Guidance note on specifications for cross-scale inclusion of harmonised biodiversity monitoring protocols

Guidance note on specifications for cross-scale inclusion of harmonised biodiversity monitoring protocols Significance of Thematic Hubs and common specifications EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP Co-funded by the European Union 2 Grant Agreement number 101052342 Project acronym Biodiversa+ Project full name The European Biodiversity Partnership Biodiversa+ duration 7 years Biodiversa+ start date 1st October 2021 Deliverable title D2.20 Guidance note on specifications for cross-scale inclusion of harmonised biodiversity monitoring protocols: Significance of Thematic Hubs and common specifications Authors Michelle Silva del Pozo (OFB), Gaby Rerig (DFG), Julia Seeber (BOZEN), Senem Onen Tarantini (MUR), Guillaume Body (OFB) Contributors / Reviewers Cécile Mandon (FRB), Petteri Vihervaara (MoE_FI), Helen Kollai (UFZ), Victoria Beaz Hidalgo (EC-REA) Work package title WP2 Promote and support transnational biodiversity monitoring Task or sub-task title Subtask 2.2.1: Harmonise operationalised protocols and inventory methods across regions and countries Lead partner Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB) Date of publication August 2025 Disclaimer Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Picture credits Cover, p45: © Marine Porteneuve P3: Unsplash – Jean Wimmerlin P4, 11, 15: © Paul Rouveyrol P7, 17, 37: © Jorann Grave P8-9, 12-13: © Pierre Thiriet P16, 28, 32-33, 61: © Michelle Silva del Pozo P19: © Rémi Gerber P21: Unsplash - Nils Bouillard P22-23: Unsplash - Madu Dourado P25: Unsplash - Pascal Van de Vendel P27: Unsplash - Benjamin L Jones P38-39: Unsplash - Monika Sojcakova P41: Unsplash - Erik Karits P42-43: Unsplash - Paulius Dragunas P46-47: Unsplash - Kenny Goossen Back cover: Unsplash - Amaya Alvis Citation Silva del Pozo, M., Rerig, G., Seeber, J., Onen Tarantini, S., Body, G. (2025). Guidance note on specifications for cross-scale inclusion of harmonised biodiversity monitoring protocols: Significance of Thematic Hubs and common specifications. Biodiversa + report. Acknowledgements This report draws on the valuable contributions of many individuals and organizations. We are particularly grateful to the experts who dedicated their time and insights through numerous interviews, discussions, and responses to our survey. We extend our sincere thanks to all who participated in the “Expert workshop on the common minimum requirements for a biodiversity monitoring protocol”, held on April 2-3, 2025, in Montpellier, France. Their active participation and feedback were crucial for the development of our findings. Finally, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to our partners from Biodiversa+ and MARCO-BOLO (MARine COastal BiOdiversity Long-term Observations) for their collaborative spirit and unwavering support throughout this project. Layout Thibaut Lochu To contact Biodiversa+ [email protected] Website www.biodiversa.eu Follow us @Biodiversa.eu @BiodiversaPlus 3 What is Biodiversa+ The European Biodiversity Partnership, Biodiversa+, supports excellent research on biodiversity with an impact for policy and society. Connecting science, policy and practice for transformative change, Biodiversa+ is part of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 that aims to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. Co-funded by the European Commission, Biodiversa+ gathers 81 partners from research funding, programming and environmental policy actors in 40 European and associated countries to work on 5 main objectives: 1. Plan and support research and innovation on biodiversity through a shared strategy, annual joint calls for research projects and capacity building activities 2. Set up a network of harmonised schemes to improve monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services across Europe 3. Contribute to high-end knowledge for deploying Nature-based Solutions and valuation of biodiversity in the private sector 4. Ensure efficient science-based support for policy-making and implementation in Europe 5. Strengthen the relevance and impact of pan-European research on biodiversity in a global context More information at: https://www.biodiversa.eu/ 4 List of acronyms ACCOBAMS: Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area ASCOBANS: Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity EBOCC: EU Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre EBV: Essential Biodiversity Variable EIONET: European Environment Information and Observation Network EU: European Union EUNIS: European Nature Information System FAIR: Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability of data FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GBF: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework GBIF: Global Biodiversity Information Facility GEO: Group on Earth Observations GEO BON: Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network HELCOM: Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – also known as the Helsinki Commission ICES: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICG-COBAM: Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring INTERREG: European Territorial Cooperation IPBES: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature LIFE: Financial Instrument for the Environment - EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action MSFD: Marine Strategy Framework Directive NGO: Non-Governmental Organization OBIS: Ocean Biodiversity Information System OSPAR: Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic - also known as the Oslo and Paris Conventions SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound WFD: Water Framework Directive 5 Table of contents Executive Summary 6 1. Introduction 8 1.1 Context and objectives 10 1.2 Scope of the report 10 1.3 Relationship with the Biodiversa+ guide on harmonising biodiversity monitoring protocols across scales 10 2. Mapping and characterisation of monitoring communities 12 2.1 What might be considered a monitoring community? 14 2.1.1 Definition used by Biodiversa+ 14 2.1.2 Key characteristics of monitoring communities 14 2.1.3 Their role in biodiversity data collection and harmonisation 14 2.2 Methodology for mapping monitoring communities 15 2.2.1 Exploring the monitoring landscape 15 2.2.2 Survey of existing monitoring communities 15 2.2.3 Other existing catalogs and mapping efforts 16 2.3 Results: overview of monitoring communities in Europe 17 2.3.1 Characterisation and approximate number of monitoring communities in Europe 17 2.3.2 Structural diversity 19 3. Common minimum requirements for biodiversity monitoring protocols 22 3.1 Methodological basis 24 3.2 Defining minimum requirements 26 3.2.1 Foundations for harmonisation 26 3.2.2 Key elements of a monitoring protocol: harmonisable elements, focus on the Sampling Design 27 3.2.3 Addressing key challenges 30 3.2.4 Remaining issues & open questions 31 4. Conceptual framework for cross-scale harmonisation: Biodiversa+ proposal of Thematic Hubs 32 4.1 Thematic Hubs as guides to collaboration: what are they? 34 4.2 Proposed integration strategies for harmonised monitoring protocols 36 5. Conclusions and recommendations 38 5.1 Thematic Hubs and recommendations for future work and practice 40 5.2 Strengthening collaboration within and across communities 40 5.3 Next steps 41 References 42 Annexes 46 ANNEX 1. Survey on the monitoring communities 48 ANNEX 2. List of the monitoring communities & identified networks 49 ANNEX 3. Expert workshop on the common minimum requirements for a biodiversity monitoring protocol: detail of the collective intelligence activities and results 56 6 Executive Summary The European Biodiversity Partnership, Biodiversa+, continues its guiding efforts in harmonising existing biodiversity monitoring protocols and integrating biodiversity information across scales. This report builds directly on previous guidance, advancing discussions on strategies for effective harmonisation by providing practical insights for stakeholders aiming to align monitoring efforts across diverse territories and scales. This document first maps and characterizes the existing landscape of biodiversity monitoring communities across Europe. We define these communities as thematic expert networks, comprising a diverse collective of stakeholders dedicated to specific biodiversity domains (e.g., pollinators, marine mammals, soil biodiversity) operating transnationally across at least two European countries. Our findings confirm that these communities, despite varying degrees of coordination, represent a solid and dynamic base of expertise, actively engaged in operational