CHM - ORTThis action develops scientifically sound methods for monitoring and evaluating ecosystems and species abundance. It develops methods of data handling, storage and transfer to be used by all agencies working in biodiversity and provides training for Bahamians in monitoring and evaluation.
Monitoring is required to ensure that data are comparable over time and spatially and conform to international standards. Activities include review of monitoring methods, field testing of data collection and storage procedures, and training.
The 2021 draft NBSAP revision indicates that marine species have been monitored in some areas using the AGRRA methodology, and that Bahamians are being trained in monitoring and evaluation methodologies through programs such as the Kirtland’s Warbler scholarship programme. A GEF 2020 project commenced in 2021 to develop monitoring and evaluation methodologies for other ecosystems and species.
For the GBF targets aligned with this action (Targets 4, 20 and 21), the validation mapping identifies DEPP and the Bahamas National Trust (BNT) as responsible institutions. Government entities aligned to these targets include the Department of Marine Resources (DMR), the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the University of The Bahamas (UB), the Bahamas Technical & Vocational Institute (BTVI), and the Bahamas Agriculture & Marine Science Institute (BAMSI). Non-governmental stakeholders identified as aligned contributors include the Bahamas Marine Mammal Research Organisation (BMMRO), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Wild Bahamas.
The central action is the standardization and institutionalization of biodiversity monitoring methodologies across terrestrial and marine ecosystems. This includes formal adoption of coral reef monitoring systems (e.g., AGRRA), harmonization of indicator frameworks, and integration of monitoring data into national reporting cycles.
Policy measures also include capacity development for field monitoring, establishment of a centralized reporting mechanism coordinated by DEPP, and integration of monitoring outputs into adaptive management decisions. Ensuring sustainable financing for long-term monitoring programs is essential to prevent reliance solely on donor-funded project cycles.
| Objectifs mondiaux | Degré d’alignement |
GBF-T04. GBF-T04.Prendre des mesures urgentes en matière de gestion en vue de faire cesser l'extinction d'origine humaine des espèces menacées connues et d'assurer leur rétablissement et leur conservation, en particulier les espèces menacées, afin de réduire significativement leur risque d'extinction ainsi que de sauvegarder et de rétablir la diversité génétique au sein des populations d'espèces indigènes, sauvages et domestiquées et entre elles, en vue de préserver leur potentiel d'adaptation, notamment grâce à des mesures de conservation in situ et ex situ et à des méthodes de gestion durable, et gérer efficacement les interactions entre l'homme et la faune de manière à limiter les conflits liés à leur cœxistence. | Moyen |
GBF-T20. GBF-T20.Accroître le renforcement et le développement des capacités, l'accès aux technologies et leur transfert, et promouvoir l’innovation et la coopération technique et scientifique et l'accès à celles-ci, notamment dans le cadre de la coopération Sud-Sud, Nord-Sud et triangulaire, afin favoriser une mise en œuvre efficace, en particulier dans les pays en développement, en encourageant la collaboration dans le développement de technologies et l'élaboration de programmes de recherche scientifique en matière de conservation et d'utilisation durable de la biodiversité et en renforçant les capacités de recherche scientifique et de suivi connexes, et veiller à ce que ces actions soient à la mesure de l'ambition des objectifs et des cibles du cadre mondial. | Moyen |
GBF-T21. GBF-T21.Faire en sorte que les décideurs, les praticiens et le public aient accès aux meilleures données, informations et connaissances disponibles afin de favoriser une gouvernance efficace et équitable et une gestion intégrée et participative de la biodiversité, ainsi que de renforcer la communication, la sensibilisation, l'éducation, le suivi, la recherche et la gestion des connaissances ; dans ce contexte également, les connaissances, innovations, pratiques et technologies traditionnelles des peuples autochtones et des communautés locales ne devraient être accessibles qu'avec leur consentement préalable, libre et éclairé [1], conformément à la législation nationale.
***
[1] Le consentement libre, préalable et éclairé fait référence à la terminologie tripartite « consentement préalable et éclairé » ou « consentement libre, préalable et éclairé » ou « approbation et participation ». | Moyen |
This target advances science and innovation through the adoption of standardized biodiversity monitoring methodologies, including AGRRA and GEF-supported monitoring systems. It contributes to a collective effort towards the targets by promoting harmonized monitoring approaches across institutions. It supports cooperation and synergies among agencies responsible for marine and terrestrial data collection. Implementation remains partially project-driven and uneven across ecosystems. Constraints include limited long-term financing, incomplete national indicator harmonization, and data integration challenges. |
Explanation of alignment with global targets
Alignment with Global Goal A
Degree of alignment: Medium (enabling, not outcome-demonstrating)
National Target 7 contributes to Goal A by establishing scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation methodologies necessary to assess ecosystem condition and species abundance over time. The 2021 draft NBSAP revision references marine monitoring using AGRRA methodologies and associated training initiatives, demonstrating partial development of standardized ecological monitoring approaches.
