3 February 2020

Submission of views on possible targets, indicators and baselines for thepost-2020 global biodiversity framework and peer review of a document onindicators(Notification 2019-108 from the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity)

Goals
Goal 1: No net loss by 2030 in the area and integrity of freshwater, marine and terrestrial
ecosystems, and increases of at least [20%] by 2050, ensuring ecosystem resilience(paragraph 10(a)).
Goal 1, Monitoring Element 1, Indicators: Change, and rate of change, in extent of natural ecosystems
and biomes (overall, for each biome/ecosystem type, and for intact areas, e.g. primary forests).
Proposed Indicators:•••

System of Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (EEA)
Indicators1
Indicators on non-forest ecosystems such as grasslands, shrublands, and other major terrestrial
vegetation types using the SEEA EEA Indicators
Indicators specific to high-carbon ecosystems beyond forests (mangroves, peatlands,seagrasses)

Comments:
For consistent and repeated national and international reporting, we recommend the adoption of theSystem of Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA) as themechanism and approach used to track and monitor proposed indicators (e.g., ecosystem extent account(area), diversity (biodiversity accounting), integrity (condition account), ecosystem services (ecosystemservices accounts) and thematic accounts (e.g., biodiversity).
The definition and differentiation of ecosystem types will matter significantly in monitoring, impacting
whether some ecosystems are included or excluded from this goal. The original list of indicators largelyomits non-forests ecosystems. Therefore, we recommend including indicators that address grasslands,
shrublands, and other major terrestrial vegetation types using the SEEA EEA Indicators to track the extent
of fragmentation, biodiversity, degradation of different ecosystem types in terms of area, measuring theoverall quality of an ecosystem asset and capturing the state or functioning of the ecosystem in relation toboth its naturalness and its potential to supply ecosystem services. Given the importance of addressing
climate issues, we also recommend the specific tracking of carbon-rich ecosystems (mangroves, peatlands,seagrasses).

1

https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting

Goal 1, Monitoring Element 2, Indicators: Change in ecosystem connectivity and fragmentation.
Proposed Indicators:••

We recommend using a separate indicator for connectivity in freshwater systems, such as theRiver Connectivity Status Index2.
We recommend developing a marine connectivity indicator.

Comments:
Connectivity is an important indicator for ecosystem health and we welcome the inclusion of this ecologicalcharacteristic in the monitoring framework. We note the importance of assessing marine and freshwater
connectivity separately from terrestrial connectivity. Currently, there is no global marine connectivity
indicator so we highly recommend its development through a scientific body and partnership, including theIUCN Marine Connectivity Working Group. The indicator of this monitoring element should include protectedarea network structures, circuit flow and habitat cover.
Goal 1, Monitoring Element 3, Indicators: Change in ecosystem integrity resilience and degradation
and rate of ecosystem restoration.
Proposed Indicators:•••

We recommend potential indicators from Trends.Earth3 which calculates metrics following
indicators used in the SDGs 15.3.1 on land degradation. Specific indices include changes inprimary productivity, land cover and soil organic carbon.
Freshwater Health Index4
We recommend retaining the Ocean Health index 5 to track this element.

Goal 2: The percentage of species threatened with extinction is reduced by [X%] and theabundance of species has increased on average by [X%] by 2030 and by [X%] by 2050
(paragraph 10(b)).
Goal 2, Monitoring Element 1, Indicators: Number of extinctions.
Proposed Indicators:•We recommend using global taxonomical data to group the species and organisms included inthis target. Possible groupings could be mammals, birds, amphibians, crabs, shrimps, crayfishes,fishes, dragonflies/damselflies, molluscs, and freshwater plants.

Goal 2, Monitoring Element 2, Indicators: Change in conservation status.

2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332961728_Mapping_the_world's_free-flowing_rivers

3

http://trends.earth/docs/en/4

https://www.freshwaterhealthindex.org/

5

http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/

Proposed Indicators:•We recommend estimating extinction risk through use of species and population models.

Comments:
Preventing extinctions is the critical aspect of monitoring this goal. In addition to using the IUCN Red Listof Species, we recommend using models that estimate extinction risk for species and populations,particularly when it comes to extinction risk from climate change, which may occur on a faster timeline
than other indicators will be able to capture.
Goal 2, Monitoring Element 3, Indicators: Change in species abundance.
Proposed Indicators:•We recommend using the Wildlife Picture Index6, which will be launched at start of 2021.

Comments:
The picture index will provide additional data for tracking species numbers, enhancing capacities to trackprogress on this goal.
Goal 4: Nature provides benefits to people contributing (i): Improvements in nutrition for atleast [X million] people by 2030 and [Y million] by 2050;
Goal 4, Monitoring Element 2, Indicator. Change in access to water.