monitoring and vital for driving harmonisation. Complementing this, the report defines common minimum requirements for biodiversity monitoring protocols. This crucial element identifies which aspects of monitoring protocols are most critical to harmonise – such as monitoring objectives, core variables measured, terminal sampling units, and reporting formats – advocating for a strategic alignment of key elements rather than rigid standardisation. This approach ensures methodological consistency necessary for comparability and statistical robustness, while still allowing the flexibility required to accommodate diverse national and local contexts. While defining these minimum requirements is fundamental, their effective and consistent application across various scales necessitates a robust conceptual framework that can facilitate coordinated action and integration. Recognising that achieving cross-scale harmonisation demands more than aligning isolated protocols, our work identifies the need for a common foundation that allows diverse monitoring efforts to interoperate meaningfully. Our conclusion is that to effectively leverage the existing expertise within monitoring communities and ensure the coherent application of minimum requirements, Biodiversa+ proposes the development of Thematic Hubs (see chapter 5). These hubs are envisioned as expert-driven, cross-scale platforms that serve as guides to collaboration, supporting structured dialogue, the alignment of protocols, and technical exchange within and between monitoring communities. They form a critical component of a coordinated yet distributed architecture, connecting national, regional, and European efforts, aligning with the mandate of National Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centres, and to the overarching coordination led by the European Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (EBOCC). Ultimately, this proposed framework strives to align diverse stakeholders’ interests and establish a robust network that facilitates collaboration, data sharing, and enhances the quality, comparability, and utility of biodiversity monitoring data across all scales, significantly strengthening Europe’s capacity for effective conservation. 7 8 1 Introduction 9 16 Challenges and possible biases While the survey provided valuable initial insights, several methodological limitations and challenges were identified: }Reception and response Bias: As participation was voluntary, there may be an overrepresentation of wellestablished or English-speaking communities with stronger links to European projects or networks. }Language Constraints: The survey was available only in English, potentially limiting participation from nonEnglish-speaking regions or stakeholders. 1. EuropaBON Monitoring database : https://monitoring.europabon.org/monitoring/ }Disciplinary and Geographic Gaps: Despite dissemination efforts, we likely did not reach all relevant biodiversity monitoring communities across Europe— particularly those in underrepresented disciplines (e.g., microbiota, urban biodiversity) or in countries with less involvement in EU-funded biodiversity research. These limitations suggest that the survey results represent only a partial snapshot of the European biodiversity monitoring landscape. Continued efforts are needed to expand outreach and build a more complete picture of existing communities. 2.2.3 Other existing catalogs and mapping efforts In addition to the primary survey, the mapping process leveraged other relevant databases and literature sources: }EuropaBON’s Inventory of Monitoring Initiatives1 (Morán-Ordóñez et al., 2023) : This resource was used to cross-reference known communities and identify institutional-level monitoring schemes across Europe. }Scientific Literature and Grey Literature Review: A targeted review of published and grey literature helped uncover information on community structure, data flows, and transnational collaborations not captured through survey responses. These complementary sources helped to validate the survey results, fill in thematic gaps, and ensure a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity monitoring communities and their current or potential contributions to harmonisation efforts. 17 2.3 Results: overview of monitoring communities in Europe 2. IUCN global ecosystem typology 2.0 : https://iucn.org/resources/publication/iucn-global-ecosystem-typology-20 2.3.1 Characterisation and approximate number of monitoring communities in Europe An initial mapping identified approximately 60 established biodiversity monitoring communities operating at a European or broader scale (Fig.1 & Fig.2). This number is likely an underestimate, as the mapping is based on publicly available and easily accessible information. The list should therefore be viewed as indicative rather than comprehensive. If you're aware of other communities not on this list, or if you're part of one and don't see it identified, please feel free to contact us; your input would greatly help us expand and refine this mapping. For many biodiversity topics, multiple communities or networks exist (see Annex 2 for the full list). These often emerge due to regional distinctions or differing policy and historical contexts. For example, within the marine mammal community, networks such as ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas) and ACCOBAMS (Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area) operate in parallel, each with a specific regional focus, but with some level of coordination or mutual awareness. This mapping focused primarily on communities with a European scope—defined as operating transnationally across at least two European countries. Some groups also function at the global level; in such cases, we included them only when their influence and collaboration were clearly relevant to the European biodiversity monitoring landscape. To facilitate a clearer understanding of existing efforts and support future strategies for coordination and harmonisation, we characterised monitoring communities using the following typologies: Monitoring communities can be first classified by the ecological realm they focus on: }Terrestrial: e.g., insects, forests, birds. }Freshwater: e.g., aquatic macroinvertebrates, freshwater fish, ponds. }Marine: e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, benthic habitats. Within each realm, communities can be further distinguished by thematic scope or focal taxa (e.g., soil biodiversity, large carnivores, pollinators, or seabirds). Some themes naturally span multiple realms (e.g., shore birds, amphibians and reptiles which may use both terrestrial and marine or terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Same goes for interface habitats, such as mangroves or peatlands), and communities may need to be flexibly categorized to reflect this trans-realm nature, such as done in the IUCN2 (Keith et al., 2020). 18 E E s s t t a a b b l l i i s s h h e e d d m m o o n n i i t t o o r r i i n n g g c c o o m m m m u u n n i i t t i i e e s s T T A A X X A A H H A A B B I I T T A A T T S S R R E E G G I I O O N N S S F F R R E E S S H H W W A A T T E E R R ( ( F F W W ) ) •FW Fish •FW Macroinvertebrates •Salmon •Sturgeon •FW ecosystems •Lakes •Danube River •Rhine River M M A A R R I I N N E E •Cephalopods •Coastal/rocky fish •Elasmobranch •Fish •Jellyfish •Macroalgae •Marine mammals •Phytoplankton •Posidonia •Sea Turtles •Seabirds •Zooplankton •Benthic habitats •Coral reef •Pelagic habitats •Seagrass •Baltic sea •Black sea •Mediterranean sea •North Atlantic T T E E R R R R E E S S T T R R I I A A L L •Bat •Bird •Butterfly •Fungi •Ibex •Large Carnivores •Lynx •Mammals •Pollinators •Raptors •Stag Beetle •Alpine ecosystems •Dunes •Forest •Grassland •Soil •Alps •Carpathians •Pyrenees I I N N T T E E R R F F A A C C E E •Amphibians & reptiles •Invasive Alien Species •Waders (shorebirds) •Waterbirds •Lagoons •Mangroves •Peatlands •Ponds •Wetlands •Arctic •Central and Eastern Europe O O T T H H E E R R , , U U N N C C E E R R T T A A I I N N •DNA/Genomics •Microorganisms Figure 1: List of the identified established biodiversity monitoring communities, classified by realm (terrestrial, marine, freshwater, interface) and focus (taxa, habitat, region) 0 10 20 30 40 Taxa Habitats Regions Other Freshwater Marine Terrestrial Interface Other Figure 2: Estimated number and proportion of biodiversity monitoring communities by realm (terrestrial, marine, freshwater, interface) and focus (taxa, habitat, region) 19 2.3.2 Structural diversity Level of definition of the theme The clarity and consistency with which a monitoring community defines its scope is an important criteria for efficient