Natasha Ali’s research while affiliated with UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and other places

Biodiversity metrics are increasingly in demand for informing government, business, and civil society decisions. However, it is not always clear to end users how these metrics differ or for what purpose they are best suited. We seek to answer these questions using a database of 573 biodiversity-related metrics, indicators, indices, and layers, which address aspects of genetic diversity, species, and ecosystems. We provide examples of indicators and their uses within the state–pressure–response–benefits framework that is widely used in conservation science. Considering complementarity across this framework, we recommend a small number of metrics considered most pertinent for use in decision-making by governments and businesses. We conclude by highlighting five future directions: increasing the importance of national metrics, ensuring wider uptake of business metrics, agreeing on a minimum set of metrics for government and business use, automating metric calculation through use of technology, and generating sustainable funding for metric production.

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its monitoring framework aims to reverse the decline of nature. The GBF tasks governments to report progress towards 23 targets and four goals but also “invites Parties and relevant organizations to support community-based monitoring and information systems and citizen science” to improve information for decision-making and build support for conservation efforts throughout society. We assessed how Indigenous Peoples, local communities and citizen scientists and professional scientists can help monitor the GBF. Of the 365 indicators of the GBF monitoring framework, 110 (30%) can involve Indigenous Peoples, local communities and citizen scientists in community-based monitoring programmes, 185 (51%) could benefit from citizen involvement in data collection and 180 (49%) require scientists and governmental statistical organizations. A smaller proportion of indicators for GBF targets are amenable to citizen monitoring than for the previous Aichi targets or other multilateral environment agreements—largely because 196 GBF indicators are analytically complex (54%) and 175 require legislative overview (48%). Greater involvement of citizens in the GBF would increase societal engagement in international agreements, harness knowledge from those living close to nature to fill data gaps and enhance local to national decision-making based on improved information, leading to better conservation actions.

Biodiversity metrics are increasingly in demand for informing government, businesses, and civil society decisions. However, while there are many metrics available, it is not always clear to end-users how they differ or for what purpose they are best suited. This confusion undermines uptake. Here, we seek to clarify these questions by reviewing and presenting a database of 573 biodiversity-related metrics, indicators, indices and layers (hereafter ‘metrics’). Of these metrics, 227 are spatial data layers and 272 are temporal indicators. Assessed in relation to the pressure-state-response-benefits framework, 213 address only state, 118 address only pressures, 124 address only responses and 8 address only benefits. The remaining 110 relate to combinations of the four. Among the state indicators, 217 are bottom-up metrics (aggregated from individual components), 57 top-down (compiled through extrapolation), 8 are neither, and 1 is both; while 61 measure significance (‘biodiversity importance’) 86 intactness (‘biodiversity condition’), 5 both, and 131 are neither. These metrics address aspects of genetic diversity (19), species (106) and ecosystems (214), with 38 covering more than one aspect and 196 being general metrics. Considering complementarity across these characteristics, we recommend a small number of metrics considered most pertinent for use in decision-making by governments and businesses. We conclude by highlighting five future directions: increasing the importance of national metrics, ensuring wider uptake of business metrics, agreeing a minimum set of metrics for government and business use, automation of metric calculation through use of technology, and generating sustainable funding for metric production.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), and its monitoring framework, aims to reverse the decline of nature. The GBF tasks governments to report progress towards 23 targets and four goals. The monitoring framework ” Invites Parties and relevant organizations to support community-based monitoring and information systems and citizen science” . We assessed how Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), and citizen- and professional-scientists, can monitor the GBF. Of 365 indicators, 110 (30%) can involve IPLCs and citizen scientists, 184 (50%) could benefit from IPLC and citizen scientist involvement in data collection, and 181 (50%) require scientists and governmental statistical organizations. Seventeen headline indicators from 12 GBF targets are amenable to citizen monitoring, lower than the Aichi Targets, or other multilateral environment agreements, largely because 196 indicators are analytically complex (54%) and 175 require a legislative overview (48%). Further involving citizens in the GBF would progress environmental conservation.

The world’s countries are negotiating a post-2020 global biodiversity framework to guide biodiversity actions by governments and other actors. We assessed monitoring possibilities, ranging from scientist-driven to those undertaken by local people, for the current proposed indicators to measure progress towards goals and targets in this framework. Of the 291 indicators, 159 (55%) require monitoring by scientists, whereas 132 (45%) can involve citizens. Contrary to expectations, the potential for citizen participation is lower than for the Aichi Targets. Involving citizens and Indigenous Peoples in the collection and interpretation of environmental data can support monitoring of progress and improve conservation outcomes, as demonstrated by global community monitoring and citizen science.