a global programme exists for monitoring, is also unlikely to be met. In addition, the proposed indicator risks presenting an alternate view of progress, where reporting on biodiversity impacts does not equal to mitigating impacts.


This would require new reporting so Canada would need guidance on common definitions and parameters.


disaggregations


Development Goals

subsidies) as a percentage of GDP

Target 18. By 2030, increase by [X%] financial resources from all international and domestic sources, through new, additional and effective financial resources commensurate with the ambition of the goals and targets of the Framework and implement the strategy for capacity-building and technology transfer and scientific cooperation to meet the needs for implementing the post2020 global biodiversity framework

18.0.1 Official development assistance, public expenditure and private expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems*

By type of expenditure

15.a.1

Target 19. By 2030, ensure that quality information, including traditional knowledge, is available to decision makers and public for the effective management of biodiversity through promoting awareness, education and research

19.0.1 Biodiversity information index*

19.0.2 Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in: (a) national education policies, (b) curricula, (c) teacher education and (d) student assessments.

4.7.1

Target 20. By 2030, ensure equitable participation in decision-making related to biodiversity and ensure rights over relevant resources of indigenous peoples and local communities, women and girls as well as youth, in accordance with national circumstances

20.0.1 Land tenure in the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and local communities

By type of tenure

20.0.2 Population with secure tenure rights to land

By sex and type of tenure

5.a.1

20.0.3 Extent to which indigenous peoples and local communities, women and girls as well as youth

18


This is tangible and would help measure progress on awareness of the values of biodiversity.


The proposal to include ODA as a separate unit of measure beyond public expenditure is duplicative because ODA is included within public expenditure. As a result, there could be more streamlined headline indicator wording. This information can be pulled from the resource mobilization reports by Parties as well as OECD statistics that capture government expenditure by function (0504: protection of biodiversity and landscapes).While there is a clear need to establish a common framework to assess and track private finance for biodiversity, it is unclear how this indicator will be operationalized, what means are being proposed to capture and collect this information, and if the responsibility falls to Parties to collect and report on this information. If reporting would be through Parties’ reports on resource mobilization to the CBD, this indicator could be feasible.Alternative wording could be “Public expenditure and private expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems”.




The intent of this indicator should be to quantify the amount spent by governments on harmful subsidies for biodiversity. Unfortunately most Parties have not yet undertaken any kind of identification of subsidies harmful for biodiversity so this would be new reporting and guidance would be needed on common definitions and parameters. Once Parties have taken steps to identify harmful subsidies, then the quantification of said subsidies will be possible. As a first step, the headline indicator could track the number of Parties that have undertaken national assessments of subsidies harmful for biodiversity as part of their NBSAPs.An alternative could be: “17.0.2 Number of Parties that have undertaken national assessments of subsidies harmful for biodiversity as part of their NBSAPs.”


disaggregations


Development Goals

participate in decision-making related to biodiversity.*

CBD/SBSTTA/24/3Add.1

Annex

PROPOSED HEADLINE, COMPONENT AND COMPLEMENTARY INDICATORS TO MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY

FRAMEWORK

2050 Goals, milestones and

Targets14

Headline indicators15

Components of the Goals and

Targets16Component indicators17 Complementary

indicators18

Goal A:The area, connectivity and integrity of natural ecosystems increased by at least [X%] supporting healthy and resilient populations of all species while reducing the number of species that are threatened by [X%] and maintaining genetic diversity;

2030 Milestones:(i) The area, connectivity and integrity of natural systems increased by at

A.0.1 Extent of selected natural ecosystems (forest, savannahs and grasslands, wetlands, mangroves, saltmarshes, coral reef, seagrass, macroalgae and intertidal habitats)A.0.2 Living Planet IndexA.0.3 Red list index A.0.4 Species habitat indexA.0.5 The proportion of populations maintained within species*

A.1. Increased extent of natural ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems)A.2. Ecosystem integrity and connectivity (terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems)A.3. Prevent extinction and improve the conservation status of speciesA.4. Increase the population and health of speciesA.5. Maintain genetic diversityA.6. Protection of critical ecosystems

A.1.1. Extent of natural ecosystem (A.0.1) by type A.1.2. Ecosystem Integrity IndexA.1.3. Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area (SDG indicator for SDG 15.3.1)A.1.4. Red list index by species group (including for terrestrial, freshwater and marine species)A.1.5. Number of species extinctions by species group (including for terrestrial, freshwater and marine species)A.1.6. Species habitat index by species groupA.1.7. The proportion of populations maintained within species (A.0.5) by species groupA.1.X – the proportion of populations/breeds within species group with a

A.1.1.1. Forest area as a proportion of total land area (SDG indicator 15.1.1)A.1.1.2. Forest distributionA.1.1.3. Tree cover lossA.1.1.4. Grassland and savannah extent A.1.1.5. Mountain Green Cover IndexA.1.1.6. Peatland extent and conditionA.1.1.7. Permafrost thickness, depth and extentA.1.1.8. Red List of EcosystemsA.1.1.9. Continuous Global Mangrove Forest CoverA.1.1.10. Trends in mangrove forest fragmentationA.1.1.11. Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time (SDG indicator 6.6.1)A.1.1.12. Trends in mangrove extent A.1.1.13. Live coral cover

14 The 2050 goals and 2030 milestones and targets are as proposed in document CBD/POST2020/PREP/2/1.15 The headlines indicators are the same as in document CBD/SBSTTA/24/3.16 These components are unchanged from those presented in the documentation related to notification 020-024 . 17 Links to relevant headline indicators as well as to indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals have been noted where relevant.18 Links to relevant headline indicators as well as to indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals have been noted where relevant.

19


Tree cover loss can be a problematic indicator for trend in area of forest ecosystems as described in State of the World’s Forests (SOFO) 2020 Box 6. Moreover, it is not clear if the proposed indicator is gross tree cover loss or net. Gross tree cover loss provides a limited perspective on tree cover dynamics. Current global net tree cover loss assessment methods are biased for boreal forests because of difficulties detecting gradual tree cover gains characteristic of natural post-disturbance boreal forest succession (Guindon et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2094). If we keep tree cover loss, we should differentiate between natural and anthropogenic loss. In Canada we have temporary tree cover loss from fires or pests but it is still counted as forest area as it will grow back.Change in forest area aligns with existing indicators for SDGs and FAO and is included in A 1.1.1. Progress toward SFM (SDG 15.2.1) sub-indicator 1, “Forest area annual net change rate” may be a better indicator for Goal A1 if 15.1.1 alone is considered to be insufficient.


Does ‘A.0.1’ mean that this headline indicator corresponds to component A.1 and component indicators A.1.1, A.1.2, etc.? And similarly that headline indicator A.0.2 corresponds to component A.2? If so, this needs to be made very clear.


Is there no suggested headline indicator for this? Is there a definition of a “critical ecosystem”? Should this refer to “areas important for biodiversity” instead?


Integrity and connectivity are two different concepts, so there would need to be two separate indicators – one for integrity and one for connectivity. Canada has monitoring for ecological integrity of national parks but that same method for determining integrity would be challenging to scale up across the entirety of Canada. Could this be done using earth observation data and using anthropogenic pressures as a proxy for integrity?


