Options for harmonizing national reporting to biodiversity-related agreements Peter Herkenrath UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The scope: The global biodiversity-related agreements World Heritage Convention Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

What makes reporting a challenge? Reports are required for many agreements (‘reporting burden’) >> resource implications Reports for different conventions often overlap Reporting formats are often complex Institutional linkages between national biodiversity information managers & national focal points are often not straightforward

Needs addressed by the harmonization project Avoiding duplication of effort in reporting processes Increasing efficiency and reducing the burden of reporting Improving access to reported information Above all: coherent national implementation of conventions

Mandate for harmonization of national reporting from the conventions CBD decisions V/19, VI/25, VII/25 CITES decisions and CMS resolution 7.9, draft recommendation 8.4 Ramsar Convention resolutions VII/4 and VIII/26, draft resolution IX/5 Third joint work plan of CBD & Ramsar Convention Biodiversity Liaison Group (convention secretariats)

Harmonization of reporting - background Starting point: Addressing the challenges as above UNEP + 5 conventions: Feasibility Study (1998) on harmonization of information management UNEP workshop in 2000 in Cambridge, UK: Governments, agreement secretariats, organisations UNEP national pilot projects

Harmonization pilot projects Ghana: Linking national reporting to State of the Environment reporting Indonesia: Modular approach to national reporting Panama: Regional support mechanisms for national information management and reporting Seychelles: A consolidated national report for several conventions

Workshop 2004 in Haasrode, Belgium Convened by UNEP-WCMC with Governments of Belgium and UK and additional support from Germany Attended by agreement secretariats, countries, organisations Examined pilot project results Developed recommendations

The Biodiversity Liaison Group … comprises the secretariats of the five global biodiversity-related conventions. At its 3 rd meeting in May 2005, the Group recognized possibilities for increased harmonization of reporting, including –a web portal –common reporting modules and –facilitation of harmony in national data management.

The Biodiversity Liaison Group At its 3 rd meeting in May 2005, the Group agreed that the 2010 target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 can provide a focus for cooperation among the biodiversity- related conventions that it would be useful for each Convention, as appropriate, to adopt indicators that are consistent with the framework of goals and targets adopted by the CBD

The World Heritage Convention Clearly explains the purpose of periodic reporting (Operational Guidelines; Explanatory Notes for the reporting format) Has a high reporting rate, supported by (sub)regional meetings Develops recommendations from periodic national reports for further implementation Provides outcome-oriented information in section II of the periodic reports

Significant elements for future reporting Common information modules Outcome-oriented reporting: –2010 biodiversity target –indicators Lessons learned: Information useful for other Parties On-line reporting

Common information requests (modules) in reporting formats of the biodiversity-related conventions would… Build on issues of relevance to more than one convention Save resources: questionnaire needs to be filled in once, to be used for more than one convention Facilitate cooperation between biodiversity managers at the national level

Potential common information modules (examples) CBDCITESCMSRamsarWHC Inland waters X(x)XXX Forest ecosystems X(x)X X Protected areas XXXX IndicatorsX(x) XX

Common information modules At the global level: in reporting formats of the conventions At the national level: to be developed from biodiversity information to make reporting easier

Indicators for the state of conservation – World Heritage Convention Periodic reporting to the World Heritage Convention serves, inter alia, the purpose of: Providing information on the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties State Parties are required to develop key indicators for measuring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties (Explanatory Notes for Periodic Reporting)

Indicators for the state of conservation – 2010 target Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): 2010 target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 – endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 Framework of goals, targets and indicators for the 2010 target, for example: –Target 1.2: Areas of particular importance to biodiversity protected –Indicator: Coverage of protected areas

Indicators for the state of conservation – 2010 target The 2010 target has been or will be recognized by various other conventions. The 2010 target offers the chance to develop indicators useful for measuring progress towards 2010 (and beyond) The World Heritage Convention could develop such global indicators based on national experience

Indicators for the state of conservation – in reporting formats CBD: Indicators widely requested in format for the 3 rd national reports and similarly expected for the 4 th national reporting format Ramsar: Outcome-oriented indicators for assessing the implementation effectiveness of the Convention, as part of the Strategic Plan and for use in next national reporting format, under development CMS: Draft reporting format in line with Strategic Plan asks for success of national action on Criteria, indicators and guidelines for assessing the success of conservation actions for priority migratory species (COP 8 in Nov 2005)

Indicators for the state of conservation – World Heritage Potential global indicators for the state of conservation of World Heritage properties used in Periodic Reporting should: Be simple Support State Parties’ assessment of their conservation efforts for cultural & natural properties Feed into Periodic Reporting Allow for global analysis Contribute to the 2010 target (for natural properties)

Harmonization of reporting and information management leads to benefits from synergies and avoiding duplication of effort Further information: