Kevin Lunzalu, Shoshin, African CSOs Biodiversity Alliance
The deliberations on the midterm review of progress of the implementation of the GBF at SBSTTA 28 and SBI 7, represents an opportune moment for a collective stocktake on how transparent, efficient, and just monitoring of community contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework can be attained.
At its adoption, the monitoring framework of the GBF underlined the central contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) in stewardship of the world's biodiversity hotspots. In particular, it recognizes the role of community-based monitoring and information systems to improve global biodiversity knowledge, data and information, while acknowledging the need to engage indigenous peoples and local communities in the development and management of those information systems. Unfortunately, while IPLCs are increasingly encouraged and expected to continue monitoring these ecosystems, their contributions are not structurally monitored and reported in ways that align with their traditional knowledge systems.
SBSTTA 28 is an ideal pause-point for governments to urgently address the current epistemic biases and data-flow flaws that marginalize community-based monitoring systems (CBMS). As we rush against time to implement the ambitions of the GBF by 2030, we must be careful not to fall in the traps that failed Aichi targets. A robust monitoring framework was attached to the GBF to ensure that all contributions to biodiversity conser-vation are adequately documented, for a clear assessment of progress. A shift from over-reliance on wester-nized, quantitative, and ‘standardized’ monitoring methodologies to organic and locally driven approaches is critically needed. Such approaches should be distinguished from forms of community engagement in research such as citizen science.
The Convention must embrace alternative, context-based, and qualitative monitoring methods traditionally used by local communities. For example, many indige-nous and local Kenyan communities have monitored biodiversity for generations using qualitative, place-based, and adaptive methods. Shangani Amani Self-help group, a community-based organization in Msambweni Kwale county that actively restores degraded mangrove areas in Kenya’s South Coast, routinely monitors restoration sites by observing natural regeneration of mangrove seedlings, return of indicator species like crabs and shellfish, and projects survival of planted seedlings using seasonal rain and tidal patterns. Discussions on interoperability within the framework drive towards ensuring that the typical science of monitoring and related mechanisms adequately incorporates community-based monitoring.
Beyond the online reporting tool, there must be a dedicated capacity-enhancement mechanism that works with IPLCs, youth, and women to translate their on-ground observations into data formats required by the online repositories, and train them on how to properly submit their contributions. We must not lose sight of the cost-effective, locally relevant, and scientifically valuable biodiversity data that is readily available within the communities.