With regards to headline indicator 20.0.3, Canada supports the intent of this proposed indicator to capture the rates of participation of IPLCs, youth and women in decision making but, as a new indicator being proposed, Canada has doubts about its overall measurability.As an alternative headline indicator that would capture participation in decision making, Canada could propose the existing SDG indicator 16.7.2 that measures the percentage of population who believe decision making is inclusive and responsive. This indicator can be disaggregated by sex, age, and population group (SDG indicator 16.7.2) and therefore provide insight into the experiences and views specifically of women, youth and IPLCs.The wording is: “20.0.3 Alt Percentage of population who believe decision making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group (SDG indicator 16.7.2).”

https://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2020/ntf-2020-024-sbstta-en.pdf


Targets

Headline indicators


TargetsComponent indicators Complementary indicators

least [5%].(ii) The number of species that are threatened is reduced by [X%] and the abundance of species has increased on average by [X%].

genetically effective population size >500 (A.0.X) by species group Protection indicators are captured in the Targets

A.1.1.14. Hard Coral cover and compositionA.1.1.15. Global coral reef extentA.1.1.16. Global Seagrass Extent (Seagrass Cover and composition)A.1.1.17. Global saltmarsh extentA.1.1.18. Kelp canopy extentA.1.1.19. Macroalgal Canopy Cover and CompositionA.1.1.20. Cover of key benthic groupsA.1.1.21. Fleshy algae coverA.1.1.22. Wetland Extent Trends IndexA.1.1.23. Change in the extent of inland water ecosystems over timeA.1.1.24. Change in the extent of water related ecosystems (SDG Indicator 6.6.1)A.1.1.25. Forest Fragmentation Index A.1.1.26. Forest Landscape Integrity IndexA.1.1.27. Biomass of selected natural ecosystems (A.0.2) A.1.1.28. Biodiversity Habitat IndexA.1.1.29. Global Vegetation Health ProductsA.1.1.30. Bioclimatic Ecosystem Resilience Index (BERI)A.1.1.31. Relative Magnitude of Fragmentation (RMF)A.1.1.32. Ecoregion Intactness IndexA.1.1.33. Biodiversity Intactness IndexA.1.1.34. Ocean Health Index A.1.1.35. Extent of physical damage indicator to predominant seafloor habitats physical damageA.1.1.36. Wetland Extent Trends IndexA.1.1.37. River

20


Global Vegetation Health Products represents many indices, not all specifically linked directly to biodiversity. The specific indices should be indicated here.


This index produced by WRI should qualify whether changes are a result of anthropogenic activities of natural disturbance. We also are unsure of whether the data is readily available, e.g. as per the evaluation against criteria in inf doc 16 where it was flagged as being not as strong as other proposed indicators.


Wetland Extend Trends Index is listed twice (also A.1.1.36) - given the difficulties of using remote sensing to accurately map wetlands and the temporal variations in wetlands, the results may not be as accurate as needed for comparing every 3 years.


An indicator on seagrass condition could be added – e.g. “Trends in fragmentation and quality of seagrasses”. Tracking condition of ecosystem services is critical to the development of comprehensive Ocean Accounts.


If Goal A and Target 2 are to be complementary as well as well as other targets (such as Target 1), there should be a monitoring element for Goal A that focuses on those same elements, for example areas important for biodiversity as per Target 2.


Suggested addition


Targets

Headline indicators



Fragmentation IndexA.1.1.38. Dendritic Connectivity IndexA.1.1.39 Percentage of threatened species that are improving in status according to the Red ListA.1.1.40. EDGE IndexA.1.1.41. Number of threatened species by species groupA.1.1.42. Wild bird indexA.1.1.43. Mean Species Abundance (MSA)A.1.1.44. Species Protection IndexA.1.1.45. Changes in plankton biomass and abundanceA.1.1.46. Fish abundance and biomassA.1.1.47. The number of populations (or breeds) within species with an e ective population size > ff500 compared to the number < 500A.1.1.48. Genetic scorecard for wild speciesA.1.1.49. Species richness/Changes in local terrestrial diversity (PREDICTS)A.1.1.50. Marine species richnessA.1.1.51. Comprehensiveness of conservation of socioeconomically as well as culturally valuable species.A.1.1.52. Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium- or long-term conservation facilities (SDG 2.5.1)A.1.1.53. Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk, extinctionA.1.1.54. Red List Index (wild relatives of

21


Unnecessary if other strong GD indicators are used.


Suggest elevating to a headline indicator


Suggest removing this indicator for reasons elaborated in the headline indicator table.


Canada could support this indicator


Targets

Headline indicators



domesticated animals)A.1.1.XX - The number of populations in which genetic diversity is being monitored using DNA-based methods A.1.1.55. Protection indicators are captured in the Targets

Goal B:Nature’s contributions to people have been valued, maintained or enhanced through conservation and sustainable use supporting global development agenda for the benefit of all people;

2030 Milestones:(i) Nature contributes to the sustainable diets and food security, access to safe drinking water and resilience to natural disasters for at least [X%] million people. (ii) Nature is valued through green investments, ecosystem service valuation in national accounts, and public and private sector financial disclosures.

B.0.1 Population benefiting from ecosystem services*B.0.2 Value of all final ecosystem services (Gross Ecosystem Product)*

B.1.Nature’s regulating contributions including climate regulation, disaster prevention and othersB.2. Nature’s material contributions, including food, water and othersB.3. Nature’s non-material contributions including cultural

B.1.1. Population benefiting from ecosystem services (B.0.1) by type of ecosystem serviceB.1.2. Additional indicators are captured in Targets 6-11 Headline indicators and across the frameworkB.1.3. Value of all final ecosystem services (Gross Ecosystem Product) (B.0.2) for material service-related ecosystem servicesB.1.4. Natural capital component of inclusive wealthB.1.5. Value of all final ecosystem services (Gross Ecosystem Product) (B.0.2) for non-material service-related ecosystem services

B.1.1.1. Expected loss of Phylogenetic Diversity (IPBES phylogenetic diversity indicator)B.1.1.2. Red List Index (pollinating species)B.1.1.3. Green status index (pollinators)B.1.1.4. Air quality indexB.1.1.5. Air pollution emissions accountB.1.1.6. Zoonotic disease in wildlifeB.1.1.7. Climatic impact indexB.1.1.8. Ocean acidification (SDG 14.3.1)B.1.1.9. Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resourcesB.1.1.10. Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality (SDG indicator 6.3.2)B.1.1.11. Eflow indexB.1.1.12. Change in the quality of inland water ecosystems over timeB.1.1.13. Change in the quality of coastal water ecosystems over timeB.1.1.14. Level of erosionB.1.1.15. Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (SDG indicator 11.5.1) B.1.1.16. Intact wilderness B.1.1.17. Biofuel production

22


Does this differ from primary forest? Or perhaps includes it? Is there a reliable / standardized way to measure ‘wilderness’? A number of countries highlighted potential issues with defining ‘wilderness’ at OEWG2.


Canada does not support these for the same reasons outlined for B.0.2


Canada does not support for the same reasons outlined for B.0.2


Canada does not support for the same reasons outlined for B.0.1


An alternative proposal could be:‘Conservation Genetic Coalition’, building on Hoban et al. 2020, etcAs component or complementary indicator:A.1.1.XX - The number of populations in which genetic diversity is being monitored using DNA-based methods.A methods-based indicator is needed to motivate and guide management, and would support countries’ capacity development.


Suggested addition


Suggest deleting both indicators 53 and 54. Poor proxies covering few species.


