A quantitative global review of species population monitoring.

Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300-15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.

Una Revisión Global Cuantitativa del Monitoreo Poblacional de Especies Resumen El monitoreo de especies, definido aquí como la recolección sistemática y repetida de datos para detectar cambios a largo plazo en las poblaciones de las especies silvestres, es un componente vital de la práctica y las políticas de la conservación. Generamos una base de datos de casi 1,200 esquemas, con un rango de fecha de inicio desde 1800 hasta 2018, para revisar los patrones espaciales, temporales, taxonómicos y metodológicos en el monitoreo global de especies. Identificamos los esquemas de monitoreo por medio de búsquedas estandarizadas en línea, una encuesta digital realizada a los actores, búsquedas a profundidad en una muestra de países y en una revisión global de las bases de datos sobre la biodiversidad. Estimamos el número total mundial de esquemas funcionales de monitoreo entre 3,300 y 15,000. Desde el 2000, ha habido un fuerte aumento en el número de esquemas nuevos que han iniciado en países de bajo o mediano ingreso y en países megadiversos, pero una disminución en los países de alto ingreso. El número total de esquemas de monitoreo en un país y su producto interno bruto per cápita tuvieron una correlación sólida y positiva. Los esquemas que estaban activos en 2018 lo habían estado en un promedio de 21 años en los países de alto ingreso, comparado con un promedio de 13 años en los países de mediano ingreso y de 10 años en los países de bajo ingreso. En los países de alto ingreso, más de la mitad de los esquemas de monitoreo recibieron financiamiento del gobierno, comparado con menos de un cuarto de los esquemas en los países de bajo ingreso. La recolección de datos se realizó parcial o totalmente por voluntarios en 37% de los esquemas, y dichos esquemas cubrieron significativamente más sitios y especies que aquellos realizados sólo por profesionales. Las aves fueron por mucho el grupo taxonómico más monitoreado, comprendiendo casi la mitad de todos los esquemas, pero este sesgo declinó con el tiempo. El monitoreo en la mayoría de los grupos taxonómicos todavía es disperso y descoordinado, y la mayoría de los datos generados son vagos y tienen poca probabilidad de alimentar procesos más amplios de conservación de biodiversidad. Estas deficiencias podrían abordarse, por ejemplo, creando una meta-base de datos globales abiertos de los esquemas de monitoreo de la biodiversidad y mejorando la capacidad para el monitoreo de especies en los países con alta biodiversidad.

A biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets using disaggregated global data.

Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's "Aichi Targets". These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity "dashboard"--a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.

The why, what, and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target.

The 2010 biodiversity target agreed by signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity directed the attention of conservation professionals toward the development of indicators with which to measure changes in biological diversity at the global scale. We considered why global biodiversity indicators are needed, what characteristics successful global indicators have, and how existing indicators perform. Because monitoring could absorb a large proportion of funds available for conservation, we believe indicators should be linked explicitly to monitoring objectives and decisions about which monitoring schemes deserve funding should be informed by predictions of the value of such schemes to decision making. We suggest that raising awareness among the public and policy makers, auditing management actions, and informing policy choices are the most important global monitoring objectives. Using four well-developed indicators of biological diversity (extent of forests, coverage of protected areas, Living Planet Index, Red List Index) as examples, we analyzed the characteristics needed for indicators to meet these objectives. We recommend that conservation professionals improve on existing indicators by eliminating spatial biases in data availability, fill gaps in information about ecosystems other than forests, and improve understanding of the way indicators respond to policy changes. Monitoring is not an end in itself, and we believe it is vital that the ultimate objectives of global monitoring of biological diversity inform development of new indicators.