Translation status

32 Strings 0%
Browse Translate
5,753 Words 0%
46,840 Characters 0%

Strings status

Strings Words Characters
32 5,753 46,840
All strings Browse Translate Zen
32 5,753 46,840
Unfinished strings Browse Translate Zen
32 5,753 46,840
Untranslated strings Browse Translate Zen
32 5,753 46,840
Unfinished strings without suggestions Browse Translate Zen

Overview

Project website github.com/worldbank/sdg-metadata
Instructions for translators

This project is limited to Russian translation only, for now.

More detailed instructions to come.
Project maintainers User avatar brockfanning
Translation license MIT License
Translation process
  • Translations can be made directly.
  • Translation suggestions are turned off.
  • Translations are reviewed by dedicated reviewers.
  • Any authenticated user can contribute.
  • The translation uses monolingual files.
  • The translation base language can not be edited.
Source code repository https://github.com/worldbank/sdg-metadata
Repository branch master
Last remote commit Merge pull request #542 from weblate/weblate-sdg-metadata-1-1-1a 85d59a4a6e9
User avatar brockfanning authored 7 months ago
Last commit in Weblate Translated using Weblate (Portuguese) 5afc8b49daa
User avatar brockfanning authored a month ago
Weblate repository https://hosted.weblate.org/git/sdg-metadata/1-1-1a/
File mask translations-metadata/*/15-4-1.yml
Monolingual base language file translations-metadata/en/15-4-1.yml
Translation file Download translations-metadata/pt/15-4-1.yml
Last change Feb. 7, 2023, 8:08 p.m.
Last change made by None
Language Portuguese
Language code pt
Text direction Left to right
Number of speakers 249,357,174
Number of plurals 2
Plural type One/other
Plurals Singular 0, 1
Plural 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, …
Plural formula n > 1
2 weeks ago

String statistics

Strings percent Hosted strings Words percent Hosted words Characters percent Hosted characters
Total 32 5,753 46,840
Approved 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Waiting for review 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Translated 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Needs editing 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Read-only 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Failing checks 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Strings with suggestions 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
Untranslated strings 100% 32 100% 5,753 100% 46,840
Last 12 months Previous

Activity in last 12 months

0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 26 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes 0 changes
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Quick numbers

5,753
Hosted words
32
Hosted strings
0%
Translated
0
Contributors
and previous 30 days

Trends of last 30 days

—
Hosted words
+100%
—
Hosted strings
+100%
—
Translated
—
—
Contributors
—
User avatar None

