Unfinished business plagues GBF monitoring framework

The Lily Beel of bhutia. ভুতিয়ার পদ্ম বিল

The monitoring framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) will play an important part in measuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the GBF’s goals and targets.

The monitoring framework was adopted alongside the GBF in 2022, with the recognition that Parties to the CBD would provide guidance on its further development and operationalization. The 26th meeting of the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA26), held in Nairobi in May 2024, had the difficult mission to make as much progress as possible on the updates to the monitoring framework, with a view to its adoption at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16), scheduled for October 2024 in Cali, Colombia.

Please find below a report that recaps the main discussions and outcomes of SBSTTA26, as well as the pending issues that still need to be discussed at COP16.

By Mirna Inés Fernández Pradel (September 2024)

The monitoring framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) will play an important part in measuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the GBF’s goals and targets.

From an equity perspective, the challenge is to find the right balance between effective implementation and monitoring, while not unduly increasing the burden on developing country Parties, where most of the world’s biodiversity is held, but for which the means of implementation are still not forthcoming from the developed country Parties. Provision of requisite financial resources to assist developing country Parties in their monitoring obligations is integral to making operational the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Additionally, questions around what is monitored, who decides, and what these imply, are important considerations.

The monitoring framework was adopted alongside the GBF in 2022, with the recognition that Parties to the CBD would provide guidance on its further development and operationalization. It comprises headline indicators, which all Parties should report against, optional component and complementary indicators, as well as binary indicators (questions requiring ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers).

The 26th meeting of the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA26), held in Nairobi in May 2024, had the difficult mission to make as much progress as possible on the updates to the monitoring framework, with a view to its adoption at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16), scheduled for October 2024 in Cali, Colombia.

The two main documents discussed at SBSTTA26 were the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD/SBSTTA/26/2) and the advice from the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, on the wording of the binary questions in the monitoring framework (CBD/SBSTTA/26/2.Add.1). These documents were complemented by nine information documents and several reference documents.

This report recaps the main discussions and outcomes of SBSTTA26, as well as the pending issues that still need to be discussed at COP16.

Contentious discussions

An important division of views that permeated the negotiations was whether there was a need to further work on the monitoring framework, including following the updates arising from the work of the AHTEG. A group of Parties called for discussions not to be reopened, for example, over headline indicators, and another group of Parties asked for remaining gaps to be addressed and to allow ongoing work to be developed with this aim.

Canada and the UK called for the debate over indicators not to be reopened, stressing that enough work had been done and that it is time to move on to implementation. This call to focus on implementation was echoed by Colombia.

Canada further stressed that the best use of time would be to focus on enabling the reporting of existing mandatory headline indicators by all countries and adopting clear and concise binary indicator questions, particularly for those goals and targets that do not have headline indicators.

The UK stated that in their view, the purpose of the review of the implementation of the monitoring framework at COP17 should be to improve the guidance to support the implementation of existing indicators and not to add new indicators four years before the potential agreement on new post-2030 global targets.

In the same vein, Japan reminded Parties that determining the indicators for the Aichi targets took multiple COPs, so to account for the lessons learned, the discussions at SBSTTA should focus on finalizing the draft recommendations to adopt the monitoring framework at COP16 for immediate implementation and measuring progress effectively, rather than prolonged discussions.

Switzerland also reminded that the monitoring framework was approved at COP15, and called on Parties to be pragmatic and simple, refraining from expanding the scope of the binary indicators further to enable COP16 to adopt the technical updates to the monitoring framework that are needed.

Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary and the European Union suggested focusing on the pending issues with the binary indicators, proposing a non-paper on binary indicators to be prepared and considered by the contact group; while Australia stressed that binary indicators are not a replacement for the missing headline indicators, proposing to not discuss each binary indicator but rather use the AHTEG recommendations.

Mexico supported the monitoring framework in Annex 1 including headline indicators without change and binary indicators without change, except for a few questions on pending issues from SBSTTA25, and agreed with taking note of the relevant INF documents with considerations to improve the framework.

