Joining science and policy in capacity development for monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the global South

- Capacity development models linking science to policy offer new perspectives.
- Capacity needs include ground truthing, economic valuation and modern technology.
- Capacity development must include technology transfer for biodiversity indicators.
- Biodiversity monitoring ownership should be increased through community involvement.
- Lack of data, indicators and policy integration hampers biodiversity monitoring.

In view of better linking conservation and sustainable development, it is imperative to optimize the transfer of biodiversity-related knowledge and technology from resource-rich countries to developing countries. All countries signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity are expected to report on their progress towards achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. However, weak data coverage and the technicality or even unavailability of indicators present major barriers to the monitoring of biodiversity as well as the development of adequate biodiversity policies and management plans in many countries of the global South, hence increasing the North-South knowledge and capacity gap. Capacity development in these countries may hence substantially enrich global biodiversity monitoring and policy. In this effort, ensuring that monitoring programs are realistic and sufficiently embedded in policy remains a challenge. To contribute to the mainstreaming of biodiversity into development cooperation, we developed a capacity development concept that links scientific data to policy development. To guarantee shared ownership, academic institutes and organisations or authorities with responsibilities in biodiversity policy were invited to jointly submit competitive “Monitoring, Reporting and Verification” (MRV) project applications. It appeared that especially ground truthing, economic valuation of biodiversity, and the application of modern technologies in biodiversity monitoring were missing capacities in the global South. Efforts are also required to increase the understanding and use of indicators to avoid them remaining a theoretical concept. As is observed with MRV in the carbon context, increased involvement of local communities is recommended in the global MRV framework, including techniques such as community-based Mapping, Measuring and Monitoring.