
This report presents key results, findings and recommendations developed under the Biodiversa+ Partnership in its two first years (2021-2023) regarding development and harmonisation of transnational biodiversity monitoring schemes. Tailored monitoring: Biodiversity monitoring must directly address the specific needs of its users. Understanding who relies on monitoring data and how they use it is essential for prioritising efforts and developing relevant indicators that work across local and global scales. Collaboration is key: Common frameworks are essential for integrating existing data and emerging tools into policy decisions. Collaboration tools and capacity building efforts help ensure data quality, interoperability, and stakeholder engagement. From data to decisions: To maximise the value of biodiversity monitoring, we need to streamline workflows from data collection to policy implementation. A federated approach involving experts, research infrastructures, and policy makers is essential. Strong governance: Countries and sub-national regions should consider establishing biodiversity monitoring coordination centres or, at minimum, well-resourced focal points, to facilitate transnational cooperation. Biodiversa+ will work towards establishing these centres and developing a robust funding model. Overcoming operational challenges: Developing transnational monitoring schemes presents unique logistical hurdles, such as sample transportation and analysis. Learning from existing schemes such as the Biodiversa+ monitoring pilots helps us address these bottlenecks effectively.
Biodiversity, Biodiversity monitoring, Biodiversity observation, Biodiversity conservation
Biodiversity, Biodiversity monitoring, Biodiversity observation, Biodiversity conservation
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
