Currently 29 operational indicators are reported under the 12 headline indicators, covering various aspects of 17 of the 20 Aichi Targets (BIP, 2013 and Chenery et al., 2013). These 29 indicators typically relate (but are not identical) to one of the 97 AHTEG indicators in a further operational form. Although termed operational, most cases of the 97 AHTEG indicators will need to be transformed into specific verifiable “sub-topic” indicators that can actually be measured (cf.
Table 2). It is important to note that the AHTEG framework Luminespib research buy is flexible enough to allow the transformation and addition of indicators as needed. Types of indicators and indicators relevant for genetic diversity are described further in Appendix B. The indicator sequence used by the UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011b system is S–P–B–R, as it is considered to be the logical sequence of the four basic questions listed in Table 1. This is in contrast to the R–S–P–B sequence recommended by Sparks et al. (2011), who emphasize that response (rather than pressure) is the indicator that will be used to guide policy and practice. The sequence can be discussed and Sparks et al. (2011) therefore present the framework as a “feedback loop” subject to iterative modifications. From the 97 operational indicators
proposed by UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011b, we have selected those that Selleck Anti-diabetic Compound Library we consider to have potential relevance for monitoring tree genetic diversity. They are all listed in Table 2, using the S–P–B–R sequence of UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011b.
In constructing Table 2, we followed the suggestions for headline indicators and operational indicators considered relevant (“most relevant” or “other relevant”) by UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011b under the two Aichi Targets directly addressing genetic diversity (Targets 13 and 16), providing 14 operational indicators. These comprise only state and Ergoloid response indicators. We have added those operational indicators that address tree species distribution, population trends and extinction risks, thus targeting intra-specific variation (cf. e.g., Rogers and Ledig, 1996 and Bariteau, 2003), but not mentioned as such by UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011b. This provides an additional set of nine operational indicators, of which two are classified as state indicators, five as pressure indicators, and one each as a benefit and response indicator. In addition we have included three operational indicators that reflect benefit, value and condition of ecosystem services for adequate coverage of the benefits of genetic diversity. We have added one operational response indicator covering capacity building, knowledge transfer and uptake into policy, areas which are of obvious importance for the conservation, management and use of genetic diversity.