engagement. This can be assessed at three levels: »Well-defined: The community has a clearly articulated and commonly understood scope (e.g., “marine turtles” defined by a shared list of species and methods and protocols used for monitoring them). »Moderately defined: The scope is somewhat clear, but boundaries may vary between countries or institutions (e.g., “small mammals” may include different species depending on context). »Poorly defined or broad: The thematic focus is vague, or overlapping with several other communities (e.g., “biodiversity in forests” without specifying taxa or functions). Maturity and organisation of the community Communities also differ in their degree of maturity and organisation which induces visibility and institutionalisation. This can be expressed through the following categories: »Key actor status: The community is recognised nationally or internationally as a reference or leader for its monitoring theme (e.g., informing indicators, feeding into international assessments). »Structured and coordinated: The community has an established identity, leadership, communication channels, and regular collaborative activities (e.g., working groups, conferences). »Emerging or informal: A loosely connected group with thematic overlaps but limited coordination or shared infrastructure. 20 Structure and governance Biodiversity monitoring communities in Europe are highly diverse in structure and governance (Fig.3). Based on our mapping, they can be grouped into the following broad categories: 1. Expert Groups These are often convened by European or international institutions (e.g. OSPAR, HELCOM, ICES) to provide scientific advice, develop indicators, coordinate assessments, or guide data collection protocols. Expert groups are typically composed of specialists nominated by national authorities, research institutes, or observer organisations. Their outputs are often directly integrated into policy processes, such as the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) or the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2. NGOs and volunteer-based networks Numerous monitoring efforts are led or supported by NGOs and citizen science communities. These networks often have wide geographic reach and long-term data series. Examples include the European Bird Census Council (EBCC), Butterfly Conservation Europe (BCE), and the European Mycological Association. Their work complements institutional monitoring by filling gaps in spatial coverage and taxonomic scope and often contributes to European-level indicators (e.g. through EIONET or Eurostat). 3. Institutional partnerships These include formal collaborations between research institutions, environmental agencies, and national ministries. Many are supported through EU funding instruments (e.g. LIFE, Horizon Europe, INTERREG) and contribute to shared methodologies and databases. 4. Intergovernmental and agreement-based networks Some monitoring communities operate under formal international agreements or conventions. For example: »PoMS (Pollinator Monitoring Scheme) – initiative that is informing EU-level design of pollinator monitoring strategies. »General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean – a FAO body coordinating fishery-related monitoring in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. »ASCOBANS / ACCOBAMS – regional agreements focused on cetacean conservation and monitoring. »Bern Convention Expert Groups – which also oversee monitoring efforts for specific species groups. These communities often hold an official or advisory role in supporting Member States’ reporting obligations and the implementation of regional or global biodiversity targets. Expert groups 38,0% NGOs 27,3% Intergovernmental 12,4% Institutional part… 22,3% Figure 3: Proportion of types of governance (experts groups, NGOs, institutional partnerships, Intergovernmental and agreement-based networks) of the identified biodiversity monitoring communities 21 Not all thematic communities operate in the same way or with the same influence. We can distinguish two main types: 1. Institutionalized networks or working groups with Strong EU Mandates These include, for example, European Commission working groups or task forces established under EU directives or frameworks. They are: »Highly formalized and politically recognized; »Often carry obligatory guidance or strong normative influence on national implementation; »Considered authoritative reference bodies across EU Member States. 2. Communities from Regional Agreements or Scientific Networks These are expert groups or platforms operating under regional conventions, international partnerships, or scientific communities. Their characteristics include: »Varied visibility and capacity across countries; »Voluntary engagement and non-binding recommendations; »Sometimes not recognized as key actors by all national authorities, but still valuable for scientific credibility, innovation, and filling thematic gaps. These criteria help prioritise which communities might be immediately ready to engage in harmonisation efforts, and which may need additional support to build coordination capacities. While harmonisation is most effective at the scale of individual communities, an important question remains: can we identify common elements across diverse monitoring protocols that could be harmonised regardless of the specific community? This leads us to define the common minimum requirements for biodiversity monitoring—essential foundational elements that can provide a shared baseline for all initiatives. 22 3 Common minimum requirements for biodiversity monitoring protocols 23 24 3.1 Methodological basis Defining common minimum requirements is a central step toward achieving harmonisation of biodiversity monitoring across spatial and governance scales. These requirements are not intended to enforce full standardisation but rather to establish a shared baseline, ensuring that data collected by different monitoring initiatives are comparable, interoperable, and of sufficient quality to contribute to larger-scale analyses. The following core components, identified across key references (Oakley et al., 2003; JNCC, 2004; Elzinga et al., 1998), are widely recognised as essential elements for establishing common minimum requirements in biodiversity monitoring protocols: Box 1 – Items of a monitoring protocol • Objective of the monitoring protocol: `Object: define the biological entity or ecological process to be monitored; e.gsingle specimen, habitat or process. `Scale: determine the spatial dimensions, geographic scope, and scale of the monitoring program. `Variables: identify specific attributes and/or metrics measured. • Sampling design strategy: `Sampling units: define the basic observational units (e.g., specific points, surface areas, individuals, grid elements, plot sizes, transect lengths, …). `Sampling strategy (e.g. random, systematic, stratified, combined). `Sampling frequency and replication (Intervals, e.g. annually, after storm events,, number of individual samples per site,). `Sample size (Overall data yield, defines the total anticipated volume of collected data across the entire project) • Field protocol: `Method (e.g., transect surveys, point counts, capture-mark-recapture, …). `Techniques (e.g., visual observation, remote sensing, acoustic monitoring, trapping). `Calendar: timing and scheduling of data collection activities, time during the season, …. `Equipment/Tools (e.g., cameras, nets, binoculars, …). Transport and storage of samples. • Analysis protocol `Methods for analysing collected data, defining appropriate including statistical techniques and modeling approaches. to address the research questions. `Data workflow `Sharing of raw data, aggregating data. • Data storage and management `Develop a good data management plan (DMP) that thoroughly describes how the data are going to be handled, from the sampling to the analysis, storage and publication. `Systems for organising, storing, and securing collected data. `Standardised formats for data entry and metadata documentation. `Platforms for public access and data sharing (e.g., national databases). While various initiatives and networks (e.g., GEO BON, EuropaBON, EU Nature Directives reporting) have provided guidance or frameworks on biodiversity monitoring, very few studies or tools offer practical, operationalised definitions of common minimum requirements that can be implemented across diverse contexts. 