Suggested Text Change7:•“Proportion of important sites for delivering ecosystem services providing nutrition-related
benefits to people terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected andconserved areas including OECMs, by ecosystem type.”

Goal 4 (ii): Improvements in sustainable access to safe and drinkable water for at least [Xmillion] people, by 2030 and [Y million] by 2050;
Goal 4, Monitoring Element 2, Indicator. Change in access to water.

Proposed Indicator:•

Proportion of important sites delivering ecosystem services providing freshwater benefits topeople that are covered by protected and conserved areas including OECMs, by ecosystem type

6 Ahumada et al. 2013. Monitoring the Status and Trends of Tropical Forest Terrestrial Vertebrate Communities from Camera Trap Data. PLOSOne.
7 Note that we differentiate changes to the text of Zero Draft suggested indicators by putting them in quotations here. All additional proposed
indicators are in plain text.

Targets
Target 1: Retain and restore freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, increasing by atleast [50%] the land and sea area under comprehensive spatial planning addressing land/sea
use change, achieving by 2030 a net increase in area, connectivity and integrity and retaining
existing intact areas and wilderness (paragraph 12(a)(1)).
Target 1, Element 1, Indicators: Change in extent and rate of change of natural ecosystems andbiomes.
Proposed Indicators:•••Global Water Surface Explorer8
Forest area as a proportion of total land area
Intact Forest Landscapes9

Comments:
In accordance with SDG indicator 6.6.1, indicators for this target should measure the change in extent andintegrity of water-related freshwater ecosystems over time, possibly using the Global Water Surface
Explorer as an indicator for the extent of change to lakes/wetlands. We also recommend critical attention
to how natural forest area is defined to ensure it does not include plantation forest. Currently, werecommend using the intact forest landscapes10 process.
Target 1, Element 2, Indicators: Spatial planning.
Suggested Text Change and Proposed Indicator:••“Proportion of land and sea terrestrial, freshwater and marine area under spatial planningregimes that adequately integrate biodiversity, including through requirements for strategic

environmental assessments and a mitigation hierarchy approach for all infrastructure anddevelopment with potential direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on achievement of 2030 and2050 goals.”
Number of river basins with integrated river basin plans

Comments:
In addition to monitoring percentage of land under spatial planning, we recommend greater specificity inthe elements of spatial planning required to “adequately integrate biodiversity”. For monitoring freshwater,
we recommend using river basin planning.
Target 1, Element 3, Indicators: Change in ecosystem connectivity.
Proposed Indicators:

8

https://global-surface-water.appspot.com/

9

www.intactforests.org/

10

www.intactforests.org/

••Connectivity Status Index11 (for rivers)
We recommend developing a marine connectivity indicator.

Target 1, Element 4, Indicators: Change in rate of habitat degradation.
Proposed Indicators:•••

Freshwater Health Index12
Biodiversity Threat Index13
The susceptibility of ecosystems to fire can be tracked using area and frequency of occurrence
and/or post-fire recoverability

Target 1, Element 5, Indicators: Area of land restored, by ecosystem (and resulting benefits).
Suggested Text Change:•“Area and extent of land natural terrestrial, including freshwater, and marine systems restored,by ecosystem….”

Comments:We recommend this text change so that freshwater systems are included in monitoring. It’s important toexpand the scope of this element beyond area-based indicators because the restoration of rivers ismeasured in kilometres. We also recommend adding specific mention of marine systems because they arealso capable of being resorted to health.
Target 2: Protect sites of particular importance for biodiversity through protected areas andother effective area-based conservation measures, by 2030 covering at least [60%] of suchsites and at least [30%] of land and sea areas with at least [10%] under strict protection(paragraph 12(a)(2)).
Target 2, Element 1, Indicators: Change in extent of protected areas and other area-based conservation
measures.
Proposed Indicators:•••

Losses in coverage due to downsizing and degazettement
Change in status and rules within protected areas, including downgrades to protected areas andother area-based conservation measures
Extent of IPLCs lands secured via recognition documentation and titling

Comments:
While protected area downsizing and degazettements are captured in the term “extent”, we propose usaing
an indicator for tracking of protected area downgrades. This is important because downgrades influence11

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332961728_Mapping_the_world's_free-flowing_rivers