Targets

Headline indicators



B.1.1.18. Maximum fish catch potentialB.1.1.19. Population involved in hunting and gatheringB.1.1.20. Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience ScaleB.1.1.21. Forestry Production & Trade (Wood Fuel)B.1.1.22. Trends in the legal trade of medicinal plantsB.1.1.23. Visitor management assessmentB.1.1.24. Number of formal and non-formal education programmes transmitting spiritual and cultural values in the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere ReservesB.1.1.25. Number of mixed sites (having both natural and cultural Outstanding Universal Values), cultural landscapes (recognized as combined works of nature and people) and natural sites with cultural values including those supporting local and indigenous knowledge and practices inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List and UNESCO World Network of Biosphere ReservesB.1.1.26. Index of Linguistic Diversity - Trends of linguistic diversity and numbers of speakers of indigenous languagesB.1.1.27. Index of development of the standard- setting framework for the protection and promotion of culture, cultural rights and cultural diversityB.1.1.28. Cultural vitality indexB.1.1.29. UNESCO Culture

23


Targets

Headline indicators



2030 (multiple indicators)

Goal C:The benefits, from the utilization of genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably;

2030 Milestones:(i) Access and benefit-sharing mechanisms are established in all countries.(ii) Benefits shared increased by [X%].

C.0.1 Amount of monetary benefits (in United States dollars) received by countries from utilization of genetic resources as a result of an ABS agreement, including traditional knowledgeC.0.2 Number of research and development results or publications shared as a result of an ABS agreement

C.1. Access to Genetic resources C.2. Sharing of the benefits

C.1.1. Amount of monetary benefits received by countries from utilization of genetic resources as a result of an ABS agreement, including traditional knowledge (C.0.1) by beneficiary typeC.1.2. Number of research and development results or publications shared as a result of an ABS agreement (C.0.2) by beneficiary type

C.1.1.1. Number of users that have provided information relevant to the utilization of genetic resources to designated checkpoints C.1.1.2. Total number of internationally recognized certificates published in the APB Clearing-HouseC.1.1.3. Number of checkpoint communiqués published in the ABS Clearing-HouseC.1.1.4. Number of internationally recognized certificates of compliance for non-commercial purposes

Goal D:Means of implementation are available to achieve all goals and targets in the framework.2030 Milestones:(i) By 2022, means to implement the framework for the period 2020 to 2030 are identified and committed. (ii) By 2030, means to implement the framework for the period 2030 to 2040 are identified or committed.

D.0.1. Index of coverage of national biodiversity strategies and action plans with formal processes for ensuring that women, indigenous peoples and local communities and youth are engaged and which capture means of implementation*D.0.2. National funding for implementation of the global biodiversity framework*

D.1. Availability of sufficient financial resources D.2. Sufficient capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific cooperationD.3. Access to technology

D.1.1. Financial resources captured in the headline indicators for Target 18D.1.2. Financial resources mobilized for capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific cooperationHeadline indicator 19.0.1

D.1.1.1. Financial resources captured in the headline indicators for Target 18D.1.1.2. Finance mobilized for capacity-buildingD.1.1.3. Financial and technical assistance provided in dollars (including through South-South, North-South and triangular cooperation)D.1.1.4. Finance mobilized for promoting the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of technologyD.1.1.5. Number of scientists per populationD.1.1.6. Joint scientific papers published (in Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS)) by sectorD.1.1.7. Number of marine monitoring stationsD.1.1.8 Number of water quality monitoring stationsD.1.1.9. Nationally

24


D.1.2. could be further refined to specify that it specifically pertains to financial resources mobilized for capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific cooperation for the purposes of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This information could likely be pulled from Parties resource mobilization reporting. So it would look as follows:D.1.2. Financial resources mobilized for capacity building, technology transfer and scientific cooperation for the purpose of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.Canada could also welcome additional component indicators that would capture the non-financial aspects of capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific cooperation.


Targets

Headline indicators



maintained research vesselsD.1.1.10. Proportion of total research budget allocated to research in the field of marine technology D.1.1.11. Volume of official development assistance flows for scholarships by sector and type of study D.1.1.12. Global imports of information and communication technology (ICT) goods as presented by bilateral trade flows by ICT goods categories

Reducing threats on biodiversity

Target 1. By 2030, [50%] of land and sea areas globally are under spatial planning addressing land/sea use change, retaining most of the existing intact and wilderness areas, and allow to restore [X%] of degraded freshwater, marine and terrestrial natural ecosystems and connectivity among them.

1.0.1 Percentage of land covered by landscape scale land-use plans for terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems*

1.1. Increase in area of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems under spatial planning1.2. Prevention of reduction and fragmentation of natural habitats due to land/sea use change1.3. Priority retention of intact/wilderness areas1.4. Restoration of degraded ecosystems1.5. Maintenance and restoration of connectivity of natural ecosystems

1.1.1. Sustainable forest management (SDG indicator 15.2.1)1.1.2. Number of countries using ecosystem-based approaches to managing marine areas (SDG indicator 14.2.1)1.1.3. Degree of integrated water resources management (SDG indicator 6.5.1)Habitat extent, fragmentation and connectivity are captured in Goal A.

1.1.1.1. Number of countries using natural capital accounts in planning processes1.1.1.2. Percentage of spatial plans utilising information on key biodiversity areas1.1.1.3. Habitat patches located within marine protected areas or integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)1.1.1.4. Other spatial management plans (not captured as ICZM or marine spatial planning in 14.2.1)1.1.1.5. Number of countries using ocean accounts in planning processes1.1.1.6. Proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation (SDG indicator 6.5.2)1.1.1.7. Percent of total land area that is under cultivation1.1.1.8. Habitat distributional range1.1.1.9. Index of Species

25


An indicator such as this is of interest as this target needs to not just measure area covered by spatial plans but also the outcome of that planning for biodiversity. Coverage / incorporation of KBAs by PAs / OECMs or other kinds of spatial plans / management systems that are managing for biodiversity conservation is important. Coverage by a spatial plan doesn’t tell you the outcome of whether biodiversity is being conserved but it’s a start and monitoring these sites could provide that information.


Do any of these component indicators measure area of land / sea that demonstrates high ecological integrity? Similarly for the complementary indicators – which ones could measure ecological integrity? Component indicators from Goal A may be more appropriate to add here such as:A.1.2. Ecosystem Integrity IndexA.1.3. Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area (SDG indicator for SDG 15.3.1)


Needs to take into account legislative tools/regulations in place, commitments by the private sector, as well as results on the ground (validation of efficient implementation).


Targets

Headline indicators



Rarity Sites, High Biodiversity Areas, Large Mammal Landscapes, Intact Wilderness and Climate Stabilization Areas1.1.1.10. Increase in secondary natural forest cover1.1.1.11. Annual Tropical Primary Tree Cover Loss1.1.1.12. Forest Landscape Integrity Index1.1.1.13. Global Ecosystem Restoration Index1.1.1.14. Cumulative human impacts on marine ecosystems.1.1.1.15. Physical damage to seafloor habitats1.1.1.16. Free flowing rivers1.1.1.17. Percentage of cropped landscapes with at least 10% natural land1.1.1.18. Bioclimatic Ecosystem Resilience Index (BERI)

Target 2. By 2030, protect and conserve through well connected and effective system of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures at least 30 per cent of the planet with the focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity.