25 Expert Workshop: objectives and structure To address this gap and advance the definition of common minimum requirements, Biodiversa+ organised an expert workshop focused specifically on identifying which elements of biodiversity monitoring protocols are most critical to harmonise, and how to define flexible yet robust minimum requirements. The workshop (April 2-3, 2025) brought together around 30 experts—including representatives from various monitoring communities, statisticians, and coordinators of Biodiversa+ pilot projects—to collaboratively explore and define minimum requirements for biodiversity monitoring protocols. A particular emphasis was placed on sampling design and statistical integration, as these are key to enhancing the interoperability of biodiversity data. The workshop was structured using collective intelligence methods to stimulate creative thinking, knowledge exchange, and consensus-building. Full details of the workshop structure, exercises, and results are available in Annex 3. Why focus on sampling design? The workshop deliberately focused on sampling design, a foundational component of any biodiversity monitoring protocol. Several reasons justified this choice: 1. Sampling design governs data comparability: Differences in spatial scale, sampling effort, frequency, or replication can significantly affect the interpretability and integration of monitoring results. 2. It is relatively independent of taxonomic groups (unlike the field protocols): While species identification or indicators may differ, many principles of good sampling design (e.g., stratification, randomisation, temporal consistency) are applicable across taxa and habitats. 3. It is often overlooked in harmonisation efforts: While there is a tendency to focus on indicator selection or taxonomic standards, sampling design is less visible but just as crucial for ensuring data robustness and interoperability. 4. It enables flexibility: By setting minimum requirements for design—rather than prescribing one protocol— we allow different communities and countries to adapt their methods while maintaining a harmonised backbone. By focusing on sampling design, we aimed to define a practical and cross-cutting entry point for operationalising harmonisation. 32 4 Conceptual framework for cross-scale harmonisation: Biodiversa+ proposal of Thematic Hubs 33 34 Achieving cross-scale harmonisation of biodiversity monitoring requires more than aligning isolated protocols; it calls for a common foundation that allows diverse monitoring efforts to interoperate meaningfully across scales. This includes establishing a shared understanding of minimum requirements, and fostering inter-community expertise to guide technical alignment without losing the relevance of place-based approaches. While the relevant unit for harmonisation is often the monitoring community itself, these communities currently operate with varying degrees of coordination, scope, and methodological maturity. Still, they represent a solid and dynamic base of expertise already active across Europe. To build on this existing landscape, we propose the development of Thematic Hubs. These hubs serve as cross-scale platforms that support structured dialogue, alignment of protocols, and technical exchange within and between monitoring communities. In this Biodiversa+ proposal of Thematic Hubs, we are building on EuropaBON proposal for an EU Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (Liquete et al., 2024), which introduces Thematic Hubs as established communities of experts, that serve as the backbone of EBOCC's technical and operational framework, focusing on specific biodiversity variables and drawing members from competent national and international institutions, scientific experts, and large-scale monitoring schemes. To enable cross-scale harmonisation of biodiversity monitoring, a coordinated yet distributed architecture is essential, one that connects national, regional, and European efforts while respecting thematic and ecological specificities. This architecture should also align with the mandate of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centres (Fig.4). Within this landscape, Thematic Hubs play a key role as technical and collaborative stepping stones, guiding both harmonisation and integration processes. • Mandate • Recognition • Funding • Transnational expert network • Harmonised practices • Harmonisation advice • New techniques • Common standards • Results • Feedback • Request for advice/needs Thematic Hubs EBOCC EU Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre Thematic Hub Transnational network of experts Scientific technical expertise Best practice exchange National biodiversity monitoring schemes National Centre National Centre National Centre National Centre National Centre Figure 4 Thematic Hubs in the transnational governance for biodiversity monitoring. 4.1 Thematic Hubs as guides to collaboration: what are they? Thematic Hubs are expert-driven communities centered around specific biodiversity domains—such as pollinators, soil biodiversity, or marine mammals. They operate as platforms for coordination and knowledge exchange, where experts converge to: }Define monitoring objectives for their thematic focus; }Develop and align standards on protocols and tools; }Produce at European scale trends and biodiversity information and align them across scales; }Share best practices and lessons learned; }Facilitate data harmonisation and integration within and beyond their thematic area; }Serve as entry points to the wider biodiversity observation system, especially for stakeholders less connected to European coordination bodies. These communities form the technical backbone for thematic monitoring and contribute to the overarching coordination led by the European Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (EBOCC). 35 Example of existing Thematic Hubs The OSPAR biodiversity expert groups serve as an excellent illustration of how Thematic Hubs can function effectively in practice. Box 2 – OSPAR Biodiversity Expert Groups OSPAR biodiversity expert groups bring together specialists from Contracting Parties and observer organisations to share knowledge, develop indicators, and coordinate biodiversity monitoring across the North-East Atlantic. These groups include experts from government agencies, academia, and NGOs, offering a mix of applied and scientific perspectives that help produce outputs relevant to regional conservation policy. Most of the current groups have been active since the 2011 OSPAR workshop on MSFD biodiversity descriptors. Their work is coordinated by ICG-COBAM (Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring), which helps align approaches, facilitate discussions and support collaboration. Although expert groups are informal (not governed by specific rules under OSPAR’s Rules of Procedure), they are expected to operate consistently with other OSPAR subsidiary bodies and follow the Commission's code of conduct. A guidance document also outlines their roles and ways of working. Contracting Parties are requested to: (i) support an active national engagement in the relevant expert groups and ICG-COBAM through ensuring dedicated expert time to contribute to work and providing resources to attend workshops and meetings and carry out related work, which as a guide would equate to a minimum of 2 weeks per expert per year; ii) support experts’ work to develop monitoring and assessment methods that are to the benefit of all parties, and; iii) facilitate the required data flows for indicator development and assessments. What expert groups do: • Develop indicators and integrated assessment methods • Support preparation of robust, regionally relevant assessments • Define data needs in line with OSPAR’s data management standards (OSPAR Agreement 2024-03) • Contribute to wider OSPAR work, such as Regional Action Plans How they work: • Experts are nominated by Contracting Parties or observers and are encouraged to contribute actively to all group tasks • Each group has a lead (or leads), who facilitates discussions and ensures the group stays aligned with its objectives • Contracting Parties collectively ensure that one or more experts have the resources to lead each expert group. • Workload should be shared among all members, with Contracting Parties supporting their experts accordingly • Group leadership is rotated to balance effort and promote equitable geographical and gender representation • Meetings are usually online, with in-person meetings held annually when possible Current Expert Groups: • Marine mammals • Benthic habitats • Pelagic habitats • Fish • Marine birds • Sea Turtles • Non-Indigenous Species Reference: OSPAR Commission. (2024). Guidance on responsibilities and ways of working in the biodiversity expert groups (BDC 24/12/01, Annex 15; OSPAR Agreement 2024-08). https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=58065 Having explored the foundational concept of Thematic Hubs as expert-driven communities, the next step is to outline how these hubs can be strategically integrated into a broader framework for harmonised monitoring protocols. The success of such an integration hinges on leveraging existing, well-established biodiversity monitoring communities, as our preliminary mapping efforts have clearly shown. To fully empower these hubs, it's essential that they receive an official mandate, ensuring strong links to the EBOCC and national biodiversity monitoring coordination centers. This comprehensive integration strategy, focusing on inter-community coherence within EBOCC, will be vital for ensuring data comparability and consistency, such as through the application of common minimum requirements across all thematic areas. 