Can data defend us?

Eva: This was a really important achievement. Not because land isn’t present in other frameworks—it is. We see land and indicators related to land tenure in other major development frameworks, such as the SDGs. What was really unique about this achievement in the Global Biodiversity Monitoring Framework was that it recognised, in a way that hasn’t happened before in a global framework, the crucial role that Indigenous peoples and local communities play in this process. It recognises them as partners in the protection of biodiversity and, of course, their lands, territories, and natural resources, are a fundamental part of the solution.

Beyond recognising the role of secure land tenure in achieving biodiversity outcomes, this is the first global framework of its kind to call on Parties to quantify the security of these communities and populations, recognising them as a critical part of the solution.

Q"apaj: It's really reassuring that, at least in the CBD context, indigenous peoples and local communities are taking bold and firm steps toward the protection of life on Earth. We often feel that what is developed at the international level is hard to implement at the local level, making it hard for communities to feel the effects of those decisions. The work on traditional knowledge and on land is quite important. These major commitments and outcomes at the global level have a direct impact locally.

Why is it important? For Indigenous Peoples, there is a special link—spiritual, ethical, and cultural—with land. It embodies their culture and who they are, as individuals and as a collective,  helping to form a cohesive bond among them. There is also an ethical and spiritual relationship with land—it is not merely an instrument for building homes, hunting, or gathering. It’s a motherhood figure that protects us, and in turn, we need to protect Her.

We have a deadline, which is 2030. This land indicator will help measure implementation progress [of the Framework]. It will also assess the role and contribution of Indigenous Peoples in biodiversity. Recognizing indigenous and traditional territories in area-based conservation is a key part of this. By 2030, we need to know how we have accomplished this and to what extent recognition has been implemented. One way to measure this is through indicators. Data is important because it tells us if we have achieved our goals or not and where the gaps are. 

Eva: One of the big opportunities in the KMGBF monitoring framework is the explicit recognition of complementary data for monitoring. Previously, global frameworks primarily relied on governments to collect the necessary data for reporting. However, thanks to the work of several groups advocating for this, the KMGBF acknowledges the importance of complementary data sources—including citizen science and community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS).

Q”apaj: This indicator is unique in the sense that four indicators, including the land indicator, were also adopted under the previous Strategic Plan, but they were included in the middle of its implementation. By the time they were adopted, the implementation of the previous plan was ongoing [Aichi Target 18 on traditional knowledge], so the indicators were not fully operationalised.  That was an important lesson.  When the new Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted, the community immediately knew that they needed to adopt indicators rapidly to monitor what was implemented.  That’s why, at CBD COP15, the monitoring framework was adopted early on.  But there were still gaps, so a process was established to fill them in. CBD COP16 then identified the land indicator as a headline indicator.

Had the Monitoring Framework of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) not been adopted with this as a headline indicator, it would still be part of the monitoring of the programme of work on Article 8(j). But now, as a headline indicator, it’s among the package of indicators that Parties need to report on. The data produced while assessing this is going to be really important. The big opportunity here is that these indicators compel Parties to report. That will help us to assess the situation. 

Because these indicators were developed in the context of traditional knowledge, where there is a strong presence of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, from the very beginning, they have included traditional knowledge alongside other forms of knowledge. That was also really enriching.  Indigenous Peoples have been saying this for many, many, many years. But, now scientific assessments, such as the 2019 Global Assessment by IPBES, have confirmed the contribution of Indigenous Peoples to biodiversity.  We see that these interactions between standard knowledge with Indigenous knowledge help provide decision-makers with a better scientific base to make decisions. 

It also recognizes the contribution of Indigenous Peoples’ own monitoring systems within their, communities at the local level. States have offices that work on these and the statistics at the national level. But the indicator also recognises that Indigenous Peoples have their own way in which they monitor their daily lives. This dialogue between the official data and the data that Indigenous Peoples have. It's very interesting because, again, it can collaborate,  fix some official data errors and fill in gaps in the data we have.  

Eva: This sets an important precedent. This is an internationally endorsed monitoring framework that now includes the land tenure and land use of Indigenous and traditional communities as a headline indicator. This means parties will be required to collect, analyze, and report on relevant data, which sets a precedent for other monitoring frameworks. There is already ongoing alignment across the Rio Conventions, recognizing common ground and shared objectives. Land tenure is connected to many of the outcomes listed across these frameworks.

For example, in the UNCCD, which already has a well-established monitoring process, the land indicator approved in the CBD framework is now being considered in terms of its contributions. We are looking at how to disaggregate spatial or land-based indicators to account for Indigenous and local communities. Likewise, UNCCD, with its strong monitoring process, will assess how its land-related indicators can incorporate land tenure for these populations.

In the climate space, there is still much to be seen and negotiated, but we believe it’s in the best interest of all parties and conventions to align monitoring frameworks as much as possible. This will facilitate reporting, encourage accountability, and ensure that land tenure is consistently recognized across diverse tenure types.

Q"apaj: At the international level, adopting these instruments and tools requires extensive dialogue among Parties. Among those voices, indigenous peoples and local communities are really important because they bring experiences at a local level. That’s often quite difficult. The CBD has established different mechanisms to facilitate their participation so their voices are heard. Definitely, in the international discussions, we see the value of bringing local realities to the international level, because they provide an expertise that very often negotiators appreciate. 

Indigenous Peoples are able to see different positions. They can provide a middle-ground solution to some of the discussions and practical suggestions. Because we have received these contributions, we hope the instruments adopted at the international level have an impact at the local level and can really speak to the reality of people who live with nature.  I'm sure there is a lot of room for us to improve, but in the context of the CBD, we are proud of the mechanisms that we have established for those voices to be heard. 

I think through the adoption of the Framework, we have a roadmap. And, now, with the specific indicators, we have the tool to make sure the targets are implemented. So by 2050 –  we can live in harmony with nature.

Eva: While passing the monitoring framework was an important first step, a lot still needs to happen. What unfolds between now and February will be one phase, but long-term implementation will require additional steps. We will continue working with FAO as the custodian agency, as well as with Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), other partners, and the technical working group that helped develop the indicator. Our focus will be on ensuring the methodology is practical and that all concepts and definitions are clear.

We’ll also collaborate with the Global Land Observatory to identify and make relevant data sources accessible to parties that want to report using them. Beyond that, implementation will largely be driven at the national level.

We hope governments and national actors working in the CBD space will push for inclusive processes—mechanisms for participation in reporting, the inclusion of citizen science, and ways to validate and integrate diverse datasets. We hope data collection comes together, that the methodology is clear and widely accepted, and that members push for national-level processes that ensure meaningful participation in reporting on this indicator.

ILC has long championed a people-centred approach to land governance, which means working with diverse datasets, incorporating complementary data, and often generating data directly with our members to ensure their perspectives and experiences are reflected.

Within this framework, there are several tools and initiatives that ILC and its members lead, which could directly contribute to monitoring this indicator. On a global level, there’s LandMark, a mapping platform that makes the rights of Indigenous and local communities visible. Other key datasets include the Indigenous Navigator and the Prindex Global Dataset, among others. These resources put us in a strong position to better understand land tenure for these populations.

ILC will continue working with its members to develop and position this data so it can be used to monitor the indicator.  At the same time, we will be identifying governments that we hope will champion this indicator—using our data, integrating it with their own, or at least recognizing the insights it provides in their national reports. The first round of reports is due in February next year, so this is something we will closely follow and support. 

Eva: The next step from the CBD Secretariat—since parties requested this in the decision passed last week—will be to issue a notification. This will be posted on the CBD website, calling on parties, Indigenous peoples, local communities, and observers to submit input on this indicator.

This will kickstart a process for refining the methodology, integrating diverse datasets, and ensuring the definitions used are inclusive and effective.

Following that, the CBD, FAO, and ILC will organize a series of webinars to provide more information on the methodology and the steps for making this indicator operational. I’d encourage people to look out for that notification, join the webinars, and provide input on how they’d like to see this process unfold.