IPBES needs your expertise to review the Monitoring Assessment, which will guide implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
This assessment will be presented at IPBES 13 in 2027 and will inform how nations monitor progress toward 2030 biodiversity targets. Your input directly shapes global policy.

What we’re asking
Review any portion—a full chapter, section, or even specific paragraphs. All contributions matter.
Review period: Now – 7 January 2026 23.59 pm (CET)

Why this matters
This assessment analyzes monitoring requirements for headline indicators under the Global Biodiversity Framework, evaluates emerging technologies (eDNA, AI, remote sensing), addresses data gaps and biases, and integrates Indigenous and local knowledge systems. See below for an overview of the chapters.

How to participate

1. Register for IPBES account
2. Register as reviewer
3. Access draft documents (you’ll receive confidential access via email)
4. Submit comments using the Excel template by 7 January 2026

We would appreciate it if you let us know, when you plan to participate as reviewer. As PBES NL, we will coordinate the review from Dutch experts, to ensure comprehensive coverage of the assessment.
We can help with difficulties you might encounter in the registering and/or review process.
We are organizing an online information session on Monday December 1^st 13.00-14.00 on how IPBES and their reviews work. Register for this webinar.

Chapter overview
Summary for Policymakers (SPM): Presents key messages and policy options for approval by the IPBES Plenary, i.e. all governments involved in IPBES. The SPM ensures alignment between scientific findings and actionable recommendations for decision-makers.

Ch. 1 – Setting the scene: Introduces how the assessment links to the IPBES conceptual framework and addresses monitoring requirements for nature, its contributions to people, and the direct and underlying drivers of change.

Ch. 2 – Assessing the data needs: Assesses requirements for data, indicators, and models, with priority on headline indicators of the monitoring framework and methodological challenges in aggregating national data into global indicators.

Ch. 3 – Assessing the challenges in biodiversity monitoring: Evaluates data currently being generated, collection systems, and data accessibility (findability, interoperability, reusability), including geographic and taxonomic coverage, gaps, and biases.

Ch. 4 – Options for strengthening monitoring capacity: Assesses financial, institutional, human, and infrastructure needs to establish sustained national and subnational monitoring programs, including those led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities in developing countries.

Glossary: Defines standardized terminology essential for biodiversity monitoring (e.g., “observation,” “citizen science,” “habitat”). This is particularly important for the Netherlands, given our advanced development in nature information system standardization—experts in eco-informatics can make valuable contributions here based on practical, hands-on experience.

Need more information before you decide to review? Have a look at the Full scoping report for this assessment.

Important Review guidelines

Critical confidentiality requirement: All draft documents are strictly embargoed. You may not cite, quote, share, or publish findings from these drafts. The assessment is still under scientific review—conclusions may be revised or refuted. This embargo protects the integrity of both the scientific and policy processes leading to IPBES 13.

What to focus on:

• Be specific and detailed. General comments like “this approach isn’t right” are difficult to act on. Instead, pinpoint exactly what needs attention: “Line 15 on page 23 states X, but this conflicts with Y” or “Section 3.2 is missing reference to Z methodology.” See also tab “2. Example” in the Excel file that is provided by IPBES.
• One targeted comment is valuable. You don’t need to review everything—even feedback on a single line can significantly improve the assessment.
• Include literature references. Authors are experts but cannot know everything. Suggest specific citations to strengthen the evidence base, especially for emerging methods, underrepresented regions, or Indigenous and local knowledge systems.
• Review only where you have expertise. Your specialized knowledge in specific taxonomic groups, ecosystems, monitoring methods, or regions is exactly what’s needed.

What to skip:

• Style and spelling. Grammar, punctuation, and formatting will be addressed in later stages. Some sentences may receive dozens of comments—that comma doesn’t matter yet.
• Broad, overarching critiques. While potentially valid, general statements like “this framework has limitations” are hard to operationalize. Save comprehensive analyses for other venues; here, precision drives improvement.

Questions? Contact pbesnl@biodiversity.org or mea-ipbes@un.org (technical issues)