36 4.2 Proposed integration strategies for harmonised monitoring protocols Integration strategies must balance top-down coordination with bottom-up engagement, leveraging the strengths of Thematic Hubs, national coordination bodies, and European institutions. Encouraging EU-wide dialogue on harmonisation A key priority is to promote regular discussions on harmonisation and integration within the broader European biodiversity monitoring landscape. These discussions should be encouraged both within and across thematic communities to ensure alignment with overarching EU biodiversity goals and policy instruments. Open, inclusive dialogue will support a shared understanding of priorities, gaps, and opportunities for convergence. Facilitating interoperability and dialogue Interoperability, both technical and institutional, relies on coordinated efforts to standardize and integrate monitoring practices. This requires: }A common language for describing objectives, variables, scales, and methods; }Shared tools and data infrastructures; }Alignment between policy needs and monitoring objectives; }Sustained dialogue between practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers. Thematic Hubs play a central role in facilitating this dialogue, acting as bridges between domain-specific expertise and wider coordination mechanisms. Common minimum requirements as a harmonisation strategy One effective strategy for cross-scale harmonisation is to define common minimum requirements for monitoring protocols. Such minimum requirements ensure baseline comparability, while still allowing for national and regional flexibility. They provide a foundation upon which more complex or tailored protocols can be built, enabling interoperability without imposing uniformity. Establishing baseline monitoring protocols Baseline protocols are essential for producing coherent long-term data. These protocols should: }Be developed in collaboration with Thematic Hubs and national experts; }Be adaptable to local ecological and logistical contexts; }Define the minimum data required to establish a reliable monitoring baseline. In the long term, Thematic Hubs are envisioned to act as strategic partners to the European Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre, to embed technical coherence and cross-thematic consistency into the wider European biodiversity monitoring system. Their collaborative function supports: }Facilitating collaboration across countries and sectors; }Developing and sharing methodological standards, tools, and protocols; }Defining monitoring priorities and targets for their respective topics; }Ensuring data harmonisation and integration within and beyond their focal areas; }Serving as entry points for broader biodiversity observation networks. 37 Linking Thematic Hubs with coordination structures The integration of monitoring efforts requires a strong connection between Thematic Hubs, the EBOCC, and national coordination centers (e.g., National Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centres). }Many national centers host experts who are directly involved in Thematic Hubs, enabling knowledge transfer and alignment. }National centers are expected to work closely with the EBOCC, ensuring that harmonisation parameters— agreed at the EU level with the support of Thematic Hubs—are effectively transferred and implemented nationally. }National Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centres should play a strategic role in enforcing harmonisation, with the authority to advise and support the uptake of harmonised protocols. }It is anticipated that National Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centres will include representatives from major Thematic Hubs, reinforcing feedback loops between national and thematic coordination levels. Enabling structures: community facilitation and resources To support and sustain this integration process, there is a strong need for: }An official mandate: It's vital that Thematic Hubs receive formal recognition from the European Commission and participating countries. This mandate legitimises their role, empowers their actions, and ensures their outputs are integrated into the broader European biodiversity monitoring landscape; }A facilitator or community manager role: someone tasked with connecting actors across hubs, national centers, and EU coordination bodies; }Budgets to support in-person collaboration; }Dedicated resources to support: »Protocol harmonisation, grounded in both generic principles and real-world constraints; »Capacity building and quality assurance; »European-level synthesis and analysis of monitoring data. Towards cross-sector integration Finally, harmonised monitoring should not be seen in isolation. Integration strategies of monitoring and assessment should also explore synergies with adjacent domains, including conservation planning and restoration efforts, ecological research and innovation, Nature Based Solutions, societal transformation. By connecting monitoring communities with these related sectors, it becomes possible to create a more cohesive and impactful biodiversity knowledge system—one that supports evidence-based action and link monitoring with action across Europe’s socio-ecological landscape. 38 5 Conclusions and recommendations 39 40 Effective and comparable biodiversity monitoring is paramount for understanding environmental change, informing policy, and guiding conservation action across Europe and beyond. This report has underscored that achieving meaningful harmonisation in biodiversity monitoring protocols is not merely a technical exercise but a collaborative endeavor. It requires a robust framework that balances essential standardisation with necessary flexibility, fostering trust and transparency among diverse stakeholders. The proposed Thematic Hubs are central to this vision, offering a decentralised yet coordinated approach to address the complexities of biodiversity observation. 5.1 Thematic Hubs and recommendations for future work and practice Expert-driven communities are vital for defining clear monitoring objectives, developing and aligning harmonised standards, producing crucial biodiversity information at a European scale, and facilitating data integration. Thematic Hubs serve as critical entry points for stakeholders, ensuring broader engagement within the biodiversity observation system. For these hubs to reach their full potential, we recommend: }Formal Mandate and Integration: Officially establish Thematic Hubs with a clear mandate, linking them explicitly to the EBOCC and relevant national coordination bodies. This formalization will provide the necessary authority and connectivity for effective operation. }Dedicated Resources: Ensure consistent and sufficient funding, expert time, and logistical support for each hub. Active national engagement, including dedicated expert time, is non-negotiable for success. }Clear Operating Guidelines: Develop comprehensive, yet flexible, guidelines for their roles, responsibilities, and ways of working, building on successful models. 