Resource updated
The “translations-metadata/en/15-4-1.yml” file was changed. a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p><strong>URL:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.unep-wcmc.org/">http://www.unep-wcmc.org/</a> ; <a href="http://www.birdlife.org/">http://www.birdlife.org/</a> ; <a href="http://www.iucn.org/">http://www.iucn.org/</a> </p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<p>BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014). Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas: a global network for conserving nature and benefiting people. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Available at datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/sowbpubs#IBA.</p>
<p>BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2019) World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Developed by the KBA Partnership: BirdLife International, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Rainforest Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Wildlife Conservation Society and World Wildlife Fund. September 2019 version. Available at http://keybiodiversityareas.org/sites/search.</p>
<p>BROOKS, T. et al. (2001). Conservation priorities for birds and biodiversity: do East African Important Bird Areas represent species diversity in other terrestrial vertebrate groups? Ostrich suppl. 15: 3&#x2013;12. Available </p>
<p>from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/00306520109485329#.VafbVJPVq75.</p>
<p>BROOKS, T.M. et al. (2016) Goal 15: Life on land. Sustainable manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss. Pp. 497&#x2013;522 in Dur&#xE1;n y Lalaguna, P., D&#xED;az Barrado, C.M. &amp; Fern&#xE1;ndez Liesa, C.R. (eds.) International Society and Sustainable Development Goals. Editorial Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, Spain. Available from: https://www.thomsonreuters.es/es/tienda/pdp/duo.html?pid=10008456</p>
<p>BUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164&#x2013;1168. Available from https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1187512.</p>
<p>BUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2012). Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets. PLoS One 7(3): e32529. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032529.</p>
<p>BUTCHART, S. H. M. et al. (2015). Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conservation Letters 8: 329&#x2013;337. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12158/full.</p>
<p>CBD (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montr&#xE9;al, Canada. Available from <a href="https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/">https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/</a>.</p>
<p>CBD (2018). Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Decision 14/8 adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf">https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf</a>. </p>
<p>CBD (2020a). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montr&#xE9;al, Canada. Available from https://www.cbd.int/gbo5/. </p>
<p>CBD (2020b). Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Scientific and technical information to support the review of the updated Goals and Targets, and related indicators and baselines. Document CBD/SBSTTA/24/3. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/705d/6b4b/a1a463c1b19392bde6fa08f3/sbstta-24-03-en.pdf.</p>
<p>CHAPE, S. et al. (2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 443&#x2013;445. Available from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/443.short.</p>
<p>DEGUIGNET, M., et al. (2014). 2014 United Nations List of Protected Areas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from http://unep-wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/263/original/2014_UN_List_of_Protected_Areas_EN_web.PDF?1415613322.</p>
<p>DI MARCO, M., et al. (2016). Quantifying the relative irreplaceability of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. Conservation Biology 30: 392&#x2013;402. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12609/abstract.</p>
<p>DONALD, P. et al. (2018) Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): the development and characteristics of a global inventory of key sites for biodiversity. Bird Conserv. Internat. 29:177&#x2013;198.</p>
<p>DUDLEY, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9243.</p>
<p>EDGAR, G.J. et al. (2008). Key Biodiversity Areas as globally significant target sites for the conservation of marine biological diversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 969&#x2013;983. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.902/abstract.</p>
<p>EKEN, G. et al. (2004). Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience 54: 1110&#x2013;1118. Available from http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1110.short.</p>
<p>FOSTER, M.N. et al. (2012) The identification of sites of biodiversity conservation significance: progress with the application of a global standard. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4: 2733&#x2013;2744. Available from </p>
<p>https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/779.</p>
<p>Global Administrative Areas (2019). GADM database of Global Administrative Areas, version 2.8. Available from www.gadm.org.</p>
<p>HAN, X. et al. (2014). A Biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets using disaggregated global data. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112046. Available from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112046.</p>
<p>HOLLAND, R.A. et al. (2012). Conservation priorities for freshwater biodiversity: the key biodiversity area approach refined and tested for continental Africa. Biological Conservation 148: 167&#x2013;179. Available from </p>
<p>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712000298.</p>
<p>IUCN (2016). A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46259.</p>
<p>IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs (2019). Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.</p>
<p>JONAS, H.D. et al. (2014) New steps of change: looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-based conservation measures. Parks 20: 111&#x2013;128. Available from http://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PARKS-20.2-Jonas-et-al-10.2305IUCN.CH_.2014.PARKS-20-2.HDJ_.en_.pdf.</p>
<p>KBA Secretariat (2019). Key Biodiversity Areas Proposal Process: Guidance on Proposing, Reviewing, Nominating and Confirming sites. Version 1.0. Prepared by the KBA Secretariat and KBA Committee of the KBA Partnership. Cambridge, UK. Available at <a href="http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a">http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a</a>. </p>
<p>KNIGHT, A. T. et al. (2007). Improving the Key Biodiversity Areas approach for effective conservation planning. BioScience 57: 256&#x2013;261. Available from </p>
<p>http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/256.short.</p>
<p>LANGHAMMER, P. F. et al. (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Targets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 15. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available from https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9055.</p>
<p>LEVERINGTON, F. et al. (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46: 685&#x2013;698. Available from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-010-</p>