2.0.1 Protected area coverage of important biodiversity areas2.0.2 Species Protection Index

2.1. Area of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystem under protection and conservation2.2. Areas of particular importance for biodiversity are protected and conserved as priority2.3. Representative system of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures2.4. Effective management and equitable governance of the system of

2.1.1. Protected area / OECM coverage by type (marine, freshwater, mountain and terrestrial)2.1.2. Protected area / OECM coverage of important biodiversity areas (by type (marine, freshwater, mountain and terrestrial)2.1.3. Protected Area Representativeness Index (PARC-Representativeness)2.1.4. Headline indicator for Target 32.1.5. Protected Connected (Protconn) index2.1.6. Area of Protected areas and other effective

2.1.1.1. Protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD)2.1.1.2. Status of key biodiversity areas2.1.1.3. Protected area coverage of key biodiversity areas 2.1.1.4. Protected area coverage of coral reefs2.1.1.5. IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas2.1.1.6. Proportion of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecological regions which are conserved by protected areas or other effective area-based

26


While we understand and agree with the importance of coral reefs, we think that PA / OECM coverage of various types of ecosystems could be captured under 2.1.1., as there might be additional ecosystems to measure in addition to coral reefs (e.g. wetlands, mangroves, etc.).


Canada believes that this could be an important indicator. Also, an additional component or complementary indicator could be “proportion of Key Biodiversity Areas / mean % of each Key Biodiversity Area covered by PAs or OECMs”.


Does this include the coverage of protected areas in ecological cores and corridors (ecological networks) identified at the landscape scale?


Suggest that this be removed as it is not clear which of the two proposed headline indicators this is referring to and also we would recommend that headline indicators not be repeated as component indicators.


It would be helpful if the actual monitoring instrument could be listed as the indicator. For example, is this the WDPA? If so, we have recommended that this actually be a headline indicator.


Is this the same as A.1.1.1.37 River fragmentation index?


Targets

Headline indicators



protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures2.5. Connectivity within the system of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures2.6. Increased protection and conservation effectiveness2.7. Integration into landscape and seascape context

area-based conservation measures meeting their documented ecological objectives (Protected areas effectiveness)2.1.7. Area of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures in each of the four governance types

conservation measures2.1.1.7. Species Protection Index2.1.1.8. Ramsar Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (R-METT)2.1.1.9. Number of protected areas that have completed a site-level assessment of governance and equity (SAGE)

2.1.1.10. Number of certified forest areas under sustainable management with verified impacts on biodiversity conservation2.1.1.11. Protected Area Connectedness Index (PARC-Connectedness)2.1.1.12. Number of hectares of UNESCO designated sites (natural and mixed World Heritage sites and Biosphere Reserves)2.1.1.13. Percentage of biosphere reserves that have a positive conservation outcome and effective management2.1.1.14. Extent of indigenous peoples and local communities’ lands hat have some form of recognition

Target 3. By 2030, ensure active management actions to enable wild species of fauna and flora recovery and conservation, and reduce human-wildlife conflict by [X%].

3.0.1 Protected areas management effectiveness 3.0.2 Species recovery programmes*

3.1. Active recovery and conservation management actions3.2. Reduced human-wildlife conflicts3.3. Number of countries with a national species recovery plan

3.1.1. Status of species captured in Goal A3.1.2. Proportion of conservation dependent species (IUCN Green Status of Species Assessments Index)

3.1.1.1. Species threat abatement and restoration metric3.1.1.2. IUCN Green Status of Species Index by sub-indicators3.1.1.3. Changing status of evolutionary distinct and globally endangered species (EDGE Index)3.1.1.4. Percentage of threatened species that are improving in status.

27


Canada agrees with this as an indicator but it would be helpful to more clearly outline what some of these indicators that do similar but complementary things focus on specifically (e.g. how is this indicator unique from the Red List Index which is already listed?). In other words, it would be helpful to see a bit more clearly how these indicators ‘fit together’ like puzzle pieces in terms of evaluating biodiversity recovery, ensuring that each indicator fills a gap and is not replicative if possible.


Canada agrees this could be a helpful complementary indicator.


The IUCN Red List Green Status of Species assessments is already listed as a component indicator for Target 3 so we believe that sub-indicators would come under this already.


Canada requests more information on this indicator.


We understand that this indicator measures species status improvements based on the IUCN Red List, which is a peer-reviewed and established indicator that can be aggregated nationally or disaggregated from the global level to country level. It would be helpful to understand how this would be used in addition to the Red List Index (e.g. does it provide more detail on species recovery than the Red List Index at the species level)?


Canada thinks that this should replace proposed headline indicator 3.0.1 ‘protected areas management effectiveness’ for Target 3 though we would rename it as simply ‘status of species’. ‘Status of species’ could be measured by the following indicators that are all necessary to accurately measure biodiversity recovery:•Human-induced species extinctions (to be halted). Extinctions are the lowest denominator in the task of halting global biodiversity loss - at the very least we don’t want any more extinctions. This can be measured by the Red List which is established, peer-reviewed and can be nationally aggregated or disaggregated to the country-level from the global Red List.•Overall risk of species extinctions (to be reduced – e.g. by 20%). This evaluates whether species conservation status is improving and can be measured via the Red List Index (well established and peer-reviewed), which can be nationally aggregated or disaggregated to the country-level from the global Red List Index. A 20% reduction would represent a substantial reversal in recent trends of biodiversity loss. Canada views this as the most critical measure of species status if only one of these three can be chosen but we strongly recommend that all three mechanisms be captured under ‘species status’.•Population abundance (to be increased – e.g. by 20%). This is measuring whether species populations are increasing (e.g. including species that are Least Concern but have been declining). Status of species, which can be measured using these 3 measures, addresses the element of Target 3 that focuses on ‘species recovery and conservation’. These same 3 indicators could be also used for Goal A, but Goal A could set further numerical goals for 2050, with Target 3 focusing on 2030.


TBV - Connectivity indicator needs to measure connectivity of intact habitat, not connectivity of PAs (which can be made arbitrarily large by dividing large PAs into smaller connected polygons). An indicator for connectivity of protected areas could measure the percentage cover of protected areas and other area-based conservation measures within well-defined ecological networks (i.e. within habitat cores and linkage corridors) based on scientific, up-to-date geodata (using least-cost paths or similar approaches). This type of geodata is already available in many ecoregions and at a finer scale in a more limited number of regions.


Certified forest areas under sustainable forest management should not be an indicator under Target 2. It is an appropriate indicator under Target 9 which is about sustainability of biodiversity in managed ecosystems.


There need to be other complementary indicators to assess the efficiency of protected area and conserved area management/ stewardship measures on the ground. Having a site-level plan for governance/ stewardship/ management is a first step, but there should be an indicator measuring the level of implementation of these plans on the ground, as well as their efficiency in ensuring conservation objectives area reached (for habitats, species, ecological services) for each protected/ conserved area and within protected/ conserved area networks at the regional, national, subnational and local scales.


TBV – From PAD - METT, a checklist approach which addresses enabling conditions (cheap to measure) far more than outcomes (expensive to measure). It does provide some indication, but it is a proxy and prone to manipulation. Anything better is a *lot* more money.


As with other comments, it’s not clear why ‘Species Protection Index’ is included as a complementary indicator when it is already suggested as a headline indicator. We suggest it is removed.


This fits with Canada’s suggestion that Target 2 include wording on ‘ecological representativeness’ as Aichi Target 11 did, which could be measured at the national level by ‘ecoregion representivity of PAs / OECMs’. We feel that this indicator could potentially be promoted to a component indicator though it needs to be clarified that it is different from 2.1.1.