Participants from the B7NR validation sessions confirmed that while conservation activities are underway, ecosystem resilience indicators remain fragmented and no consolidated national biodiversity indicator framework currently exists. As a result, the target strengthens the ability to measure progress toward ecosystem conservation and species protection, but does not yet demonstrate nationally aggregated biodiversity outcome trends.
Alignment with Global Goal D
Degree of alignment: Medium (technical systems strengthening)
National Action 7 supports Goal D by strengthening the technical and methodological foundations required for consistent national reporting and adaptive management. The development of standardized monitoring protocols and data management procedures contributes to improved comparability across locations and reporting cycles.
However, validation discussions confirmed that biodiversity monitoring responsibilities remain dispersed across institutions and are not yet consolidated within a nationally mandated framework. While methodologies are being developed, institutional coordination and sustained monitoring architecture require further strengthening to fully operationalize enabling conditions under Goal D.
Alignment with GBF Target 4 (Species conservation and extinction prevention)
Degree of alignment: Medium (methodological support)
The target aligns with Target 4 by providing the monitoring methodologies necessary to track species population trends and ecosystem condition. Scientifically sound monitoring systems are essential for assessing extinction risk, evaluating recovery efforts, and informing conservation decisions.
The draft NBSAP 2026–2030 introduces a strengthened national target corresponding to GBF Target 4, committing to reduction of extinction risk and implementation of recovery plans for selected Critically Endangered and Endangered species. The monitoring standards and procedures under this Action provide the technical foundation required to measure Red List trends, population indices, and recovery outcomes.
Although a consolidated national species indicator framework has not yet been institutionalized, the methodological groundwork established under this Action directly supports the operationalization of the proposed extinction-prevention commitments. Alignment is therefore foundational in current implementation and strategically strengthened under the NBSAP revision process.
Alignment with GBF Target 21 (Knowledge, data and information systems)
Degree of alignment: Medium (standards development, limited integration)
National Action 7 aligns with Target 21 by establishing procedures for data handling, storage and transfer to ensure comparability over time and across institutions. Standardized methodologies enhance data quality and facilitate future aggregation.
The draft NBSAP 2026–2030 includes a dedicated national target corresponding to GBF Target 21, committing to the establishment of a coordinated national biodiversity monitoring and information system under DEPP leadership. National Target 7 supplies the technical standards that could underpin this system, including consistent methodologies and improved data governance practices.
Validation findings confirm that a nationally endorsed set of biodiversity indicators and an integrated information system linking institutional datasets are still under development. However, the strategic direction toward consolidation is clearly articulated in the revised NBSAP framework. Alignment is therefore moderate in current operational terms and strengthened in structural planning.
Alignment with GBF Target 20 (Capacity-building and technical strengthening)
Degree of alignment: Medium (training present, institutional capacity uneven)
National Action 7 contributes to Target 20 through training and technical development in monitoring and evaluation methodologies. The 2021 draft NBSAP revision references training initiatives aimed at strengthening national monitoring capacity.
The draft NBSAP 2026–2030 introduces a corresponding national target committing to enhanced institutional capacity for biodiversity planning, monitoring, and enforcement. Within this framework, monitoring training, standardized methodologies, and improved coordination functions are recognized as essential capacity-building components.
Validation discussions identified dispersed training records, uneven institutional capacity, and absence of a centralized monitoring coordination function as constraints affecting sustained implementation. While structured capacity tracking and long-term institutional consolidation remain in progress, the revised NBSAP provides a clear pathway toward strengthening institutional durability.
Alignment is therefore present in technical skill development and strategically reinforced through the proposed institutional reforms under the NBSAP revision.
The Bahamas National Trust (BNT), Bahamas Marine Mammal Research Organisation (BMMRO), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Wild Bahamas contribute monitoring data and technical expertise relevant to ecosystem and species monitoring.
- Financial:
Monitoring activities remain partially dependent on project-based funding; limited dedicated budget lines for long-term monitoring programs. - Institutional:
Fragmented monitoring mandates; absence of centralized coordination function for biodiversity monitoring. - Legal:
No formalized national framework mandating standardized biodiversity indicator adoption across institutions. - Technical:
Limited harmonization of methodologies; absence of consolidated national biodiversity indicator framework; inconsistent data integration. - Governance:
Monitoring outputs are not systematically integrated into adaptive management or policy evaluation cycles; coordination mechanisms require strengthening to ensure continuity and comparability over time.