Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia

With tremendous biodiversity but increasing threats, Southeast Asia faces challenges in meeting its commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2020 Aichi Targets. The use of indicators to monitor, evaluate and guide conservation progress is increasingly urgent. We quantified indicator u...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Xuemei Han, Michael J. Gill, Healy Hamilton, Sheila G. Vergara, Bruce E. Young
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2020-02-01
Series:Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972719300170
id doaj-6e5ed342d5ce4c768e599972d419b9e3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6e5ed342d5ce4c768e599972d419b9e32020-11-24T21:42:11ZengElsevierEnvironmental and Sustainability Indicators2665-97272020-02-015Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast AsiaXuemei Han0Michael J. Gill1Healy Hamilton2Sheila G. Vergara3Bruce E. Young4NatureServe, 2550 South Clark Street, Suite 930, Arlington, VA, 22202, USANatureServe, 2550 South Clark Street, Suite 930, Arlington, VA, 22202, USANatureServe, 2550 South Clark Street, Suite 930, Arlington, VA, 22202, USAASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, Domingo M. Lantican Avenue, Los Baños, Laguna, 4031, PhilippinesNatureServe, 2550 South Clark Street, Suite 930, Arlington, VA, 22202, USA; Corresponding author.With tremendous biodiversity but increasing threats, Southeast Asia faces challenges in meeting its commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2020 Aichi Targets. The use of indicators to monitor, evaluate and guide conservation progress is increasingly urgent. We quantified indicator use by 10 Southeast Asian governments in the 4th and 5th national reports submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 and 2015. We found indicator use variable among nations but increasing. Use of quantitative trend indicators doubled from an average of 6–12. There was no change in the number of non-quantitative (mean of 2) or quantitative baseline indicators (those measured once; mean of 9). Indicators most frequently addressed habitat condition and extent, species diversity, protected areas, and agriculture (means of 2–6 indicators each). They were rarely used (mean ​< ​1) to indicate trends in wildlife exploitation, information sharing, climate change, and invasive species. Species diversity indicators increased from the 4th to 5th reports, and there were marginal increases in indicators used for aquatic ecosystems. The results highlight a slow but noticeable increase in the use and quality of indicators in national biodiversity reporting in the region. However, for the region to accelerate progress towards agreed-upon targets of multilateral environmental agreements, a more relevant and diverse set of indicators will need to be employed. Paths to doing so include the use of disaggregated global indicators, increased regional coordination to improve the efficiency and quality of indicator generation, and increased efforts at growing national-level monitoring capacity. Keywords: Aichi targets, ASEAN, Convention on biological diversity, Indicator use, Monitoring progresshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972719300170
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Xuemei Han
Michael J. Gill
Healy Hamilton
Sheila G. Vergara
Bruce E. Young
spellingShingle Xuemei Han
Michael J. Gill
Healy Hamilton
Sheila G. Vergara
Bruce E. Young
Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
author_facet Xuemei Han
Michael J. Gill
Healy Hamilton
Sheila G. Vergara
Bruce E. Young
author_sort Xuemei Han
title Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia
title_short Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia
title_full Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia
title_fullStr Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia
title_full_unstemmed Progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in Southeast Asia
title_sort progress on national biodiversity indicator reporting and prospects for filling indicator gaps in southeast asia
publisher Elsevier
series Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
issn 2665-9727
publishDate 2020-02-01
description With tremendous biodiversity but increasing threats, Southeast Asia faces challenges in meeting its commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2020 Aichi Targets. The use of indicators to monitor, evaluate and guide conservation progress is increasingly urgent. We quantified indicator use by 10 Southeast Asian governments in the 4th and 5th national reports submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 and 2015. We found indicator use variable among nations but increasing. Use of quantitative trend indicators doubled from an average of 6–12. There was no change in the number of non-quantitative (mean of 2) or quantitative baseline indicators (those measured once; mean of 9). Indicators most frequently addressed habitat condition and extent, species diversity, protected areas, and agriculture (means of 2–6 indicators each). They were rarely used (mean ​< ​1) to indicate trends in wildlife exploitation, information sharing, climate change, and invasive species. Species diversity indicators increased from the 4th to 5th reports, and there were marginal increases in indicators used for aquatic ecosystems. The results highlight a slow but noticeable increase in the use and quality of indicators in national biodiversity reporting in the region. However, for the region to accelerate progress towards agreed-upon targets of multilateral environmental agreements, a more relevant and diverse set of indicators will need to be employed. Paths to doing so include the use of disaggregated global indicators, increased regional coordination to improve the efficiency and quality of indicator generation, and increased efforts at growing national-level monitoring capacity. Keywords: Aichi targets, ASEAN, Convention on biological diversity, Indicator use, Monitoring progress
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972719300170
work_keys_str_mv AT xuemeihan progressonnationalbiodiversityindicatorreportingandprospectsforfillingindicatorgapsinsoutheastasia
AT michaeljgill progressonnationalbiodiversityindicatorreportingandprospectsforfillingindicatorgapsinsoutheastasia
AT healyhamilton progressonnationalbiodiversityindicatorreportingandprospectsforfillingindicatorgapsinsoutheastasia
AT sheilagvergara progressonnationalbiodiversityindicatorreportingandprospectsforfillingindicatorgapsinsoutheastasia
AT bruceeyoung progressonnationalbiodiversityindicatorreportingandprospectsforfillingindicatorgapsinsoutheastasia
_version_ 1725918426079166464