<p>9564-5#page-1.</p>
<p>MONTESINO POUZOLS, F., et al. (2014) Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516: 383&#x2013;386. Available from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7531/abs/nature14032.html.</p>
<p>NOLTE, C. &amp; AGRAWAL, A. (2013). Linking management effectiveness indicators to observed effects of protected areas on fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. Conservation Biology 27: 155&#x2013;165. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01930.x/abstract.</p>
<p>PAIN, D.J. et al. (2005) Biodiversity representation in Uganda&#x2019;s forest IBAs. Biological Conservation 125: 133&#x2013;138. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320705001412.</p>
<p>RICKETTS, T. H. et al. (2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 102: 18497&#x2013;18501. Available from http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18497.short.</p>
<p>RODRIGUES, A. S. L. et al. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640&#x2013;643. Available from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6983/abs/nature02422.html.</p>
<p>RODR&#xCD;GUEZ-RODR&#xCD;GUEZ, D., et al. (2011). Progress towards international targets for protected area coverage in mountains: a multi-scale assessment. Biological Conservation 144: 2978&#x2013;2983. Available from </p>
<p>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711003454.</p>
<p>SIMKINS, A.T., PEARMAIN, E.J., &amp; DIAS, M.P. (2020). Code (and documentation) for calculating the protected area coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas. <a href="https://github.com/BirdLifeInternational/kba-overlap">https://github.com/BirdLifeInternational/kba-overlap</a>. </p>
<p>TITTENSOR, D. et al. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress towards international biodiversity targets. Science 346: 241&#x2013;244. Available from https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1257484.</p>
<p>UNEP-WCMC (2019). World Database on Protected Areas User Manual 1.6. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from <a href="http://wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual">http://wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual</a>.</p>
<p>UNEP-WCMC &amp; IUCN (2020). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from http://www.protectedplanet.net.</p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p><strong>Sources of discrepancies:</strong></p>
<p>National processes provide the data that are incorporated into the WDPA, the WDOECM, and the World Database of KBAs, so there are very few discrepancies between national indicators and the global one. One minor source of difference is that the WDPA incorporates internationally-designated protected areas (e.g., UNESCO World Heritage sites, Ramsar sites, etc), a few of which are not considered by their sovereign nations to be protected areas. </p>
<p>Note that because countries do not submit comprehensive data on degazetted protected areas to the WDPA, earlier values of the indictor may marginally underestimate coverage. Furthermore, there is also a lag between the point at which a protected area is designated on the ground and the point at which it is reported to the WDPA. As such, current or recent coverage may also be underestimated.</p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p>High.</p>
<p>Each custodian agency is responsible for quality management of their own database.<br>Quality assessment of the indicator is shared between the indicator custodian agencies.</p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p>Information on the process of how protected area data are collected, standardised and published is available in the WDPA User Manual at: <a href="https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/wdpa-manual">https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/wdpa-manual</a> which is available in English, French and Spanish. Specific guidance is provided at <a href="https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/world-database-on-protected-areas">https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/world-database-on-protected-areas</a> on, for example, predefined fields or look up tables in the WDPA: <a href="https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/wdpa-lookup-tables">https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/wdpa-lookup-tables</a>, how WDPA records are coded how international designations and regional designations data is collected, how regularly is the database updated, and how to perform protected areas coverage statistics. </p>
<p>Data quality in the process of identifying KBAs is ensured through processes established by the <a href="https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-kbas/programme/partnership">KBA Partnership</a> and KBA Secretariat. Data quality is ensured through wide stakeholder engagement in the KBA proposal process, data checking by Regional Focal Points, formal Review of KBA Proposals by independent Reviewers, and validation of Nominations by the KBA Secretariat. </p>
<p>In addition, the Chairs of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and World Commission on Protected Areas (both of whom are elected by the IUCN Membership of governments and non-governmental organisations), appoint the Chair of an independent KBA Standards and Appeals Committee, which ensures the correct application of the Global Standard for the identification of KBA, and oversees a formal Procedure for handling of appeals against the identification of KBAs (see http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/1b388c918e14c5f4c3d7a0237eb0d366).</p>
<p>Before submission to the UN SDG Indicators database the annually updated indicators of coverage of KBAs by protected areas and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures are incorporated into updated Country Profiles on the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (<a href="https://ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles">https://ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles</a>) and then sent for consultation to National Focal Points of the Convention on Biological Diversity (<a href="https://www.cbd.int/information/nfp.shtml">https://www.cbd.int/information/nfp.shtml</a>), National Statistics Offices SDG Representatives and UN Permanent Missions (Geneva) representatives. </p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p>For protected areas and OECMs, please see the section on validation. Ensuring the WDPA and WDOECM remain an accurate and true depiction of reality is a never-ending task; however, over time the quality of the data (e.g. the proportion of sites with defined boundaries) is increasing.</p>
<p>For KBAs, see above and below, plus the guidance on Proposing, Reviewing, Nominating and Confirming KBAs which is available in KBA Secretariat (2019) at <a href="http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a">http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a</a>. Data quality is ensured through wide stakeholder engagement in the KBA proposal process, data checking by Regional Focal Points, formal Review of KBA Proposals by independent Reviewers, and validation of Nominations by the KBAs Secretariat. Furthermore, an independent KBA Standards and Appeals Committee ensures the correct application of the Global Standard for the identification of KBAs, and oversees a formal Procedure for handling of appeals against the identification of KBAs (see http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/1b388c918e14c5f4c3d7a0237eb0d366).</p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p><strong><em>PAs</em></strong></p>
