Nature Ecology & EvolutionEcologyPeer-reviewed journal article
Assessing coverage of the Monitoring Framework of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and opportunities to fill gaps.
Flavio AffinitoiD, Stuart H. M. ButchartiD, Emily NicholsoniD, Tim HirschiD, James Michael WilliamsiD, J. E. Campbell, M. F. FerrariiD, Mónica GabayiD, Lucrezia Gorini, Belma Kalamujić StroiliD, Ryo KohsakaiD, B. PainteriD, J. C. Pinto, Amber Hartman ScholziD, Tiffany R. A. StrazaiD, Ntakadzeni TshidadaiD, Sara VallecilloiD, Stephen WiddicombeiD, Andrew GonzaleziD
Abstract
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the most ambitious agreement on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use to date. It calls for a whole-of government and whole-of-society approach to halt and reverse biodiversity loss worldwide. The Monitoring Framework of the GBF lays out how Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are expected to report their progress. A CBD expert group provided guidance on its implementation, including a gap analysis to identify the strengths and limitations of the indicators in the Monitoring Framework. We present the results of the gap analysis, highlight where more work is needed and provide recommendations on implementing and improving monitoring to allow effective and comprehensive tracking of the GBFs ambition. We find that with the headline and binary indicators, which Parties are required to use, the Monitoring Framework fully covers 19% of the GBFs ambition and partially covers an additional 40%. Including disaggregations of the headline indicators improves coverage to 22% fully and an additional 41% partially. Adding optional (component and complementary) indicators brings full coverage to 29% with an additional 47% partial coverage. No indicators are available for 12% of the GBF. In practice, the coverage of the Monitoring Framework will depend on which indicators (headline and binary as well as component and complementary) and disaggregations are used by countries. Disaggregations are particularly relevant to monitor the cross-cutting considerations defined under section C. Substantial investment is required to collect the necessary data to compute indicators, infer change, and effectively monitor progress. We highlight important next steps to progressively improve the efficacy of the Monitoring Framework.
- Citations
- 43
- FWCI
- 27.46
- Field percentile
- top 1%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- An operational methodology to identify Critical Ecosystem Areas to help nations achieve the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
R. Venegas Li, H. Grantham, … J. E. Watson·bioRxiv·May 3, 2023
- Leveraging the Red List of Ecosystems for national action on coral reefs through the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
M. Gudka, D. Obura, … E. Nicholson·bioRxiv·Feb 18, 2024
- Global failure to track international biodiversity targets on islands
Fabio Mologni, Franz Essl, … Bernd Lenzner·bioRxiv·Oct 14, 2026
- Global and national trends in documenting and monitoring species distributions
R. Y. Oliver, C. Meyer, … W. Jetz·bioRxiv·Nov 3, 2020
- Advancing terrestrial biodiversity monitoring with satellite remote sensing in the context of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework
J. Timmermans, D. Kissling·bioRxiv·Apr 25, 2022
- Biodiversity monitoring in Europe: user and policy needs
H. Moersberger, J. W. Valdez, … A. Bonn·bioRxiv·Jul 12, 2023