5.2 Strengthening collaboration within and across communities True harmonisation transcends technical specifications; it thrives on strong collaboration. The success of biodiversity monitoring depends on leveraging the existing wealth of expertise and dedication within national and regional communities. Key recommendations for strengthening collaboration include: }Inter-Community Coherence within EBOCC: EBOCC should actively facilitate dialogue and coordination among different Thematic Hubs and broader biodiversity communities. This includes ensuring data coherence and consistent application of common minimum requirements across diverse thematic areas. While our focus here is on a European scale, some of these Thematic Hubs already have a wider or global reach. Therefore, Thematic Hubs’ role could extend to exploring potential alignments and future integration pathways for these European hubs with global monitoring networks, such as GEO BON, allowing some to evolve into global focal points for specific biodiversity domains. }Thematic Hubs as Knowledge Exchange Platforms: Establish robust platforms for regular knowledge exchange, best practice sharing, and lessons learned between experts from various communities and thematic areas. }Shared Principles: Continue to anchor all collaborative efforts in shared principles of transparency, openness, and trust, fostering an environment where data and methodologies can be freely exchanged and critiqued. }Protocol harmonisation: The detailed work of protocol harmonisation will be carried out by technical expert groups operating within or alongside the Thematic Hubs. These groups are essential for translating broad principles into actionable monitoring protocols. Ensure that technical expert groups comprise a diverse range of disciplines, including ecologists, statisticians, data managers, and policy experts, to ensure holistic and practical solutions. 41 5.3 Next steps To move these recommendations from concept to practice, the following next steps are proposed: 1. Resource Mobilisation: Secure dedicated financial and human resources required for the sustained operation and coordination of Thematic Hubs and supporting technical expert groups. 2. Mandate Finalisation: Work with relevant European and national bodies to formalize the mandate and governance structures for Thematic Hubs, ensuring their official recognition and integration into existing biodiversity observation networks. 3. Community Engagement Roadmap: Develop a comprehensive roadmap for engaging existing biodiversity monitoring communities, ensuring their active participation in the development and implementation of harmonised protocols. This conceptual framework will be further operationalized and tested in the coming years within Biodiversa+'s ongoing work. This includes launching biodiversity monitoring pilots, which will serve as concrete testing grounds for harmonized schemes and the functionality of Thematic Hubs. We'll also work closely with the future EBOCC pilot to test and formulate the links between EBOCC and national centers. Efforts will focus on developing generic support packages for these hubs, exploring long-term sustainable funding models for monitoring schemes, and creating essential resources like mandates, protocol standards, reporting templates, EBV integration guidelines, and training materials for implementing various elements. Case study communities from this preliminary mapping will be selected with input from other European projects, with the final choice based on a strategic analysis of different scenarios. Crucially, Biodiversa+ will organize Biodiversity Monitoring Weeks—a European conference on biodiversity monitoring for discussion and shared practice—starting in spring 2026 and held every two years. These weeks will provide vital platforms for Thematic Hubs to convene, collaborate, and drive harmonisation forward. By collectively investing in the establishment and effective functioning of Thematic Hubs, and by fostering a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility, we can significantly enhance the quality, comparability, and utility of biodiversity monitoring data across Europe, ultimately strengthening our capacity for effective conservation. 48 ANNEX 1. Survey on the monitoring communities Mapping Biodiversity Monitoring Communities As part of its broader goal of establishing a transnational network of national biodiversity monitoring schemes, Biodiversa+ identified biodiversity monitoring communities as a key level for transnational collaboration and harmonisation. A biodiversity monitoring community is defined as a group of individuals, organizations, and institutions involved in the monitoring of specific taxa or habitats (e.g birds, soil biodiversity, bats, freshwater ecosystems, etc.), often contributing to broader conservation initiatives. This survey is a first step to identify and reach out to these communities. Are you involved in - or do you know of any biodiversity monitoring communities? Your input is invaluable in helping us identify collaborative groups dedicated to monitoring biodiversity, specifically focusing on European-level coordination networks within these communities. Thank you for taking the time to participate in our survey! About Biodiversa+: https://www.biodiversa.eu/ biodiversity-monitoring/ A biodiversity monitoring community you know of: [short answer] Name of a European-level coordination group associated with the biodiversity monitoring community mentioned above (If you are not aware of any, please indicate) [short answer] A contact person for this community and/or group? [short answer] If you are involved in this community, how do you use biodiversity monitoring data and results? (please provide examples) [free text] [A section “+” to add another set of answers → if possible on google forms?] The survey data contains 91 responses with a total of 8 questions. Here's a breakdown of the statistics: 1. General Information: }Total Responses: 91 }Fully Blank or NA: 3 Number of forms with a second set of answers (optional to fill in, page 2, questions 5-8): 27 2. Responses per Question: }A biodiversity monitoring community you know of: »3 blank »1 “no” »From the 87 answers: }Name of a European-level coordination group associated with the biodiversity monitoring community: »10 blank »2 “no” »8 “not aware of any” »2 “no cooperation/coordination” »From the 68 answers: > 11 times BirdLife international / BirdLife Europe / PECBMS / EBCC > 9 times Butterfly Conservation Europe / BMS > 4 times iBOL A contact person for this coordination group?: 23 responses }12 blank }5 “no” }From the 74 answers, in total: »2 “myself”, but contact not given & anonymous survey… »10 link to the website contact page / generic address / “any coordinator” »4 times David Roy: Butterfly monitoring community, BMS »2 times Gabriela Dankova: iBOL »2 times Josiane Lips: Bats (Cosci member and Biospeleology referent - [email protected]) »16 contacts for Bird community »3 for Pollinators »9 for Butterfly »2 for beetles »3 for Soil »1 for fungi »1 for Invasive Alien species »1 49 ANNEX 2. List of the monitoring communities & identified networks Theme Type Realm State of the community ID Europe ID Global Type of networks Marine taxa Sea Turtles Taxa Marine Structured OSPAR STEG: Sea Turtle Experts Group WG / expert groups SWOT: State of the World's Sea Turtles NGO, volunteers network IUCN MTSG: Marine Turtle Specialist Group WG / expert groups Seabirds Taxa Marine Structured JWGBIRD: Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Expert Group on Seabirds WG / expert groups BirdLife International NGO, volunteers network Marine mammals Taxa Marine Structured IWC: International Whaling Commission Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention HELCOM EG MaMa: Expert Group on Marine Mammals WG / expert groups OSPAR OMMEG: Marine Mammal Expert Group WG / expert groups ASCOBANS: Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention ACCOBAMS: Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention ICES WGMME: Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WG / expert groups Phytoplankton Taxa Marine Structured HELCOM PEG: Phytoplankton Expert Group WG / expert groups Zooplankton Taxa Marine Structured HELCOM EG Zoo: Expert Group on Zooplankton WG / expert groups ICES WGZE: Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology WG / expert groups Elasmobranchs [sharks, rays and skates] Taxa Marine Structured Manta Trust’s network NGO, volunteers network IUCN Shark Specialist Group WG / expert groups MEDLEM: Mediterranean Large Elasmobranchs Monitoring institutions partnership EAA: European Elasmobranch Association NGO, volunteers network MECO project: Mediterranean Elasmobranch Citizen Observation NGO, volunteers network Posidonia Taxa Marine Structured The Mediterranean Posidonia Network institutions partnership Cephalopods Taxa Marine Structured ICES WGCEPH: Working Group on Cephalopod Fisheries and Life History WG / expert groups 50 Jellyfish Taxa Marine Unstructured CIESM JellyWatch Program institutions partnership Coastal fish / rocky fish Taxa Marine Unstructured HELCOM WG BioDiv Expert Group on Coastal Fish WG / expert groups Fish /fisheries Taxa Marine Unstructured Control Expert Groups (CEGs) of the regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP):Scheveningen (North Sea); BALTFISH (Baltic Sea); North-western waters; South-western waters WG / expert groups Correspondence Group on Monitoring (CORMON) Biodiversity and Fisheries WG / expert groups