1. Working Group on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Guidelines for developing national strategies to use biodiversity monitoring as an environmental policy tool for the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as interested South-Eastern European countries Tobias Garstecki, consultant

2. 2 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Key questions addressed in the draft guidelines How does biodiversity monitoring differ from other types of environmental monitoring? How can the effectiveness of biodiversity monitoring as an environmental policy tool be maximized? How to design and implement a national biodiversity monitoring system that works well in practice?

3. 3 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 How does biodiversity monitoring differ? (1) Biodiversity: the totality of genes, species and ecosystems of a region.

4. 4 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 How does biodiversity monitoring differ? (2) Air quality monitoring Biodiversity monitoring Distribution of the environmental good Relatively homogeneous Highly heterogeneous, multiple levels Pressures Simple (emissions of pollutants) Diverse (resource overuse, habitat loss, emissions) Key monitoring approaches Measurement (concentrations and emissions) Observation/measurement and evaluation of biodiversity status and pressures Indicator sets DPSIR, relatively homogeneous DPSIR, highly heterogeneous Target settingClear technical guidanceSubject to choice, tradeoffs Monitoring expertiseConcentratedDispersed

5. 5 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Biodiversity monitoring as an environmental policy tool (1) should include responses (II A) DRIVING FORCES Human influences and natural conditions PRESSURES Anthropogenic and natural stresses on the environment STATE State or condition of the environment RESPONSES Responses by government and society IMPACTS Biological, economic and social effects of environmental change... and pressures related to natural resource use (II C), infrastructure should be relevant to policy objectives

6. 6 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Biodiversity monitoring as an environmental policy tool (2) Should include monitoring of ecosystem services (II D), because.. ecosystem services are the link between biodiversity on the one hand and society, the economy and human culture on the other hand Indicators are available of can be developed for most ecosystem services, such as –provisioning services, e.g. food provision –regulating services, e.g. hydrological regulation –cultural and amenity services, e.g. recreation –

7. 7 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Biodiversity monitoring as an environmental policy tool (3) – use of biodiversity monitoring data (II H) Permitting –e.g. EIA, natural resources use Prioritization of actions and investments –e.g. strategic planning and policy development Communication, education and public awareness raising –e.g. interagency communication, mainstreaming Use by the business sector Analysis and reporting

8. 8 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Design of national biodiversity monitoring systems (1) – conceptual frameworks (III A) Bring order into diversity of indicators Rational, systematic way of choosing/using indicators Use/adaptation of available generic indicators associated with conceptual frameworks RESPONSES BENEFITS PRESSURES AND CAUSES STATE

9. 9 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Design of national biodiversity monitoring systems (2) – indicator sets and protocols (III D) Develop around conceptual framework Use and adapt indicator protocols from generic indicator sets –e.g. UNECE Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators Build protocols on sound science and international best practice –e.g. IUCN Red List methodology for species Outsource protocol development/adaptation to wide range of national experts

10. 10 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012

11. 11 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012

12. 12 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Design of national biodiversity monitoring systems (3) – institutional setup (III F, IV) Central competent authority (usually MoE) –planning/coordination, resourcing of system –collection, processing, publication etc. of data –lead and coordination of policy response Additional institutions (GOs, NGOs, Academia) –e.g. organized through inter-institutional working group (GOs, NGO, Academia) –General advice, outsourcing of indicators, input regarding policy responses, use in project design –Existing similar setups: UK, Georgia

13. 13 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Summary (1) How does biodiversity monitoring differ from other types of environmental monitoring? –Multiple levels, complex distribution of biodiversity, pressures and benefits – Important consequences for monitoring design How to maximize effectiveness of BDM as policy tool? –include (policy) objectives/responses and pressures (e.g. those related to natural resources use) –monitoring of ecosystem services –wide use of monitoring data

14. 14 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Summary (2) How to design and implement a national biodiversity monitoring system that works well in practice? –Use of conceptual frameworks (e.g. DPSIR) and balance of indicators on all key elements (pressures, state, responses) –Scientific basis and international best practice –Adaptation of generic indicator sets (e.g. UNECE) –Appropriate institutional setup involving all relevant experts

15. 15 Working Group Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Thirteenth session, Geneva, 1 November 2012 Thank you very much!