More about the Specialist Group

Species are monitored for a range of different reasons and people, such as:

• conservation project managers to demonstrate and adapt the changes they bring about in biodiversity
• donors to understand the impact of their funding and return on investment
• scientists and NGOs to identify threatened species and plan conservation action
• local communities to manage their natural resources
• governments to track the delivery of national biodiversity strategies and their contribution to the goals of multilateral environmental agreements
• businesses to monitor their sustainability or environmental impacts.

Recent studies show that there are a suite of methods, indicators and databases available for biodiversity monitoring. However, many challenges exist in the collection of data and its use in monitoring and related decision-making, including inadequate or unharmonized methods, tools and technology, inadequate capacity or resources, weak indicators and monitoring plans, gaps in existing databases, and blockages to data access and sharing. There is an urgent need for increased capacity building in national agencies and NGOs, enhanced collection of data by conservation and research projects, improved harmonization of indicators and methods, and greater sharing of data in formats of use to conservation practitioners, policymakers and decision-makers.

During a workshop at the IUCN SSC Leaders’ Meeting in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in 2015, 62 SSC members from 55 organizations confirmed the main challenges facing the conservation community with data collection and proposed the creation of a Species Monitoring Specialist Group which was established in 2016.

The Group’s strategic approach is to:

• enhance monitoring of species for the benefit of threatened species conservation as well as the conservation of ecosystems and the services they provide for people
• monitor common species where they are appropriate indicators of broader environmental health and there is an identified need for the data
• focus on improving the quality and volume of data for Red List assessments and the monitoring of important conservation sites (e.g. protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas), the knowledge of this will also enhance biodiversity planning and reporting at local, national and global levels for governments, NGOs, donors and multilateral environmental agreements
• fill the gap that exists for a neutral body of experts to provide guidance and the “gold standards” on methods and tools for species data collection and management
• provide a platform for convening and converging different actors and different systems, complementing and building on the work of others while avoiding reinvention or duplication
• work and lobby to make existing tools and data freely and openly available to the people who need them so that informed decisions can be made to improve conservation; where tools don't exist, the Group will try to fill the gaps
• act as a hub for innovation on conservation measures and tools, building on innovative new ways to monitor species that are emerging from the increased access to, and declining costs of, technology
• be outcome-focused and driven by user needs, bringing about measurable change using pragmatic, practical methods to enhance the flow of species data
• be science-based and conduct and encourage the research needed to fill gaps in species data and monitoring capacity
• ensure taxonomic specialist groups retain leadership in the Red Listing process and the conservation of their target species.