There does not currently seem to be a component indicator on equity or reflecting the considerations of Indigenous peoples – this is something that the High Ambition Coalition has been investigating and discussing.


A component indicator at least needs to be added to assess the implementation of efficient management/ stewardship measures for protected/ conserved areas. This is one of the main challenges of the next decade: designating new protected/ conserved areas is one thing, but ensuring all existing and future protected/ conserved sites are adequately managed to fulfil their role in conserving biodiversity has been largely overlooked and underestimated. Our actions need to be efficient, and we need to be able to measure that.


Something similar to this might be appropriate for Target 1 (e.g. proportion of spatially planned areas that are meeting their documented biodiversity objectives) – to be measured through spatial planning monitoring plans.


Targets

Headline indicators



3.1.1.5. Number of CMS daughter agreements

Target 4. By 2030, ensure that the harvesting, trade and use of wild species of fauna and flora is legal, at sustainable levels and safe.

4.0.1 Proportion of traded wildlife that is legal and safe (not poached, illicitly trafficked or unsustainable) 4.0.2 Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable level

4.1. Harvest is legal, sustainable and safe for human health and biodiversity4.2. Trade is legal, sustainable and safe for human health and biodiversity 4.3. Use is legal, sustainable and safe for human health and biodiversity

4.1.1. Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked (T4.0.1) by species group4.1.2. Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels (T4.0.2) by fish type4.1.3. Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked (SDG indicators 15.7.1 and 15.c.1)4.1.4. The conservation status of species listed in the CITES Appendices has stabilized or improved

4.1.1.1. Degree of implementation of international instruments aiming to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (SDG indicator 14.6.1).4.1.1.2. Sustainable watershed and inland fisheries index4.1.1.3. Proportion of legal and illegal wildlife trade consisting of species threatened with extinction 4.1.1.4. Marine Stewardship Council Fish catch4.1.1.5. Total catch of cetaceans under International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling4.1.1.6. By catch of vulnerable and non-target species4.1.1.7. Illegal trade by CITES species classification4.1.1.8. Number of countries incorporating trade in their national biodiversity policy4.1.1.9. The conservation status of species listed in the CITES Appendices has stabilized or improved4.1.1.10. Implementation of measures designed to minimize the impacts of fisheries and hunting on migratory species and their habitats

Target 5. By 2030, manage, and where possible control, pathways for the introduction of

5.0.1 Rate of invasive alien species spread 5.0.2 Rate of invasive alien species impact

5.1. Identification, control and management of pathways for introduction of invasive alien species

5.1.1. Numbers of invasive alien species introduction events5.1.2. An established an alert system for prevention and control of IAS

5.1.1.1. Number of invasive alien species in national lists as per the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species*

28


What would define an introduction event?


-Canada should look at ways to include, perhaps under the complementary list, additional indicators that relate to IAS impacts on, and management efforts being made by, vulnerable populations, including IPLCs. oFor example : Indigenous and local communities-led invasive alien species management efforts ; Trends in level of impact of IAS on traditional living.Another possible complementary indicator could be the cost to agriculture due to IAS.


This could make a better headline indicator and would speak to managing pathways for introduction.


Canada think that it may be preferable to have an indicator which covers all wild species rather that just wildlife.


This is the SDG 14.4.1 indicator whose definition is: "the proportion of fish stocks or species that are exploited within the level of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)". Suggest rewording this indicator to incorporate the action of harvesting that is in the definition but not the title.


Canada can support this indicator.


Canada thinks that it may be preferable to have an indicator which covers all wild species rather that just wildlife.


It is not clear how this indicator would help to measure biodiversity recovery. There can be many sub-agreements of UN conventions but how they work and whether they are effective in terms of contributing to species loss is key.


Targets

Headline indicators



invasive alien species, achieving [50%] reduction in the rate of new introductions, and control or eradicate invasive alien species to eliminate or reduce their impacts, including in at least [50%] of priority sites

5.2. Effective detection, identification, prioritization and monitoring of invasive alien species5.3. Establishment of measures for eradication, control and management of invasive alien species5.4. Eliminated or reduced impacts of invasive alien species5.5. Eradication, control or management of invasive alien species in priority sites

5.1.3. Rate of invasive alien species eradication by species type5.1.4. Red List Index (impacts of invasive alien species)5.1.5. Proportion of key biodiversity areas threatened by invasive alien species

5.1.1.2. Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species

Target 6. By 2030, reduce pollution from all sources, including reducing excess nutrients [by x%],biocides [by x%], plastic waste [by x%] to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystemfunctions and human health

6.0.1 Proportion of water with good ambient water quality (freshwater and marine)6.0.2 Plastic debris density6.0.3 Pesticide use per area of cropland6.0.4 Proportion of municipal solid waste collected and managed in controlled facilities out of total municipal solid waste generated by cities

6.1. Reduction of pollution from excess nutrients6.2. Reduction of pollution from biocides6.3. Reduction of pollution from plastic6.4. Reduction of pollution from other sources

6.1.1. Nitrogen balance (in rivers from SDG indicator 6.3.2 and in oceans from SDG indicator 14.1.1)6.1.2. Phosphate balance (in rivers from SDG indicator 6.3.2 and in oceans from SDG indicator 14.1.1)6.1.3. Fertilizer use6.1.4. Pesticide use by type of pesticides6.1.5. Plastic debris density by location (beach litter, floating debris, debris in the sea column, debris on the sea floor)6.1.6. Ingested plastic and entanglement6.1.7. Hazardous waste generated per capita; and proportion of hazardous waste treated, by type of treatment (SDG indicator 12.4.2)6.1.8. Recycling rate (from SDG indicator 12.5.1)

6.1.1.1. Trends in Loss of Reactive Nitrogen to the Environment.

29


An indicator that incorporates recycling rates / waste diversion could possibly be considered. If 6.0.4 is the same as the SDG indicator 11.6.1 then it only looks at waste that goes to a waste facility without looking at waste diversion.


-Other than for indicator 5.1.1, Canada agrees in principal with the list of proposed indicators although, as mentioned previously, we would recommend that indicators should look first at efforts towards IAS and then on outcomes. In that sense Canada would suggest some reorganization amongst the indicators: oAlt 5.0.1 (currently listed as 5.1.1.2): Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species (SDG 15.8.1) oAlt 5.0.2 (currently listed as 5.1.4): Red List Index (impacts of invasive alien species)oCurrent headlines indicators (5.0.1 and 5.0.2) could then be moved to the component indicators list. oCurrent 5.1.5 indicator could be moved under the complementary indicators list. oAs for component indicator 5.1.1., Canada would suggest changing this target so that we instead look at efforts that resulted in positive outcomes: ALT 5.1.1. Trends in rate of interceptions at the border as a supporting indicator for the rate of introductions and therefore the effectiveness of boarder control measures – baseline 2020?