Macroalgae Taxa Marine Unstructured HAB consortium: Harmful Algal Bloom from the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO WG / expert groups Marine Habitat Seagrass Habitat Marine Structured IUCN SSC Seagrass Species Specialist Group WG / expert groups C-GRASS: Coordinated Global Research Assessment of Seagrass System WG / expert groups UN International Seagrass Expert Network institutions partnership SeagrassNet: Seagrass Monitoring Network institutions partnership Seagrass-Watch Global Seagrass Observing Network NGO, volunteers network Coral reef Habitat Marine Structured GCRMN: The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network institutions partnership Reef check NGO, volunteers network Reef Life Survey NGO, volunteers network Benthic Habitat Marine Structured HELCOM EG Benthic: Expert Group on Benthic Habitats and Biotopes WG / expert groups OSPAR OBHEG: Benthic Habitat Expert Group WG / expert groups ICES BEWG: Benthos Ecology Working Group WG / expert groups Pelagic habitats Habitat Marine Unstructured OSPAR Pelagic Habitats Expert Group WG / expert groups Terrestrial taxa Bird Taxa Terrestrial Structured BirdLife Europe BirdLife International NGO, volunteers network EBCC: European Bird Census Council NGO, volunteers network Pollinators Taxa Terrestrial Structured EUPoMS Pollinator Monitoring Scheme WG / expert groups European Habitats Forum (EHF) WG Pollinators WG / expert groups Butterfly Taxa Terrestrial Structured eBMS - Butterfly Conservation Europe (BCE) institutions partnership Stag Beetle Taxa Terrestrial Structured ESBMN: European Stag Beetle Monitoring Network NGO, volunteers network 51 Lynx Taxa Terrestrial Structured Linking Lynx network WG / expert groups SCALP project - KORA Carnivore Ecology and Wildlife Management institutions partnership Ibex Taxa Terrestrial Structured GSE-AIESG: Alpine Ibex European Specialist Group WG / expert groups EUROIBEX (from EUROMAMMALS) institutions partnership Bat Taxa Terrestrial Structured EUROBATS Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention BatLife Europe NGO, volunteers network IUCN SSC Bat Specialist Group WG / expert groups Mammals Taxa Terrestrial Medium IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Specialist Groups and Working Groups (Bear, Bison, Canid, Caprinae, Cat, Cetacean, Chiroptera, Deer, Lagomorph, Otter, Pinniped, Polar Bear, Primate, Small carnivore, Large carnivore) WG / expert groups EUROMAMMALS network: (EURODEER, EUREDDEER, EUROBOAR, EUROLYNX, EUROWILDCAT, EUROIBEX, EUROJACKAL, EURORACCOON, EUROSMALLAMMALS) institutions partnership MCE: Mammal Conservation Europe NGO, volunteers network MammalNet institutions partnership European Mammal Foundation: European Mammals on Maps WG / expert groups Raptors Taxa Terrestrial Unstructured GRIN: Global Raptor Impact Network - The Peregrine Fund NGO, volunteers network Large Carnivores Taxa Terrestrial Structured IUCN SSC Wolf, Bear and Cat Specialist Groups WG / expert groups LCIE: Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe IUCN specialist group WG / expert groups Dinaric-Balkan-Pindos Regional Platform on Large Carnivore Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention KORA: Carnivore Ecology and Wildlife Management institutions partnership WISO Large Carnivores, Wild Ungulates and Society Working Group - WG from the Alpine Convention WG / expert groups Fungi Taxa Terrestrial Medium EMA: European Mycological Association NGO, volunteers network FunCC: Fungal Conservation Committee - Fungal Specialist Group IUCN WG / expert groups 52 Terrestrial Habitat Grassland Habitat Terrestrial Medium EU grassland watch - Copernicus institutions partnership EGF: European Grassland Federation NGO, volunteers network Soil biodiversity Habitat Terrestrial Structured GSBI: Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative institutions partnership SoilBON NGO, volunteers network EU Soil Observatory (EUSO) with the WG biodiversity & WG monitoring, through LUCAS soil Biodiversity module institutions partnership Forest Habitat Terrestrial Unstructured ICP Forest: International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention FOREST EUROPE: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention EFI: European Forest Institute Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention ForestGEO (Global Earth Observatory Network) institutions partnership Dunes Habitat Terrestrial Unstructured BEACH and DUNE NETWORK - from The Coastal Union Baltic (EUCC) NGO, volunteers network Alpine ecosystems Habitat Terrestrial Structured GLORIA: Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments network institutions partnership Freshwater Habitats Lakes Habitat/e cosystem Freshwater Structured GLEON: Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network NGO, volunteers network Freshwater ecosystem Habitat/e cosystem Freshwater Medium FWBON: Freshwater Biodiversity Observation Network NGO, volunteers network Freshwater Taxa Macroinvertebrates Taxa Freshwater Structured GLOSAM : Global microinvertebrates sampling protocols task force (IUCN) WG / expert groups Salmon Taxa Freshwater Structured NASCO: North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention ICES WGNAS: Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon WG / expert groups Sturgeon Taxa Freshwater Structured HELCOM EG STUR: Expert Group on Sturgeon Remediation WG / expert groups DSTF: Danube Sturgeon Task Force WG / expert groups WSCS: World Sturgeon Conservation Society NGO, volunteers network IUCN Sturgeon Group WG / expert groups 53 Freshwater fish Taxa Freshwater Structured TEN-S: Trans-European Swimways Network - Wetlands International NGO, volunteers network Interface Taxa Waders (shorebirds) Taxa Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured International Wader Study Group (IWSG) WG / expert groups Waterbirds Taxa Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured International Waterbird Monitoring - Wetlands International NGO, volunteers network Mediterranean Waterbirds Network NGO, volunteers network Herpetology (amphibian & reptile) Taxa Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group WG / expert groups RACE: Reptile and Amphibian Conservation Europe NGO, volunteers network SEH: Societas Europaea Herpetologica NGO, volunteers network The Bern Convention Group of Experts on the Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles WG / expert groups Invasive alien species Taxa Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Medium EASIN: European Alien Species Information Network - EC’s Invasive Alien Species Expert Group (IASEG) / Working Group on Invasive Alien Species (WGIAS) WG / expert groups NOBANIS: North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien species WG / expert groups Bern Convention Group of IAS Experts WG / expert groups INVASIVESNET: International Association for Open Knowledge on Invasive Species network NGO, volunteers network IUCN ISSG: Invasive Species Specialist Group WG / expert groups Interface Habitats Mangroves Habitat Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured Global mangrove Alliance NGO, volunteers network Peatlands Habitat Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured IUCN CEM Peatland Specialist Group WG / expert groups Global Peatlands Initiative institutions partnership International Peatland Society (IPS) - Peatlands and Biodiversity expert group NGO, volunteers network The International Mire Conservation Group (IMCG) NGO, volunteers network Ponds Habitat Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured European Pond Conservation Network (EPCN) NGO, volunteers network Ponderful institutions partnership 54 Wetlands Habitat Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Structured The Global Wetland Watch institutions partnership Wetlands International NGO, volunteers network Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative of the Ramsar Convention (MedWet) Ramsar - Convention on Wetlands institutions partnership Lagoons Habitat Terrestrial/ Marine / Freshwater Medium Baltic Lagoon Network (BALLOON) NGO, volunteers network Regions Arctic Regions Terrestrial/ Marine Structured Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP) of the Arctic Council biodiversity working group, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) WG / expert groups Alps Regions Terrestrial Structured Alpine Conference/Alpine convention. WG: Alpine Network of Protected Areas (ALPARC), Large Carnivores, Wild Ungulates and Society Working Group (WISO) NA Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention Pyrenees Regions Terrestrial Structured Working Community of the Pyrenees with The Pyrenees Observatory (The Pyrenees Climate