Sweden said that the CBD should be striving towards a robust monitoring framework favouring a balance between simplicity and complete indicators, with the aim of covering all key components of the GBF as well as the principles and approaches described in Section C (which set out the considerations for implementation of the GBF).

On the other hand, South Africa, on behalf of the African group, reiterated paragraph 3 of decision 15/5, which decided to keep the monitoring framework under review as appropriate. With this in mind, it requested the outcomes of the discussion on the monitoring framework to reflect the study conducted on the access and benefit sharing (ABS) indicator, and for a new headline indicator for monitoring benefit sharing and collectively reporting on monetary benefits across all international instruments to reflect elements of the monetary and non-monetary benefits shared by the utilization of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources.

It also requested further work to address the gaps identified for Goal D and targets 1, 9, 4, 7, and 17, advocating for the adoption and operationalization of headline indicators 7.2, a gender indicator, and a traditional knowledge indicator on land tenure. South Africa’s intervention was further supported by Malawi, Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

Sudan further stressed the important gaps with regards to the elements of Section C of the GBF which have not been captured in the monitoring framework, and the gap on Target 17 regarding biosafety. Seychelles encouraged addressing the gaps such as for the headline indicator on target 6 on invasive alien species in priority sites such as islands, and on target 7 on plastic pollution. China stressed the gaps in the indicators of ABS and spatial planning, and Nepal stressed the gaps when it comes to addressing the particular challenges of mountain ecosystems.

Brazil expressed concerns about elements of certain indicators such as the mention of the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature related Financial Disclosures) in target 15 and the use of OECD definitions in target 18.

Cote D’Ivoire stressed the number of targets that do not have relevant indicators or have indicators that are excessively technical and need to be further simplified. Costa Rica listed the four targets that still lack headline indicators, and India suggested a decision to open the possibility of suggesting such headline indicators. Guatemala also noted with concern the gaps identified in Annex 3 on research and development of indicators for some targets and urged Parties to recommend further work to fill those gaps.

Turkey stressed gaps in the disaggregation of binary indicators, some complementary indicators and indicators that are not achievable at the national level. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) questioned how the major gaps in the monitoring framework would be addressed, and Finland suggested extending the mandate of the AHTEG or establishing smaller thematic expert groups as options to address the gaps in headline indicators. Cote D’Ivoire suggested extending the mandate of the AHTEG as well.

Argentina insisted on the need to include indicators on DSI and proposed the preparation of options to include monitoring of the benefits derived from the multilateral mechanism on DSI for consideration of the working group on DSI. The DRC noted the lack of experts regarding questions related to DSI.

Other relevant issues                       

Sudan, Congo, Turkey, India, Tanzania, China, India and South Africa on behalf of the African Group  stressed the need for capacity building and guidance for the implementation of the monitoring framework.

Parties such as the Syrian Arab Republic, Argentina, Egypt, Sudan, Malaysia, Uruguay, Cote D’Ivoire, Jordan, Tanzania, China and India highlighted the importance of providing adequate financial resources to implement the monitoring framework, especially from developed countries to developing countries.

Colombia, Argentina, and Cuba further asked for capacity building and technology transfer, needed among others to revise their draft national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and the seventh national report and to create robust and reliable national information systems on biodiversity.

Uruguay, DRC, Turkey, Kenya and China stressed the importance of strengthening scientific, technical and technological cooperation to support the implementation of the monitoring framework.

Argentina, Colombia, Malaysia, India, and Oman mentioned the importance of flexibility and the consideration of national circumstances in the implementation of the framework. Indonesia added the need to consider different national capacities when assessing the achievement indicators, China stressed the higher demand of national capacities placed for data analysis and management, while Brazil highlighted the need not to add to the reporting burden of Parties.

Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, and Brazil raised concerns about the use of the IUCN global typology of ecosystems and asked to ensure that each Party can generate and manage its own data. Brazil, Russia, and Cuba stressed the importance of monitoring based on national information systems, and Brazil stressed that national information and monitoring systems remain the primary source of information and support to the national reports and the implementation of the monitoring framework.