<p>Data on protected areas are submitted by government agencies to the WDPA and disseminated through Protected Planet. The WDPA has its origins in a 1959 UN mandate when the United Nations Economic and Social Council called for a list of national parks and equivalent reserves Resolution 713 (XXVIII). </p>
<p>Protected areas data are therefore compiled directly from government agencies, regional hubs and other authoritative sources in the absence of a government source. All records have a unique metadata identifier (MetadataID) which links the spatial database to the Source table where all sources are described. The data is collated and standardised following the WDPA Data Standards and validated with the source. The process of collation, validation and publication of data as well as protocols and the WDPA data standards are regularly updated in the WDPA User Manual (<a href="https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/wdpa-manual">https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/wdpa-manual</a>) made available through www.protectedplanet.net where all spatial data and the Source table are also published every month and can be downloaded. The WDPA User Manual (published in English, Spanish, and French) provides guidance to countries on how to submit protected areas data to the WDPA, the benefits of providing such data, and the data standards and quality checks that are performed. </p>
<p><strong><em>OECMS</em></strong></p>
<p>Guiding principles, common characteristics and criteria for identification of OECMs are available in CBD (2018) at <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf">https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Guidance on recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures is available in IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs (2019) at: <a href="https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48773">https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48773</a>.</p>
<p><strong><em>KBAs</em></strong></p>
<p>The &#x201C;Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs&#x201D; (<a href="https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46259">https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46259</a>) comprises the standard recommendations available to countries in the identification of KBAs. Guidelines for using A global standard for the identification of KBAs are available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49131.</p>
<p>Guidance on Proposing, Reviewing, Nominating and Confirming KBAs is available in KBA Secretariat (2019) at <a href="http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a">http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a</a>.</p>
<p>A summary of the process by which KBAs are identified is available at <a href="http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-kbas/proposing-updating">www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-kbas/proposing-updating</a>.</p>
<p>The KBA identification process is highly 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. In order to propose a site as a KBA, a proposer must apply the KBA criteria to data on biodiversity elements (species and ecosystems) at the site. Associated with the proposal process is the need to delineate the site accurately so that its boundaries are clear. Although anyone with appropriate scientific data may propose a site to qualify as a KBA, wide consultation with stakeholders at the national level (both non-governmental and governmental organizations) is required during the proposal process. The formal proposal is then made using a proposal process that ensures there is an independent review of the proposal before a site is incorporated in the WDKBA. This is important given that KBA status of a site may lead to changes in actions of governments, private sector companies and other institutions following consultation as appropriate. </p>
<p>KBA identification builds off the existing network of KBAs, including those identified as (a) Important Bird &amp; Biodiversity Areas through the BirdLife Partnership of over 115 national organisations (https://www.birdlife.org/who-we-are/), (b) Alliance for Zero Extinction sites by 93 national and international organisations in the Alliance (<a href="http://www.zeroextinction.org/partners.html">http://www.zeroextinction.org/partners.html</a>), and (c) other KBAs by civil society organisations supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund in developing ecosystem profiles, named in each of the profiles listed here (<a href="http://www.cepf.net">http://www.cepf.net</a> ), with new data strengthening and expanding expand the network of these sites.</p>
<p>The main steps of the KBA identification process are the following: </p>
<ol>
<li>submission of Expressions of Intent to identify a KBA to Regional Focal Points; </li>
<li>Proposal Development process, in which proposers compile relevant data and documentation and consult national experts, including organizations that have already identified KBAs in the country, either through national KBA Coordination Groups or independently;</li>
<li>review of proposed KBAs by Independent Expert Reviewers, verifying the accuracy of information within their area of expertise; and</li>
<li>a Site Nomination phase comprising the submission of all the relevant documentation for verification by the KBAs Secretariat. Sites confirmed by the KBAs Secretariat to qualify as KBAs are then published on the KBAs website (<a href="http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home">http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home</a>).</li>
</ol>
<p>Once a KBA is identified, monitoring of its qualifying features and its conservation status is important. Proposers, reviewers and those undertaking monitoring can join the KBAs Community to exchange their experiences, case studies and best practice examples.</p>
<p>The R code for calculating protected area coverage of KBAs is documented in Simkins et al. (2020). </p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p>Regional indices are calculated as the mean percentage of each KBA in the region covered by (i.e. overlapping with) protected areas and/or OECMs: in other words, the percentage of each KBA covered by these designations, averaged over all KBAs in the particular region.</p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p><strong>&#x2022; At country level</strong></p>
<p>Data are available for protected areas and KBAs in all of the world&#x2019;s countries, and so no imputation or estimation of national level data is necessary.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>&#x2022; At regional and global levels</strong></p>
<p>Global indicators of protected area coverage of important sites for biodiversity are calculated as the mean percentage of each KBA that is covered by protected areas and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. The data are generated from all countries, and so while there is uncertainty around the data, there are no missing values as such and so no need for imputation or estimation.</p>
 