Targets

Headline indicators



Target 7. By 2030, increase contributions to climate change mitigation adaption and disaster risk reduction from nature-based solutions and ecosystems-based approaches, ensuring resilience and minimizing any negative impacts on biodiversity

7.0.1 Total climate regulation services provided by ecosystems*

7.1. Increased biodiversity contribution to climate change mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction7.2. Minimized negative impacts on biodiversity from any mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures

7.1.1. Total climate regulation services provided by ecosystems by ecosystem type

7.1.1.1. Above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes/ha)7.1.1.2. Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SDG indicator 13.1.2)7.1.1.3. Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies (SDG indicator 13.1.3)7.1.1.4. Number of least developed countries and small island developing States with nationally determined contributions, long-term strategies, national adaptation plans, strategies as reported in adaptation communications and national communications (SDG indicator 13.b.1)

Meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing

Target 8. By 2030, ensure benefits, including nutrition, food security, livelihoods, health and well-being, for people, especially for the most vulnerable through sustainable management of wild species of

8.0.1 Number of people using wild resources for energy, food or culture (including firewood collection, hunting and fishing, gathering, medicinal use, craft making, etc.)*8.0.2 Percentage of the population in traditional

8.1. Sustainable management of aquatic wild species of fauna and flora, including fisheries8.2. Sustainable management of terrestrial wild species of fauna and flora

8.1.1. Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG indicator 2.3.2)

8.1.1.1. Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels (SDG indicator 14.4.1)8.1.1.2. Degree of implementation of international instruments aiming to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (SDG indicator 14.6.1)8.1.1.3. Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in medium- or long-term conservation facilities (SDG indicator 2.5.1)

30


It is unclear how this indicator measures progress against target 8. More information is needed as to why this indicator was selected.


Canada does not support. This does not necessarily imply positive outcomes for biodiversity, while recognizing that this goes beyond the mandate of the CBD.


Canada does not support. This does not necessarily imply positive outcomes for biodiversity. Would be best placed under target 10.


Canada does not support. This does not necessarily imply positive outcomes for biodiversity. Would be best placed under target 10.


Canada does not support: This indicator could actually have adverse effect on biodiversity as it takes into account things like plantation and monocultures at the same level as native or pristine forest areas. As Canada is a forested country, we might have an alternate proposition (TBD).


Canada could support but recognizes that this indicator becomes irrelevant if we were the adopt ALT 7.0.1 (BERI), and would see this indicator better fitting under Target 10 on NBS and EbA.ALT/ADD: outline most vulnerable ecosystems to climate change


Targets

Headline indicators



fauna and flora employment 8.1.1.4. Red List Index (species used for food and medicine)8.1.1.5. Spawning stock biomass (related to commercially exploited species) 8.1.1.6. Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/ forestry enterprise size (SDG indicator 2.3.1)

Target 9. By 2030, support the productivity, sustainability and resilience of biodiversity in agricultural and other managed ecosystems through conservation and sustainable use of such ecosystems, reducing productivity gaps by at least [50%].

9.0.1 Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture

9.1. Sustainable management of agricultural biodiversity, including soil biodiversity, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives9.2. Sustainable management of aquaculture9.3. Sustainable management of all types of forests

9.1.1. Changes in land productivity 9.1.2. Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area (SDG indicator 15.3.1)9.1.3. Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium or long-term conservation facilities9.1.4. Aquaculture production9.1.5. Area of forest under sustainable management: total forest management certification by Forest Stewardship Council and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

9.1.1.1. Changes in soil organic carbon stocks 9.1.1.2. Red List Index (wild relatives of domesticated animals) 9.1.1.3. Red List Index (pollinating species)9.1.1.4. Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk of extinction9.1.1.5. Progress towards sustainable forest management (SDG indicator 15.2.1)

Target 10. By 2030, ensure that nature-based solutions and ecosystem approach contribute to regulation of air quality, hazards and extreme events and

10.0.1 Population living in areas with clean air and clean and accessible water*10.0.2 Ecosystems providing reduced coastal erosion, flood

10.1. Regulation of air quality10.2. Regulation of hazards and extreme events10.3. Regulation of freshwater quantity, quality, location and timing

10.1.1. Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution (SDG indicator 3.9.1)10.1.2. Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (SDG indicator 11.5.1)10.1.3. Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water,

10.1.1.1. Air emission accounts10.1.1.2. Proportion of local administrative units with established and operational policies and procedures for participation of local communities in water and sanitation management (SDG indicator 6.b.1)10.1.1.3. Proportion of population using safely

31


This is an important indicator that may be considered for the headline indicator.


This indicator is already being used in regions of Canada. It allows significant environmental co-benefits regarding management of agricultural and solid waste streams and GHG emissions reductions.


Why are these 2 named specifically? There are other standards. Perhaps ‘recognized agency’ should be used or more clarification is needed.


9.1.1: Given Canada’s position on this target, to remove the reference to “productivity gap”, we are of the view that this indicator should also be removed. The Convention should be focusing on sustainability rather than productivity.9.1.2: This is an interesting indicator. Canada could consider it if we would be able to confirm the percentage of degraded land that is caused by the sectors identified in the target. 9.1.3: While we recognize that genetic resources are important, we are wondering if this is the best indicator for this target. An indicator that focuses on sustainable agriculture practice may be more appropriate to ensure that we measure progress against the core element of this target.9.1.4: It is unclear how this indicator assesses the sustainability of aquaculture production. Further details would be needed to understand how this indicators can measure progress against this target. 9.1.5: We agree with the first part of the indicator “Area of forest under sustainable management”. In regard to the certificate, we see potential concerns with how certification is attributed. Will there be or are there criteria agreed upon to ensure that all Parties have the same understanding of what this entails? Canada will need more information on this indicator.


Targets

Headline indicators



quality and quantity of water for at least [XXX million] people

protection and other services)*

unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for All (WASH) services) (SDG indicator 3.9.2)10.1.4. Mortality rate attributed to unintentional poisoning (SDG indicator 3.9.3)

managed drinking water services (SDG indicator 6.1.1)

Target 11. By 2030, increase benefits from biodiversity and green/blue spaces for human health and wellbeing, including the proportion of people with access to such spaces by at least [100%], especially for urban dwellers.

11.0.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is green/blue space for public use for all

11.1. Access to green/blue spaces11.2. Contributions of biodiversity to human health and well-being

11.1.1.1 Average distance to green/blue space for public use (modification of SDG indicator 11.7.1)11.1.1.2 Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate (SDG indicator 11.3.1)

Target 12. By 2030, increase by [X] benefits shared for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through ensuring access to and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources

12.0.1

Numbers of users that have shared benefits from the utilization of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources with the providers of the resources and/or knowledge12.0.2 Number of access and benefit-sharing

12.1. Access to genetic resources12.2. Benefit shared from the use of genetic resources12.3. Benefits resulting from use of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources

12.1.1. Number of access and benefit-sharing permits, or their equivalent, granted for genetic resources (including those related to traditional knowledge) by type of permit12.1.2. Numbers of users that have shared benefits from the utilization of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources with the providers of the resources and/or knowledge (12.0.1) by sex12.1.3. Numbers of users that have shared benefits from the utilization of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge

12.1.1.1. Total number of transfers of crop material from the Multilateral System of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) received in a country12.1.1.2. Total number of permits, or their equivalent, granted for access to genetic resources12.1.1.3.Total number of

internationally recognized certificates of compliance published by Parties to the Nagoya Protocol

32


Suggest also drawing an indicator from the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework.


As for 12.0.1 re. ‘number of users’; ‘by sex’ and ‘by Indigenous status’ might or might not be measurable.


Feasible but will underestimate access.


An indicator could potentially be considered such as on percentage of canopy/tree cover in cities of more than 150,000 inhabitants (or other threshold)?


Canada could support this indicator and could suggest as a headline indicator too. UNHabitat is involved in collecting this data for the SDGs.