12

https://www.freshwaterhealthindex.org/

13

www.riverthreat.net

the quality and reality of protection and conservation in these sites. An opportunity for doing this is throughreporting of Protected Area Downgrading Downsizing and Degazettement (PADDD)14 events including
location, extent, timing, and proximate cause/rationale for each PADDD event, with associated legal
documentation. The reporting of these should be led by Parties and submitted to UNEP-WCMC. We
recommend Parties consider proposed changes to protected area rules and boundaries throughtransparent, participatory, evidence-and rights-based processes that are equivalent to those governing
protected area establishment, and that are separate from other decisions to ensure compatibility withconservation objectives (e.g. conservation planning or resolving land claims or restoring rights forindigenous communities).
Target 2, Element 2, Indicators: Coverage and representativity of protected areas and other areabased conservation measures (ecosystems, and key areas).
Proposed Indicators:••

We recommend using freshwater ecoregions as well as terrestrial and marine: www.feow.org.
Protected area and OECM coverage of priority areas delivering ecosystem services for climate,food and water

Comments:
We recommend using existing information to support the development of an indicator including researchon areas that provide essential ecosystem services, such as the Critical Natural Capital project 15. This
process can help illustrate the importance of including ecosystem services in land and sea use planning andspatial prioritization. Currently in development is a methodology for calculating an aggregate metric orindicator that would be useful for monitoring and evaluation. Individual services have indices already inexistence or in various stages of development.
Target 2, Element 3, Indicators: Connectivity of protected areas.
Proposed Indicator:•We recommend including an indicator on connectivity of OECMs

Comments:
We note that the protected area connectedness (PARC) indicator16 only assesses how well-connected
protected areas are to each other and does not account for ecosystem connectivity. We recommend thatindicators take account of the greater landscape and seascape.
Target 2, Element 4, Indicators: Protected area management.

Suggested Text Change and Proposed Indicator:•“Protected area management effectiveness scores”

14 https://www.conservation.org/projects/paddd-protected-area-downgrading-downsizing-and-degazettement
15 Chaplin-Kramer, et al. Where is the nature people need? in prep for Science/Nature.
16

https://www.bipindicators.net/indicators/protected-area-connectedness-index-parc-connectedness•We recommend developing a governance indicator.

Comments:We note the difference between management AND governance and highly recommend the inclusion ofdifferentiated indicators. In particular, we recommend the development of a governance indicator forprotected and conserved areas. Two groups are currently working on this, including a long-standing
partnership on social assessment of protected areas (see Site-level Assessment of Governance and Equity(SAGE)17) and the Alliance for Conservation Evidence and Sustainability (ACES) 18 of which CI is a partner.
Target 4: Reduce by 2030, pollution from excess nutrients, biocides, plastic waste and othersources by at least [50%] (paragraph 12(a)(4)).
Target 4, Element 1, Indicators: Change in the trends in nitrogen waste.

Proposed Indicators:•We propose to use the Rivers in Crisis19 data set which records the following indicators of waterpollution: Soil Salinisation, Nitrogen Loading, Phosphorus Loading, Mercury Deposition, PesticideLoading, Sediment Loading, Organic Loading, Potential Acidification, Thermal Alteration. This
resource also aggregates the data into single values for biodiversity threat, and human watersecurity.

Target 6: Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation and disaster risk reduction
through nature-based solutions providing by 2030 [about 30%] [at least XXX MT CO2=] ofthe mitigation effort needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, complementing
stringent emission reductions, and avoiding negative impacts on biodiversity and food security(paragraph 12(a)(6)).
Target 6, Element 1: Trends in the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems and emissions avoided.

Suggested Text Change and Proposed Indicator:••“Trends in the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems globally and emission reductions fromnatural systems loss or degradation avoided”.

Carbon sequestration from restoration activities

Comments:
We recommend monitoring both the reduction in emissions through protection of high carbon ecosystems
from conversion and the increased carbon sequestration occurring through restoration as these are both
important elements of nature’s contribution to a stable climate.

17 https://www.iied.org/assessing-governance-protected-conserved-areas-gapa
18 https://www.allianceconservationevidence.org/
19

www.riverthreat.net

Target 7: Enhance the sustainable use of wild species providing, by 2030, benefits, including
enhanced nutrition, food security and livelihoods for at least [X million] people, especially forthe most vulnerable, and reduce human-wildlife conflict by [X%] (paragraph 12(b)(7)).
Target 7, Element 2: Change in incidence of human-wildlife conflict.
Proposed Indicators:• Psychological stress due to loss of income or fear of encounters• Positive benefit from human-wildlife encounters
Comments:
We note the importance of monitoring for direct (monetary, loss of life) and indirect impacts from conflicts,
such as psychological stress due to loss of income or fear of encounters. Human-wildlife encounters canbe split into conflict and co-existence. The latter is when actions by humans or wildlife have beneficial
effects on the other.
Target 8: Conserve and enhance the sustainable use of biodiversity in agricultural and othermanaged ecosystems to support the productivity, sustainability and resilience of suchsystems, reducing by 2030 related productivity gaps by at least [50%] (paragraph 12(b)(8)).
Proposed Indicator:• Indicators from the ecosystem services layers in Critical Natural Capital 20 project
Comments:
We recommend using existing information regarding individual ecosystem services that have welldeveloped indices, such as carbon.
Target 8, Element 5, Indicators: Change in the agricultural area under sustainable management.
Proposed Indicator:•Indicator that shows how much land area is under regenerative agriculture which then could
feed into soil health and soil carbon storage

