NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Biodiversity Indicators in Context 45 The nine NbS principles focus on opportunities and barriers to achieving the ‘triple win’ for biodiversity, climate, and people when implementing NbS in an ODA context, however they are also relevant to biodiversity considerations, and specifically, indicator planning and development. Here we expand on the Principles to illustrate how they are applicable to biodiversity monitoring, and that consideration of these will ultimately result in better planned and implemented projects, and maximise the scale of benefits as part of programme activities. A. Give parity to all three pillars of the triple win To date the emphasis from ICF has been on addressing the challenges of climate change and poverty reduction. Recognising the inclusion of nature as part of the triple win requires KPIs that would capture the progress made towards positive biodiversity impacts. However, the broad and complex qualities of biodiversity cannot be fully captured in a KPI. Consideration needs to be given to project-level biodiversity objectives and likely impacts (both gains and losses), and to therefore build-in monitoring that will assess these specifically, rather than assume biodiversity benefits are a passive side-effect of NbS activities that are implemented to address climate and social challenges. B. Engage local communities in a participatory approach Involving the local community in the design and implementation of projects can lead to many positive impacts, particularly in ensuring longevity. This also holds true when it comes to designing and undertaking monitoring, and community based monitoring (CBM) is seen as an increasingly important tool45. Combining results from CBM with regional and global datasets can provide a particularly rich source of information for building project and programme indicators, and this information could be builtinto any of the indicators recommended. Biodiversity indicator considerations and the NbS Principles C. Account for site-specific and complex, dynamic context The complexity of the implications to biodiversity are compounded by the individual qualities of the site itself – the ecosystem, the species composition, the nature of any threats on those, and the interactions with the local communities, all of which cannot be fully captured in a KPI. Consideration needs to be given to project-level biodiversity objectives and likely impacts (both gains and losses), and therefore to build-in monitoring that will assess these specifically, to capture contextually relevant considerations. D. Put in place social and environmental safeguards It is important to identify potential risks of the interventions, and therefore be able to mitigate for them. Environmentally, this is likely to include unintended consequences, such as the unknown impact of planting non-native species, which can easily be mitigated for by using locally appropriate native species, or providing a deliberated justification as to why not. Once risks have been identified, consider: does the project plan safeguard against these risks? Would the biodiversity metrics included in this project capture any adverse effects as a result of these risks, and be likely to for any that have not been explicitly considered? A specific and difficult safeguarding example is that of displacement – particularly when restoration of habitat requiresa reduction of intensity of use by local communities. Mitigation measures should consider how to reduce the demand of the services provided by that ecosystem (such as firewood, grazing, or fishing),else supply is likely to shift to another area thereby only movingthe environmental problem rather than reducing it.