Perspectives from observers

Indigenous peoples and local communities stressed their concerns around new forms of land grabbing, including for energy transition, mining, top-down conservation, digitalization and carbon markets, and highlighted the need to address those including through effective monitoring in partnership with them. They acknowledged the work done by the AHTEG in identifying gaps such as for Section C, and on the indicator on land use change and land tenure, suggesting this be adopted as a headline indicator for target 22. They also proposed indicators on participation in decision making for indigenous peoples and local communities for target 3.

Women stressed the importance of all targets having a headline indicator, as binary indicators are not sufficient to measure outcomes. They requested the adoption of a headline indicator for target 23 and the re-inclusion of an indicator of the national implementation of the Gender Plan of Action, which had been a component indicator since COP15. They also stressed the importance of gender, age and ethnicity status disaggregation of relevant targets, and suggested that the mandate of the AHTEG be extended until COP16 to fill the existing gaps.

Youth emphasized that suitable indicators and monitoring guidance on youth and intergenerational equity are clear gaps in the monitoring framework. They also supported the proposal for a process to receive contributions that fill the identified gaps by COP17. They expressed gratitude for the AHTEG work in providing guidance for monitoring progress of section C, which states the importance of gathering age disaggregated data in guidance to monitor inclusively and with a human rights-based approach. They encouraged Parties to apply these practices in the updating of NBSAPs and drafting of national reports, and to include youth indicators in their national monitoring frameworks.

Civil society organizations represented by the CBD Alliance stressed the gaps in the current monitoring framework, and gave examples of indicators which are fundamentally inadequate and that will undermine the successful implementation of the GBF. Among these, they cited targets 3 and 12 indicators that ignore all qualitative elements, and target 10 referring to certification systems that certify tree monocultures as if they were forest ecosystems. They proposed the deletion of the component indicator for target 18.1 which proposes to measure the monetary value of biodiversity offsets as positive incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, since such biodiversity offsets have proven to be problematic. They also asked for the endorsement of the Aggregated Total Applied Toxicity (ATAT) methodology for headline indicator 7.2 and the reinstating of the Target 7b complementary indicator on Highly Hazardous Pesticides.

SBSTTA26 outcomes

The discussions continued in a Contact Group co-chaired by Hesiquio Benítez Díaz (Mexico) and Anne Teller (EU). This Contact Group considered a non-paper compiling views and suggested amendments. Two separate discussions led by Friends of the Chair (New Zealand and South Africa) tackled the divergent opinions regarding Target 13 on benefit sharing and Target 17 on biosafety, respectively. The Contact Group also addressed the list of binary indicators, divergent opinions in the annex and the draft recommendation.

In the final recommendation resulting from these discussions (CBD/SBSTTA/26/L.10), SBSTTA invited the Co-Chairs of the Committee of the Whole of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Benefit-sharing from the Use of DSI on Genetic Resources to facilitate a discussion on possible approaches for monitoring the sharing of benefits from the use of DSI through the multilateral mechanism, and for the Working Group to develop options for the indicators on the sharing of benefits from the use of DSI for possible inclusion in the monitoring framework.

SBSTTA requested the Executive Secretary to extend the period for submission of views on two background notes by the Secretariat: one containing guidance on using the indicators, and another on Headline indicator D.3 on private funding. It also requested the Executive Secretary to invite Parties to submit views on the background note by the Secretariat with guidance on needs related to implementing the monitoring framework; to prepare updated versions of these documents; and to provide a list of component and complementary indicators adopted in decision 15/5 that were not included in Annex I for not meeting the indicator criteria, and that have since met the criteria.

SBSTTA recommended that COP 16:

Takes note of the current status of development of the headline indicators and the current status of guidance related to Section C as prepared by the AHTEG, and decides that further work needs to consider the reporting burden, technical and financial constraints faced by Parties, in particular developing countries.