Change Observatory (OPCC), Interreg POCTEFA) NA institutions partnership Carpathia Regions Terrestrial Structured Carpathian Convention WG Biodiversity NA Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention Central and Eastern European region Regions Terrestrial / Marine / Freshwater Structured CEEweb for Biodiversity NA institutions partnership Mediterranean sea Regions Marine Structured UNEP/MAP–Barcelona Convention: Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution - Mediterranean Action Plan of the United Nations Environment Programme SPA/RAC NA Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention CIESM Mediterranean Science Commission NA institutions partnership Black Sea Regions Marine Structured Black Sea NGO Network (BSNN) NA NGO, volunteers network North Atlantic Regions Marine Structured OSPAR - Oslo and Paris Conventions NA Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention Baltic Sea Regions Marine Structured HELCOM - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission NA Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention Danube River Regions Freshwater Structured International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) - Monitoring and Assessment Expert Group (MA EG) & TransNational Monitoring Network NA institutions partnership Rhine River Regions Freshwater Structured International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) - ICPR Rhine Monitoring Programme Biology NA Inter-governmental / Agreement / convention 55 Other Microorganisms other other Unstructured The DIVERSITY OF EUKARYOTIC MICROORGANISMS research consortium (DEMON) institutions partnership DNA / genomics other other Structured BGE - Biodiversity Genomics Europe: which brings together the iBOL Europe network and The European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA) network iBOL (international Barcode of Life) institutions partnership 56 ANNEX 3. Expert workshop on the common minimum requirements for a biodiversity monitoring protocol: detail of the collective intelligence activities and results DAY 1 Collective intelligence Session: Identification of generic protocol elements that would ensure interoperability - Brainstorming Discussions: 4 groups Step 1: Extreme Opposite Thinking - The anti-problem (15 minutes) Each group is asked to imagine the worst possible case for the biodiversity monitoring protocol, one that completely fails at interoperability. “How can we make sure that different monitoring protocols are completely incompatible?" Step 2: Reverse the Insights into Actionable Solutions (30 minutes) After generating extreme examples, the groups now work on flipping their answers into positive, actionable protocol elements that enhance interoperability. Step 3: Group Synthesis & Sharing Each group presents their key findings, focusing on: 1. Top 3 "Bad Protocol" Elements they identified. 2. Top 3 Reversed "Good Protocol" Solutions ensuring interoperability. 3. One concrete recommendation. Results Step 1: Worst-Case Scenarios – "How to Ensure Total Incompatibility?" Across all groups, key characteristics of a bad monitoring protocol were: »Lack of clarity and consensus on objectives (why, what, how to monitor) »Unclear or inconsistent definitions (e.g., habitat, sampling unit, taxonomic resolution) »Incompatible sampling designs: different spatial scales, units, frequencies, and methodologies »No metadata or data standards, leading to unusable datasets »Mismatch in tools, techniques, and equipment »No communication or collaboration »Legal and political barriers to data sharing »Inaccessible or expensive methods, no training or quality control »Overreliance on unpaid volunteers without sustaining networks Step 2: Flipping to Actionable Solutions Groups worked to identify minimum requirements and harmonisable elements: Core Elements to Standardise »Monitoring Objectives: Clear, shared purpose across protocols »Definitions: Agreed glossary for key concepts (habitat, area, sampling unit, etc.) »Metadata Templates: Minimum information required for dataset usability »Sampling Design: Core structure (e.g., terminal sampling unit), spatial/temporal coherence »Data Management: FAIR principles, open access where possible, clear ownership Recommended Flexible Elements »Sampling effort and frequency (if within defined ranges) »Tools and methods (as long as core outputs are comparable) »Integration of different funding or policy contexts Key Enabling Actions »Pilot studies to explore feasibility and variability »Capacity building & training sessions (including legal/ political contexts) »Intercalibration efforts across sites/teams »Community and political engagement »Communication strategy for internal (scientific) and external (societal, political) audiences Concrete Recommendations 1. Consensus on objectives + definitions 2. Define minimum metadata template per Thematic Hub 3. Run EU-level sub-pilot studies to inform protocol design 4. Set core sampling requirements while allowing methodological flexibility 5. Build strong communication and capacity support across stakeholders 57 DAY 2 Collective Intelligence Session: Harmonisable Dimensions of Sampling Design - Theoretical approach Session Format: }World Café Format: Groups rotate every (20’, 15’, 15’, 15’) minutes to discuss a specific topic and then come together to share insights (25’). }Solid / Soft / Fuzzy: This methodology helps assess aspects of protocols that have to be strictly standardized (solid), those that can be flexible (soft), and those for which it might depend from case to case or that you are not sure about (fuzzy). Group Topics (4 groups): Each group will focus on one of the following dimensions. Table 1: Defining Monitoring Objectives Questions to explore: }How do objectives influence variable selection and sampling design? }How can we align objectives with frameworks like Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs)? Solid / Soft / Fuzzy Classification: }Which aspects must be fixed for comparability? }Where can protocols allow flexibility? }What remains unclear and needs further discussion? Results 1. Objectives Drive Everything »Objectives are central to variable selection, sampling design, spatial and temporal resolution, and data analysis. »They influence what is monitored (species, traits, functions), how it is monitored, and at what scale. »Objectives must be clearly defined before designing protocols—but even before that, a shared understanding of baselines is needed. 2. Objectives Can Vary Widely »May differ depending on policy requirements, societal needs, or management goals (e.g. tracking trends vs. detecting changes). »Objectives from EU nature directives may share the same variables, but apply different sampling designs. 3. Challenges with Objectives »What constitutes an "objective" can be unclear. »Should we harmonise objectives across countries? This remains a point for discussion. »Monitoring efforts may be re-used or repurposed for new objectives, raising questions about adaptability. Alignment with Frameworks (e.g. EBVs) »EBVs can guide variable selection and help build a common “grammar”. »However, EBVs are not sufficient to cover all EU legislative needs (e.g., Habitat Directive requirements). »Suggestion: objectives could rely on EBVs as a backbone, but additional layers are needed for specific reporting obligations. Solid / Soft / Fuzzy Classification Solid (Fixed) Elements »Clear definition of objectives »Temporal resolution: the level of change to be detected »What is sampled (core taxa or components) »Taxonomic backbone »Core sampling questions »Work distribution over time (monitoring rhythm) »For some taxa (e.g., migratory birds): field dates Soft (Flexible) Elements »Spatial sites (where monitoring occurs) »Seasonality: may vary depending on phenology (e.g., blooming periods) »Some aspects of protocol application (local adjustments) Fuzzy (Unclear or Needs Discussion) »Whether and how to harmonise objectives across countries »What indicators should be used to monitor ecosystem status »How to define a baseline (reference point vs. theoretical state) »To what extent we can reuse opportunistic data for evolving objectives Conclusion Defining objectives is a foundational and non-negotiable step for harmonised biodiversity monitoring. While some flexibility is needed for local implementation, a common vocabulary, clear baselines, and strategic alignment with frameworks like EBVs are essential to ensure data interoperability and policy relevance. Co-funded by the European Union For more information Contact [email protected] Website www.biodiversa.eu Follow us on Biodiversa+ @biodiversaplus.eu EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP