The countdown to accountability has begun. This October, Yerevan will host the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP17), the moment when the first real measure of collective progress toward the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) will be taken. This milestone will follow the 4th World Biodiversity Forum in Davos, which took place from the 14 to the 17 June and where more than 1,000 researchers, practitioners, business leaders, government representatives, Indigenous Peoples, NGOs, philanthropists, artists, and policymakers convened to build the broad leadership and transformative partnerships the Framework needs to succeed.
At the Forum, Søren Brofeldt (University of Copenhagen) presented a policy brief aimed squarely at the Forum audience and at the COP17 negotiators who will follow. Developed through a partnership between the University of Copenhagen, more4nature, Danmission, and Terra Co. Lab, the brief draws on the March 2026 report Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) in Practice: Digital Tools, Local Agency, and Environmental Governance Across Five Countries, which documents CBM initiatives in Cambodia, Myanmar, Lebanon, Tanzania, and Kenya, as well as a peer-reviewed assessment published in Nature Sustainability. That assessment found that around 30% of the 365 indicators in the KMGBF monitoring framework can be directly informed by Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and citizen scientists through CBM, with a further 51% able to benefit from citizen involvement in data collection. Together, this evidence base makes the case that community-based monitoring is one of the most powerful and yet most underused tools for turning global biodiversity commitments into local, verifiable action.
To translate this conviction into accelerated delivery of the Framework, the brief proposes five concrete actions, each directed to a specific actor:
- To CBD Parties at COP17: Recognise community-based monitoring and citizen science as complementary data sources for the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs), and task the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators with guidance on integrating community-generated data into national reporting.
- To CBD Parties as NBSAP focal points: In second-cycle NBSAPs (2026–2028), identify which targets and indicators community-based monitoring will inform, define institutional pathways for uptake, and ensure data-sharing respects community data sovereignty, in line with CARE principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
- To donor governments, the GBF Fund, and the Cali Fund: Earmark dedicated biodiversity finance for community-led monitoring and the infrastructure needed to use it, with CARE- and FPIC-aligned safeguards, prioritising Indigenous-led and women-led initiatives.
- To national agencies and research institutions: Build interoperability between community-based monitoring systems and national biodiversity databases. This should include GBIF, the UN Biodiversity Lab, and the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, while keeping communities in control of their data.
- To the CBD Secretariat and the Article 8(j) programme of work: Strengthen recognition of community-based monitoring as a tool for IPLC participation in implementation and review, aligned with the new Article 8(j) programme of work adopted at COP16.
The urgency behind this call for action is reflected in the World Biodiversity Forum 2026 Resolution, the Forum’s official outcome document. Participants voiced serious concern that, despite the KMGBF having strengthened how biodiversity status, protection, and restoration are reported, major implementation gaps remain and warned that the pressures driving biodiversity loss are intensifying amid attacks on multilateralism and escalating armed conflict. Community-Based Monitoring stands out as one of the clearest paths to meet that challenge.
