Esta solución integra la gestión de la biodiversidad a nivel municipal y la educación virtual, con el propósito de que los actores locales y sus administraciones municipales conozcan las competencias y las herramientas con las que cuentan para ser grandes aliados en el cuidado de la biodiversidad que está en sus territorios.

El cuidado de la biodiversidad es una tarea de todos los habitantes de un territorio. Las administraciones en especial tienen un rol importante en esta tarea, pero ¿saben cómo hacerlo? ¿Conocen las estrategias que pueden aplicar? En efecto, estas preguntas motivaron a diez (10) entidades a diseñar e implementar en Colombia el curso virtual “herramientas de conservación de la biodiversidad en municipios”.

The aim of this document is to examine thoroughly all the issues and general principles surrounding the application of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, and to outline some key steps to enhance use of this information in Red List assessments. The document builds on and draws from discussions over at least the last decade between the IUCN CEESP-SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group and the IUCN SSC Red List Committee, including earlier unpublished draft guidance, and complements this with insights gained from the development of the IPBES ILK Approach. The draft document was subject to two rounds of consultation, each lasting two months, within IUCN and among Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) networks.

eBird began with a simple idea—that every birdwatcher has unique knowledge and experience. Our goal is to gather this information in the form of checklists of birds, archive it, and freely share it to power new data-driven approaches to science, conservation and education. At the same time, we develop tools that make birding more rewarding. From being able to manage lists, photos and audio recordings, to seeing real-time maps of species distribution, to alerts that let you know when species have been seen, we strive to provide the most current and useful information to the birding community.

eBird is among the world’s largest biodiversity-related science projects, with more than 100 million bird sightings contributed annually by eBirders around the world and an average participation growth rate of approximately 20% year over year. A collaborative enterprise with hundreds of partner organizations, thousands of regional experts, and hundreds of thousands of users, eBird is managed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

eBird data document bird distribution, abundance, habitat use, and trends through checklist data collected within a simple, scientific framework. Birders enter when, where, and how they went birding, and then fill out a checklist of all the birds seen and heard during the outing. eBird’s free mobile app allows offline data collection anywhere in the world, and the website provides many ways to explore and summarize your data and other observations from the global eBird community. Learn how to get started.

eBird is available worldwide, comprising a network of local, national, and international partners. eBird directly collaborates with hundreds of partner groups for regional data entry portals, outreach, engagement, and local impact. Explore regional collaborators.

Data quality is of critical importance. When entering sightings, observers are presented with a list of likely birds for that date and region. These checklist filters are developed by some of the most knowledgeable bird distribution experts in the world. When unusual birds are seen, or high counts are reported, the regional experts review these records. Learn more about eBird data quality.

eBird data are stored across secure facilities, archived daily, and are freely accessible to anyone. eBird data have been used in hundreds of conservation decisions and peer-reviewed papers, thousands of student projects, and help inform bird research worldwide. Learn more about eBird data use.

Contribute to Science

Every observation can contribute to biodiversity science, from the rarest butterfly to the most common backyard weed. We share your findings with scientific data repositories like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to help scientists find and use your data. All you have to do is observe.

Wildlife Insights streamlines decision-making by providing machine learning models and other tools to manage, analyze and share camera trap data. With access to reliable data, everyone can make better decisions to help wildlife thrive.

Estimates of current population size, known as abundance estimates, are derived from a combination of fieldwork and computer modelling.  Vessel-based and aerial sighting surveys, acoustic monitoring, and analysis of individual animal markings are techniques used independently or in conjunction with each other to count whales.  The information gathered from this fieldwork is used as the basis for population modelling which produces an abundance estimate.

In 2017, the IWC Scientific Committee established a new expert group to review and agree all the Abundance Estimates submitted to the Scientific Committee.  This new process ensures quality and consistency across all the estimates used by the IWC.

Click here to read more about the establishment and work of the Scientific Committee’s Working Group on Abundance Estimates (ASI).

It is impossible for cetacean abundance estimates to be completely precise and IWC estimates are presented as a ‘best estimate’ figure, accompanied by a 95% Confidence Interval, showing a range of plausible values for the population’s actual abundance.  As an example, the table below shows that the 1991/92-2003/4 abundance estimate for Southern Hemisphere blue whales is 2,300 with a 95% confidence interval of 1,150-4,500. This means that the range 1,150-4,500 was computed using a method that has a 95% chance of including the population’s actual abundance.

Increases or decreases in population are indicated within the table, where these have been identified.

At present the IWC has agreed estimates only for some species/areas.  With the establishment of the ASI group it is planned to update this table and fill in the gaps where possible.

The IWC assesses cetacean status by population rather than by species.  This is because the majority of species exist in several different areas and groups.  Within a single species there may be one population that is feared to be close to extinction and one that is believed to be thriving.  A good example of this is the North Pacific gray whale, considered healthy in the eastern North Pacific, but critically endangered in the west.

Within a single whale population, groups are further broken down into ‘stocks.’ Even within a single population some stocks may be healthy whilst others are not.  For example, discussions are currently ongoing to decide whether there is cause for concern regarding one/some of the stocks that make up the population of common minke whales in the North Pacific.

In broad terms, the status of a population is assessed by comparing the current population size with its original, undisturbed size, and then predicting its future size based on identified trends and known threats.  In the case of cetaceans, the main historical ‘disturbance’ that impacted on population size was whaling activity.

Understanding population status is vital to understanding whether a population is healthy or whether conservation action is required and if so, whether those actions should be considered a priority.

KBAs are sites ‘contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems’. The KBA Partnership is composed of 13 leading international organizations including IUCN. It maintains a KBA Committee, KBA secretariat, a KBA Technical Working Group, a KBA Community, a KBA Consultative Forum, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. An independent KBA Standards and Appeals Committee is established under the authority of the elected SSC and WCPA Chairs. The KBA Global Standard lists the criteria for identification of KBAs. There are five criteria and 11 subcriteria all with quantitative thresholds. KBAs are identified on the basis of ecosystems or species.

KBAs can be identified by a KBA National Coordination Group (KBA NCG). If an individual or small group has an interest in proposing a KBA in a country with an existing KBA NCG they are encouraged to work with that KBA NCG to make the proposal. Where a KBA NCG has not yet been established, proposers are encouraged to consider helping form such a group but if that is not possible they can put together a proposal for a site and submit it directly. KBAs should be reviewed and updated nationally every 8-12 years to also confirm they still meet KBA status for the species or ecosystems that trigger KBA status for the site. The KBA identification process is inclusive, consultative and nationally driven. Anyone with appropriate data may propose a site as a KBA, although consultation with relevant stakeholders at the local and national level is required when identifying the site and needs to be documented in the proposal. A proposer must apply the KBA criteria to data on biodiversity elements (species and ecosystems) at the site and delineate the site clearly. The formal proposal is then made through a process that ensures independent review before a site is incorporated in the World Database of KBAs.

How to use

• To download the KBA Standard, criteria, and guidelines, and for further information: https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home
• To explore maps and site details on the World Database of KBAS: https://wdkba.keybiodiversityareas.org
• For guidance on the role of KBA National Coordination Groups and how to establish them: https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-kbas/programme/national-coordination-groups

Providing decision makers with the best available spatial data to put nature at the center of sustainable development