This presentation was featured at the Workshop The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework in Paris, OECD, 26 February 2019

1. Developing targets & indicators for the
post-2020 biodiversity framework
Lessons learnt from the Biodiversity
Indicators Partnership
Anna Chenery, BIP secretariat, UNEP-WCMC
Anna.Chenery@unep-wcmc.org

2. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP)
• Established in 2007
• A partnership of over 60 biodiversity indicator users, producers and
supporters
• The Partnership has a secretariat, hosted at UNEP-WCMC, and a Steering
Committee.
• Its primary role is to serve the global user community by responding to the
indicator requests of the CBD and other biodiversity-related Conventions,
for IPBES, for reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals, and for
use by national and regional governments.
• 2015-2017 under the ‘Mind the Gap’ project, number of global indicators
increased from 30 to 64

3. Lessons learnt: TARGET SETTING
Specific and measurable targets make indicator selection easier
– When targets have very general wording the associated indicators
are often poorly aligned with the target
– Progress in achievement of Aichi Targets has been greater for
those that are specific and measurable.
Target setting should remain ambitious
– Lack of a known indicator for a subject should not limit target
setting
– From the experience of the BIP secretariat, it is still possible to
identify datasets and indicators of which we were previously
unaware

4. Lessons learnt: INDICATOR IDENTIFICATION
Targets and indicators should be developed at the same time
– The development of targets and indicators should be an iterative
process, with the identification of potential indicators helping to
refine the measurability of targets
Indicators needed for actions as well as biodiversity outcomes
– As well as targets and indicators on the status and trends of
biodiversity there is a need for indicators which can track the
success of enabling mechanisms for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity

5. Lessons learnt: INDICATOR IDENTIFICATION
Indicators need to be championed
– Of the 98 specific indicators on the CBD list of global indicators,
only 31 were considered ‘available today’, and 10 ‘under active
development’. A number of other indicators were simply based
on one-off studies or datasets
– It is critical that indicators are championed by an identified
responsible organisation, which is committed to producing and
contributing their indicator(s) into the future.
Global indicators require sustainable funding
– The collection and collation of data, maintenance of databases
and production of indicators is a resource-intensive process,
requiring continual funding.

6. Lessons learnt: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Linking global and national indicators is challenging but beneficial
– Indicators that work across multiple scales help compare and
understand changes in biodiversity
– Global targets are often translated into very different targets at the
national level due to differing contexts and priorities, requiring
different indicators
– The uptake of global indicators at the national scale is limited
– Some global indicators are built directly from national indicators,
others are not easily scalable in a scientifically robust way –
improved communication and clarity about indicators’ potential use is
important including use of visualisations

7. Recommendations for the post-2020
process
• Post-2020 targets should be as SMART as possible
• The development of targets and indicators should be an iterative
process (emphasised at CBD COP 14)
• While it is important to build on what already exists, the lack of a
known existing indicator should not limit target setting.
• Any voluntary national biodiversity commitments to be developed by
countries under the CBD should make use of a common framework.
• For indicators to work across scales, targets also need to work
across scales.
• New technologies should help dynamically track and
communicate progress on the targets e.g. indicator
visualization platforms and model-based scenarios.

8. Workshop explored the evidence needed by negotiators when
developing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework:
o scenario analysis and modelling
o findings from major assessments
o “big ideas” in science or associated with campaigns
o achievement of transformational change
o alignment with other intergovernmental agreements/processes
o effectiveness of different policies, policy mixes and interventions
o effectiveness of different approaches for mobilizing resources
o lessons learnt from previous experience with targets
o lessons learnt from use of indicators
o lessons learnt from reviewing and reporting processes
Expert Workshop, April 2018
CBD/SBSTTA/22/INF/31
with support from…
With additional
support from:

9. Thank you
www.bipindicators.net
Anna.Chenery@unep-wcmc.org
More Information:
CBD COP 14 Information Document - BIP Lessons Learnt:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/7217/00d0/a9328110a490b7a8957a0cd9/cop-
14-inf-40-en.pdf
BIP Lessons Learnt summary flyer:
https://www.bipindicators.net/lessons-learnt-developing-targets-and-
indicators-post-2020-biodiversity-framework