Target 9: Enhance nature-based solutions contributing, by 2030, to clean water provision for
at least [XXX million] people.
Target 9, Element 2, Indicators: Change in the number protected forested watershed, and inland water
ecosystems essential for the provision of water.
Suggested Text Change:• “Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered byprotected areas, by ecosystem type critical for water-related ecosystem services.”

20

Chaplin-Kramer, et al. Where is the nature people need? in prep for Science/Nature.

Comments:
We recommend adding an indicator that tracks the areas most critical for provision of ecosystem services.
Target 12: Reform incentives, eliminating the subsidies that are most harmful for biodiversity,
ensuring by 2030, that incentives, including public and private economic and regulatory
incentives are either positive or neutral for biodiversity (paragraph 12(c)(12)).
Target 12, Element 1, Indicators: Change in the value of subsidies harmful to biodiversity.
Proposed Indicators:• Trends in fossil-fuel related subsidies including for plastics, transportation, and other sectors• Number of countries/ states that use some form of certification schemes – FSC21, MSC22, forbiodiversity friendly resource harvesting practices
Target 14: Reform economic sectors towards sustainable practices, including along theirnational and transnational supply chains, achieving by 2030 a reduction of at least [50%] in
negative impacts on biodiversity (paragraph 12(c)(14)).
Target 14, Element 2, Indicators: Change in the number of private-sector organizations which reflectbiodiversity in their planning, valuation, and impact assessment processes.
Proposed Indicators:• Number of countries applying systematically ex ante and ex post impact assessment that include
biodiversity considerations

Comments:
We note that consumption patterns of major markets have negative impacts on ecosystems that deliver
nature-based solutions, which are not in their territories. Biodiversity considerations must be mainstreamed
across all sectors and activities, including international trade and imports.
Target 17: People everywhere take measurable steps towards sustainable consumption andlifestyles, taking into account individual and national cultural and socioeconomic conditions,achieving by 2030, just and sustainable consumption levels (paragraph 12(c)(17)).
Target 17, Element 1, Indicators: Change in the trends in the use of resources.
Proposed Indicators:• Water footprint23• Water depletion metric2421

https://us.fsc.org/en-us22 https://www.msc.org/home
23 https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/global-water-footprint-standard/24

https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000083/

Comments:
We recommend using the water footprint because it helps quantify the hidden effects of water use behindconsumption and trade of products25. This provides a more holistic understanding of sustainable use forwater management. We also recommend including an indicator specific to sustainable water use which
could be derived from Brauman and Richter’s water depletion metric.
Target 19: Promote the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and localcommunities, and of women and girls as well as youth, in decision making related to theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, ensuring by 2030, equitable participation
and rights over relevant resources (paragraph 12(c)(19)).
Target 19, Element 1, Indicators: Change in the number of countries involving indigenous peoples andlocal communities in decision-making processes.
Proposed Indicators:• Number of legal court cases on issues of resource rights and land conflicts• Number of countries having IP representatives in their official delegations to the CBD• Number of countries having local community representatives in their official delegations to theCBD
Target 19, Element 2, Indicators: Change in the number of countries recognising traditional knowledge,
practices and innovations, traditional occupations and customary use.
Proposed Indicators:• Number of countries contributing to the UNFCCC LCIP Knowledge Sharing Platform 26
Comments:
This area of study regarding recognition of traditional knowledge at national levels is underdeveloped,
therefore we suggest research and exploration of additional indicators, either existing or newly created.
Indicators will need to be clearly defined to support adequate tracking.
Target 19, Element 4, Indicators: Change in the participation of women in environmental governance.
Proposed Text Change:•“Change in the leadership and participation of women in environmental governance.”

Comments:
We recommend this element include change in participation of women in decision making on environmental
governance instead of only participation in environmental governance.

25 https://www.pnas.org/content/109/9/3232
26

https://unfccc.int/LCIPPFor more information, please contact:
Colleen Corrigan
Senior Manager
Sustainable Development Policy
ccorrigan@conservation.org
Lina Barrera
Vice PresidentInternational Policy
lbarrera@conservation.org