Requests SBSTTA to review updated metadata for headline indicators and the list of component and complementary indicators in Decision 15/5, that have met the criteria for inclusion in the monitoring framework before COP17 for use by Parties in their eighth national reports.

Invites international and other relevant organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, and youth, to support Parties in the implementation of the monitoring framework.

Recalls that national validation of data by Parties is part of the reporting template for the national reports.

Invites private philanthropies and other relevant organizations to share data on biodiversity-related finance.

Encourages Parties and other Governments to take a consistent approach at the national level to monitoring ecosystems and reporting data based on national ecosystem classifications.

Urges Parties to strengthen their monitoring systems involving all relevant institutions, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, and stakeholders in a participatory manner.

Urges developed country Parties and invites other Parties and Governments to enhance international cooperation, including by providing adequate, timely and predictable financial resources, capacity building and development, technical and scientific cooperation, and technology transfer to address the technical and financial challenges faced by developing country Parties.

Invites Parties and other Governments to make use of the Sustainable Development Goal indicators and other globally available data where relevant and where national data is not available.

Encourages Parties and relevant organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, to exchange knowledge and build capacity related to the indicators and section C.

Requests the Executive Secretary to support inclusive and participatory processes to facilitate the operationalization of the monitoring framework, and to work with relevant organizations to further develop the metadata for headline indicators 1.1 and 9.1; and to update the headline indicator metadata, and the list of component and complementary indicators that have since met the criteria for inclusion on the monitoring framework for SBSTTA to consider before COP17.

Pending issues

Several parts of the draft COP decision remain in brackets:

The endorsement of the technical updates to the GBF monitoring framework, comprising headline, binary, component and complementary indicators and optional headline indicator disaggregation.

The addition of a headline indicator on land use change and land tenure in the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and local communities and a binary indicator on the trade of wild species.

The adoption of the list of binary questions in annex II.

A welcoming of the guidance on the monitoring framework provided by the AHTEG on indicators; as well as the ongoing work on monitoring under multilateral environmental agreements and relevant initiatives, while inviting them to share information on relevant monitoring initiatives and to consider the indicators in annex I.

A call for Parties and other Governments to consider section C when implementing the monitoring framework, including through disaggregating the headline indicators by indigenous peoples and local communities, sex, age, persons with disability and other relevant groups, and by ecosystem type.

An invitation to Parties to make use of the Global Ecosystem Typology level 2 and 3 and align their national ecosystem data with this typology.

A request to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to provide adequate, timely, and predictable financial resources for the development of national monitoring systems in a transparent manner and following a consultative process.

A request to SBSTTA to review the needs of Parties in the implementation of the monitoring framework and consider how to address technical or capacity gaps before COP17.

A call for Parties and other Governments, as well as relevant organizations, to provide resources to contribute to global monitoring systems, standards, and datasets, and to community-based monitoring and information systems.

A request to the regional and/or subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centres, as well as the global coordination entity to provide support for capacity building and development for the implementation of the monitoring framework.

An invitation to IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) to take into account the scientific and technical needs of countries in its work on the fast-track methodological assessments on monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people and on integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and ecological connectivity.

A decision to review the use of the indicators of the monitoring framework in collaboration with the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group in conjunction with the global review of collective progress to be conducted at COP16 and COP19.

A decision to consider additional headline, component and complementary indicators, if relevant and available, at a SBSTTA meeting before COP17.

Three requests to the Executive Secretary: to work with Parties and others to fill the gaps in the monitoring framework; to ensure that the guidance on the monitoring framework is easily accessible alongside the reporting template to support Parties in their national reporting processes; and to prepare an analysis of the usage of the headline, binary, component and complementary and other national indicators in national reports. 

Finally, Annex I on the Indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has also been bracketed, following amendments by Brazil and Colombia in the final plenary, who expressed concerns that Annex I containing GBF indicators had not been discussed in the Contact Group.

These thorny issues will need to be resolved at COP16, if the monitoring framework is to be an effective tool for GBF implementation.