NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Biodiversity Indicators in Context 46 E. Design for longevity and futureproofing in-mind Not only does the long timeframe of biodiversity impacts need to be considered in terms of what features should be monitored, but also likely changes over time of any of the biodiversity components (to the ecosystem, species or ecological functions). Programme managers should consider the adaptive capacity of biodiversity (to e.g. climate change) both in direct actions (e.g. consider climate tolerance of planted species) and non-direct (e.g. sea-level rise may alter the optimum area for mangroves, so in planning allow space for natural shift of mangrove extent). If these are not considered, indicators may show a decline over time in spite of project interventions. Building in long-term partnerships and involving multiple stakeholders increases the likelihood of successful outcomes over the longer-term, and inthe face of unexpected changes. F. Build robust, long-term monitoring systems Long-term monitoring is vital to ensure intended biodiversity outcomes are achieved, and remain. This is often not practical within a project life-cycle, but putting longer term monitoring in place can still be an aim of a project, and is potentially more likely to be realised with integration of community based monitoring and long-term partnership organisation involvement. It is also more likely to be directly relevant to national reporting such as for MEAs. G. Emphasise an adaptive management approach Indicators developed to measure intended objectives should be robust to changes in the site context which in turn may require adaptation of the interventions, so consideration needs to be given to adaptability of indicators. Outcome indicators may therefore be more appropriate with an adaptive management approach as they are likely to be more robust to adjusted programme activities. H. Provide sustainable, equitable financial incentives There is increasing uptake of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Commonly in these cases, managers are paid for the maintenance of the ecosystem service flows provided usually as a result of upkeeping good-quality ecosystems and minimising pressures to those systems. Monitoring will be required to ensure those outcomes are met (e.g. the habitat is in an adequate condition for functioning ecosystem service flows) in order to validate payments, and relevant components to monitor would include ecosystem, species and/or pressure metrics. I. Consider trade-offs and synergies across multiple scales Even within the biodiversity pillar of the triple win there are trade-offs that need to be considered, both spatially and temporally, and it should be an aim that chosen indicators should be able to capture the trade-off to inform future activities. For instance, displacement is likely to be a factor of any programme which seeks to reduce human impacts on an ecosystem if the programme does not also mitigate by reducing the human demand. Generally, biodiversity indicators do not capture this well as they work at a different scale than the displacement occurs.In this case, it may be appropriate to include programme-level indicators which report on the demand aspect of the land, to better understand if displacement is likely to be occurring. Temporally,the duration of a project life cycle is often mismatched with theimpacts of biodiversity benefits which can have a time-lag ofdecades. This illustrates the value of establishing long-termmonitoring as part of the programme, which if well-embeddedcan continue beyond the end of the programme.