Global conservation policy and action have largely neglected protecting and monitoring genetic diversity—one of the three main pillars of biodiversity. Genetic diversity (diversity within species) underlies species’ adaptation and survival, ecosystem resilience, and societal innovation. The low priority given to genetic diversity has largely been due to knowledge gaps in key areas, including the importance of genetic diversity and the trends in genetic diversity change; the perceived high expense and low availability and the scattered nature of genetic data; and complicated concepts and information that are inaccessible to policymakers. However, numerous recent advances in knowledge, technology, databases, practice, and capacity have now set the stage for better integration of genetic diversity in policy instruments and conservation efforts. We review these developments and explore how they can support improved consideration of genetic diversity in global conservation policy commitments and enable countries to monitor, report on, and take action to maintain or restore genetic diversity.

The protection, preservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems and their functions are of global importance. For European states it became legally binding mainly through the EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD). In order to assess the ecological status of a given water body, aquatic biodiversity data are obtained and compared to a reference water body. The quantified mismatch obtained determines the extent of potential management actions. The current approach to biodiversity assessment is based on morpho-taxonomy. This approach has many drawbacks such as being time consuming, limited in temporal and spatial resolution, and error-prone due to the varying individual taxonomic expertise of the analysts. Novel genomic tools can overcome many of the aforementioned problems and could complement or even replace traditional bioassessment. Yet, a plethora of approaches are independently developed in different institutions, thereby hampering any concerted routine application. The goal of this Action is to nucleate a group of researchers across disciplines with the task to identify gold-standard genomic tools and novel eco-genomic indices for routine application in biodiversity assessments of European fresh- and marine water bodies. Furthermore, DNAqua-Net will provide a platform for training of the next generation of European researchers preparing them for the new technologies. Jointly with water managers, politicians, and other stakeholders, the group will develop a conceptual framework for the standard application of eco-genomic tools as part of legally binding assessments.

Genetic monitoring of populations currently attracts interest in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity but needs long-term planning and investments. However, genetic diversity has been largely neglected in biodiversity monitoring, and when addressed, it is treated separately, detached from other conservation issues, such as habitat alteration due to climate change. We report an accounting of efforts to monitor population genetic diversity in Europe (genetic monitoring effort, GME), the evaluation of which can help guide future capacity building and collaboration towards areas most in need of expanded monitoring. Overlaying GME with areas where the ranges of selected species of conservation interest approach current and future climate niche limits helps identify whether GME coincides with anticipated climate change effects on biodiversity. Our analysis suggests that country area, financial resources and conservation policy influence GME, high values of which only partially match species’ joint patterns of limits to suitable climatic conditions. Populations at trailing climatic niche margins probably hold genetic diversity that is important for adaptation to changing climate. Our results illuminate the need in Europe for expanded investment in genetic monitoring across climate gradients occupied by focal species, a need arguably greatest in southeastern European countries. This need could be met in part by expanding the European Union’s Birds and Habitats Directives to fully address the conservation and monitoring of genetic diversity.

Measuring genetic diversity of wild species using DNA-based data remains resource intensive and time consuming for nearly all species. However, genetic assessments are needed for global conservation commitments, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, and for governments and managers to evaluate conservation progress, as well as prioritizing species and populations to preserve and recover genetic diversity (e.g., via genetic rescue). Recently, indicators were developed for tracking and reporting genetic diversity status and trends for hundreds of species. The indicators quantify two simple proxies of within-population and among-population genetic diversity and adaptive potential: small effective population size (N_e < 500) and the loss of genetically distinct populations. The indicators must balance scientific credibility, practicality, and simplicity. In the present article, we summarize the advantages of these pragmatic indicators, address critiques by scientists for simplifying assumptions and by policymakers for complexity, and propose potential solutions and next steps. We aim to support practitioners putting indicators into policy, action, legislation, and reporting.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the most ambitious multilateral agreement on biodiversity to date. It calls for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to halt and reverse biodiversity loss worldwide. The GBF’s monitoring framework lays out how Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are expected to report on their progress. An expert group convened by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators, provided guidance on its implementation, including a gap analysis to identify the strengths and limitations of the indicators in the monitoring framework. We present the results of the AHTEG gap analysis and provide recommendations on implementing and improving monitoring of the GBF. We compare three implementation scenarios, from worst-case to best-case: (1) Parties only report on required headline and binary indicators; (2) Parties also report on all headline indicator disaggregations and (3) Parties additionally report on all optional component and complementary indicators. In each case, the monitoring framework covers (1) between 19–40%, (2) 22–41% and (3) 29–47% of the elements in the GBF’s goals and targets. Even in the best-case scenario (3), no indicators are available for 12% of the GBF’s elements. In practice, the coverage and thus effectiveness of the monitoring framework will depend on which indicators (required and optional) and disaggregations countries apply. Substantial investment is required to collect the necessary data to compute indicators, infer change and effectively monitor progress. We highlight important next steps to progressively improve the efficacy of the monitoring framework.