a year ago
User avatar None

String updated in the repository
<p>Protected Areas and OECMs are validated through dialogue with the governing authority, who signs a data contributor agreement that these sites are, to the best of their knowledge, an accurate depiction of the sites in question. Over time the data for sites may improve or other aspects of the sites may change, as and when this occurs a further data sharing agreement is required by the site&#x2019;s governing authority.</p>
<p>Proposed KBAs undergo detailed checking by Regional Focal Points, formal Review of KBA Proposals by independent Reviewers, and validation of Nominated KBAs by the KBAs Secretariat. For further information, see the Guidance on Proposing, Reviewing, Nominating and Confirming KBAs available in KBA Secretariat (2019) at <a href="http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a">http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/assets/35687f50ac0bcad155ab17447b48885a</a>.</p>
<p>When the indicators of protected area coverage of KBAs are updated each year, the updated indicators (and underlying numbers of protected areas, OECMs, and KBAs) are made available for review by countries prior to submission to the SDG Indicators Database. This is achieved through updating the country profiles in the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (<a href="https://ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles">https://ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles</a>) and circulating these for consultation and review to CBD National Focal Points, SDG National Statistical Office Focal Points, and IUCN State Members.</p>
<p>When the indicators of protected area coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas are updated each year, the updated indicators (and underlying numbers of protected areas, Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures, and Key Biodiversity Areas) are made available for review by countries prior to submission to the SDG Indicators Database. This is achieved through updating the country profiles in the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (<a href="https://ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles">https://ibat-alliance.org/country_profiles</a>) and circulating these for consultation and review to CBD National Focal Points, SDG National Statistical Office Focal Points, and IUCN State Members.</p>
 
a year ago
Browse all translation changes