Canada does not support these indicators as they have no clear linkage to biodiversity and go beyond the scope of the CBD. Component indicators could be disaggregated into types of services and or types of ecosystems.


Targets

Headline indicators



permits or their equivalent granted for genetic resources (including those related to traditional knowledge)12.0.3 Extent to which legislative, administrative or policy frameworks to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits have been adopted *

associated with genetic resources with the providers of the resources and/or knowledge (12.0.1) by indigenous status

in the ABS Clearing-House

12.1.1.4. Number of countries that require prior informed consent that have published legislative, administrative or policy measures on access and benefit-sharing in the ABS Clearing-House12.1.1.5. Number of countries that require prior informed consent that have published information on ABS procedures in the ABS Clearing-House12.1.1.6. Number of countries that have adopted legislative, administrative and policy frameworks to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits (SDG Indicator 15.6.1)12.1.1.7. Estimated % of monetary and non- monetary benefits directed towards conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity12.1.1.8. Suggested new indicator: Number of biocultural community protocols published on the ABS Clearing-House.

Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming

Target 13. By 2030, integrate biodiversity values into policies, regulations, planning, development processes, poverty

13.0.1 Extent to which national targets have been adopted for integrating biodiversity values into policies, regulations, planning, development

13.1. Biodiversity reflected in policies and planning at all levels13.2. Biodiversity reflected in national and other accounts13.3. Biodiversity values are reflected in policies and regulations, including

Headline indicators for Target 1313.1.1. The number of countries that have incorporated the BioTrade Principles and Criteria

33


Canada could support this indicator.


This new indicator (some data already on ABSCH) would provide incentive for Parties to support development and posting of these measures and would support appropriate involvement of IPLCs


Unclear how benefits would be identified, evaluated, and reported, and who would report.


Suggest deletion, to support more comprehensive ABS information-sharing via the ABSCH.


Suggest deletion, to support more comprehensive ABS information-sharing via the ABSCH.


Targets

Headline indicators



reduction strategies and accounts at all levels, ensuring that biodiversity values are mainstreamed across all sectors and integrated into assessments of environmental impacts.

processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts at all levels, ensuring that biodiversity values are mainstreamed across all sectors and integrated into assessments of environmental impacts*13.0.2 Integration of biodiversity into national accounting and reporting systems, defined as implementation of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting

on biodiversity inclusive environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments

Target 14. By 2030, achieve reduction of at least [50%] in negative impacts on biodiversity by ensuring production practices and supply chains are sustainable.

14.0.1 Potential population and species loss from terrestrial and marine human modification*14.0.2 Corporate sustainability reporting includes impacts on biodiversity*

14.1. Reduction of at least [50%] in negative impacts on biodiversity14.2. Sustainable production practices, including circular economy and waste management and sustainable supply chains at national and international levels14.3. Sustainable supply chains at national and international levels

14.1.1. Potential population and species loss from terrestrial and marine human modification (14.0.1) by type of modification14.1.2. Corporate sustainability reporting includes impacts on biodiversity by industrial (International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities) classification14.1.3. Number of countries developing, adopting or implementing policy instruments aimed at supporting the shift to sustainable consumption and production (SDG

14.1.1.1. Ecological Footprint

14.1.1.2. Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP)14.1.1.3. Number of MSC Chain of Custody Certification holders by distribution country

34


Targets

Headline indicators



indicator 12.1.1)

Target 15. By 2030, eliminate unsustainable consumption patterns, ensuring people everywhere understand and appreciate the value of biodiversity, and thus make responsible choices commensurate with 2050 biodiversity vision, taking into account individual and national cultural and socioeconomic conditions.

15.0.1 Biomass material footprint per capita

15.1. Sustainable consumption patterns15.2. New vision of good quality of life based on sustainability and new social norms for sustainability15.3. Peoples’ responsibility for their choices

15.1.1. Material footprint by type (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores non-metallic minerals) (SDG indicators 8.4.1 and 12.2.1)15.1.2. Domestic material consumption by type (biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores non-metallic minerals) (SDG indicators 8.4.2 and 12.2.2)15.1.3. (a) Food loss index and (b) food waste index (SDG indicator 12.3.1)15.1.4. Biodiversity Engagement IndicatorHeadline indicators captured in Target 19

15.1.1.1. CO2 emission per unit of value added (SDG indicator 9.4.1)15.1.1.2. Change in water-use efficiency over time (SDG indicator 6.4.1)

Target 16. By 2030, establish and implement measures to prevent, manage or control potential adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity and human health reducing these impacts by [X].

16.0.1 Extent to which necessary legal, administrative, technical and other biosafety measures are in place to prevent, manage and control potential adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity*

16.1. Measures to prevent potential adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity and human health16.2. Measures to manage adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity and human health16.3. Measures to control adverse impacts of biotechnology on biodiversity and human health16.4. Restoration and compensation for damage to biodiversity caused

Captured in headline indicator for Target 16

16.1.1.1. Number of countries that have the necessary biosafety legal and administrative measures in place16.1.1.2. Number of countries that implement their biosafety measures16.1.1.3. Number of countries that have the necessary measures and means for detection and identification of products of biotechnology16.1.1.4. Number of countries that carry out or use scientifically sound risk assessments to support biosafety decision-making16.1.1.5. Number of

35


Parties may cooperate, collaborate or recognize another Party’s RAs, where appropriate, to reduce the burden on individual economies, reduce redundancy, and allow more effective use of scarce government resources. Canada has been advocating for more cooperation/ collaboration and simplified procedures in this space.


Suggest deleting - More information is needed on the purpose of this indicator. This indicator moves away from CBD Art 8(g). Further, such measures are likely to be either unrealistic and/or not required for most countries.


Or: Number of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol that have the necessary biosafety legal and administrative measures in place.


This is an interesting indicator led that Canada could support. Though it would be helpful to know: Does it include a tally of national and subnational governments that have taken regulatory measures to limit the impacts of production/extraction methods on biodiversity away from consumption sites?


Targets

Headline indicators



by living modified organisms

countries that establish and implement risk management measures16.1.1.6. Percentage of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety implementing the relevant provisions of the Protocol16.1.1.7. Percentage of Parties to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol Number of countries with legal and technical measures for restoration and compensation for damage to biodiversity caused by living modified organisms16.1.1.8. Percentage of Parties to the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol implementing the relevant provisions of the Supplementary Protocol

Target 17. By 2030, redirect, repurpose, reform or eliminate incentives harmful for biodiversity, including [X] reduction in the most harmful subsidies, ensuring that incentives, including public and private economic and regulatory incentives, are either positive or neutral for

17.0.1 Biodiversity relevant taxes, charges and fees on payments for ecosystem services and on biodiversity relevant tradable permit schemes as a percentage of GDP17.0.2 Potentially harmful elements of government support to agriculture, fisheries and other sectors (environmentally

17.1. Increase in positive public and private economic and regulatory incentives17.2. Elimination, phasing out or reform of incentives and subsidies the most harmful to biodiversity

Captured in headline indicator for Target 17

17.2.1 Amount of fossil- fuel subsidies per unit of GDP (production and consumption) (SDG indicator 12.c.1)

17.2.2 Trends in potentially environmentally harmful elements of government support to agriculture (producer support estimate)

