NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Biodiversity Indicators in Context 48 Target 1 in the current draft framework also directly relates to restoration, with an ambition to: “...restore [X%] of degraded freshwater, marine, and terrestrial natural ecosystems, and connectivity among them” The proposed indicator is therefore potentially relevant for national targets to restore habitats, and could help measure progress towards this type of target (particularly if the area restored is disaggregated into broad ecosystem types). Such restoration targets are often a feasible way for countries to track ongoing actions that may take many years to translate into ecosystem changes (e.g. see national reports). Importantly, the indicator documents the implementation of restoration activities rather than the outcome. Consequently, it is not an appropriate indicator to use for any targets that involve reporting changes in ecosystem integrity unless a sufficient level of restoration has been reached (e.g. as set out as an objective by the project) – this may be years beyond the project span. Prior to this, the indicator may be useful to the recipient country in understanding the expected scale and locations of areas for future reporting on improvements to ecosystem integrity. At the species level, the proposed indicator ‘Improvement in conservation status of threatened species’ is relevant for understanding how extinction risk may be changing. Data from this indicator would help countries understand progress towards any national targets that focus on improving IUCN conservation status. However, note that the proposed indicator is the modelled change in status based on the activities carried out by projects. This has the advantage of being more immediate than documenting e.g. population changes and subsequent shifts in Red List assessment, but is not empirically determining conservation status and so should be reported and interpreted accordingly. It is therefore less likely to be directlyrelevant for assisting national reporting. In addition to the direct relevance of the proposed indicators, the process of data collection could contribute towards other potentialCBD targets in two ways: i) Understanding the state of species (e.g. population trends) and ecosystems (e.g. integrity). The indicators do not directly report this information, but relevant data are collected. For example, the indicator ‘Hectares under ecological restoration’ requires a monitoring plan that would involve collecting data on species and ecosystems: in some cases, this might contribute to national datasets used to report on status and trends. This underscores the importance of ensuring that data collected as part of reporting on ODA indicators are made available and accessible. ii) Increasing capacity, data, and knowledge on biodiversity. There is potential to build local monitoring capacity (e.g. training) during the data collection used to produce the indicators. Similarly, the indicators will generate data and knowledge (e.g. on species abundances, effects of interventions, etc.). If this potential does translate into increased capacity, data, and knowledge, it could be used by countries as part of documenting progress against other aspects of the CBD on increasing understanding of biodiversity.