17.1.1.1. Number of countries with biodiversity-relevant taxes17.1.1.2. Number of countries with biodiversity-relevant charges and fees17.1.1.3. Number of countries with biodiversity-relevant tradable permit schemes17.1.1.4. Trends in potentially environmentally harmful elements of government support to agriculture (producer support estimate)17.1.1.5. Trends in the number and value of government fossil fuel support measures17.1.1.6. Amount of fossil-fuel subsidies per unit of

36


Canada could suggest two existing indicators (currently listed as complementary indicators) be included under component indicators that would provide insight into sector specific harmful subsidies (agriculture and fossil fuels). Both indicators are currently in use (17.2.1 under the SDG framework and 17.2.2 under the BIP). With regards to 17.2.2, this indicator shows most harmful subsidies as a portion of overall agricultural subsidies and this has been tracked since 1990. It is recognized that this statistic does not cover all CBD Parties. This PSE data is obtained at the national level and then aggregated for the OECD as a whole. PSE estimates are calculated for the OECD countries (PSE for the EU is obtained as a whole) and eight non-OECD countries (Brazil, Colombia, China P.R., Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine). Any country is welcome to report to this database. This could however be taken as a good, existing indication of progress as a whole given the importance of agriculture as a particularly important sector for harmful subsidies.


Not a CBD obligation on its own. Delete if not modified for clarity and scope.


What kind of measures? In relation to biotechnology?


This is not a specific CBD obligation and thus, this indicator should be limited to Parties to the Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol. Also, it could be specified that this concerns biotechnology.


Targets

Headline indicators



biodiversity. harmful subsidies) as a percentage of GDP

GDP (production and consumption) (SDG indicator 12.c.1)

Target 18. By 2030, increase by [X%] financial resources from all international and domestic sources, through new, additional and effective financial resources commensurate with the ambition of the goals and targets of the framework and implement the strategy for capacity-building and technology transfer and scientific cooperation to meet the needs for implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

18.0.1 Official development assistance, public expenditure and private expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems*

18.1. Identification of funding needs to meet ambition of the goals and targets of the Framework18.2. Increase in financial resources from international sources18.3. Increase in financial resources from domestic sources18.4.

Implementation of the strategy for capacity-building18.5.

Implementation of the strategy for technology transfer and scientific cooperation

18.1.1. Number of countries with a nationally determined target for increasing the level of domestic resources, reported to the Convention18.1.2. Official development assistance for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems*18.1.3. Public expenditure on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems*18.1.4. Private expenditure on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems*18.1.5. Dollar value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries (SDG indicator 17.19.1)18.1.6. Volume of official development assistance flows for scholarships by sector and type of study

18.1.1.1. Amount of funding provided through the Global Environment Facility and allocated to the biodiversity focal area (decision X/3)18.1.1.2. Amount and composition of biodiversity-related finance reported to the OECD Creditor reporting system18.1.1.3. Dollar value of financial and technical assistance (including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation) committed to developing countries 18.1.1.4. Dollar value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries (SDG indicator 17.19.1)18.1.1.5. Amount of biodiversity-related philanthropic funding18.1.1.6. Proportion of total research budget allocated to research in the field of marine technology18.1.1.7. Total amount of approved funding for developing countries to promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies (SDG indicator 17.7.1)

Target 19. By 2030, ensure that quality information, including traditional

19.0.1 Biodiversity information index*19.0.2 Extent to which (i) global

19.1. Availability of reliable and up-to-date biodiversity related information19.2. Promotion of awareness of values

19.1.1. Biodiversity information index by type of information19.1.2. Species Status Information Index19.1.3. Biodiversity

19.1.1.1. Growth in number of records and species in the Living Planet Index database19.1.1.2. Growth in marine species occurrence records accessible through OBIS*19.1.1.3. Proportion of

37


Two other component indicators could be:“18.1.6 bis Public expenditure on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems going to support Indigenous-led initiatives.”“18.1.6 tier Public expenditure on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems going to support sub-national and local government initiatives.”


18.1.1. bis - Canada could propose an additional component indicator from Target 17 which looks at revenue generated and finance mobilised from biodiversity-relevant economic instruments (incentives), defined as revenue generated and finance mobilised from biodiversity-relevant economic instruments, covering biodiversity-relevant taxes, fees and charges, and positive subsidies.The wording would be: “Revenue generated and finance mobilised from biodiversity-relevant economic instruments (SDG – 15.a.1/15.b.1)”.


Targets

Headline indicators



knowledge, is available to decision makers and public for the effective management of biodiversity through promoting awareness, education and research.

citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in: (a) national education policies, (b) curricula, (c) teacher education and (d) student assessments

of biodiversity19.3. Promotion of biodiversity in education19.4. Availability of research and knowledge, including traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities with their free, prior and informed consent

Barometer19.1.4. Growth in Species Occurrence Records Accessible Through GBIF19.1.5. Trends of linguistic diversity and numbers of speakers of indigenous languages (B) (decision VII/30 and VIII/15)

known species assessed through the IUCN Red List.19.1.1.4. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) bio-literacy survey (Biodiversity literacy in global zoo and aquarium visitors)19.1.1.5. Number of assessments on the IUCN Red List of threatened species

Target 20. By 2030, ensure equitable participation in decision-making related to biodiversity and ensure rights over relevant resources of indigenous peoples and local communities, women and girls as well as youth, in accordance with national circumstances.

20.0.1 Land tenure in the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and local communities20.0.2 Population with secure tenure rights to land20.0.3 Extent to which indigenous peoples and local communities, women and girls as well as youth participate in decision-making related to biodiversity*

20.1. Equitable participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making related to biodiversity and rights over relevant resources20.2. Equitable participation of women and girls in decision-making related to biodiversity and rights over relevant resources20.3. Equitable participation of youth in decision-making related to biodiversity and rights over relevant resources

Captured in headline indicator for target 20

20.1.1.1. Percentage of population who believe decision making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group (SDG indicator 16.7.2).20.1.1.2. Percentage of positions in national and local institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, persons with disabilities and population groups20.1.1.3. Proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments and (b) local governments (SDG indicator 5.5.1)20.1.1.4. Number of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (SDG indicator 5.c.1)20.1.1.5. Proportion of total agricultural population with

38


Canada could propose a number of new component indicators aimed at capturing the participation component of the target whilst also capitalizing on existing indicators currently in use under different fora and that offer information that can be disaggregated by sex, age and population group. In particular, Canada could suggest the inclusion of two existing SDG indicators that capture the proportion of seats held by women in national and local government as well as the percentage of positions in national and local institutions disaggregated by sex, age and population group. While not specifically related to biodiversity, these indicators could provide insight into broader societal changes that would encompass biodiversity decisions.20.1.1 bis : Proportion of seats held by women in a) national parliaments and b) local governments ( SDG 5.5.1) 20.1.1 tier: Percentage of positions in national and local institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, persons with disabilities and population groups (SDG 16.7.1)


Canada has concerns that it would be unfeasible to have an indicator capturing both participation and rights which are two different things that would benefit from separate measurements. This applies for all three indicators.


This indicator is very interesting, however, we are wondering if it helps measure progress against this target. We feel that this indicator is more linked to the work of UNESCO. We would seek more information as to how this indicator would function.


It seems that this target should be coupled with other indicators given that it has a limited geographical coverage. It is also very limited in scope.


Targets

Headline indicators



ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure20.1.1.6. Number of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control

39

· web viewinformal twenty-fourth meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and...

Documents