Welcome to the Forum on the sustainable use of biodiversity.

Please reply to this thread if you have any general comments relating to the sustainable use of biodiversity within the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Thank you for signing up colleagues. We are glad you are here. You have joined a group of experts with interesting ideas and unique perspectives to ensure that sustainable use is well reflected in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.  This online forum is an essential part of the Thematic Discussion on Sustainable Use and the Post 2020 GBF preparatory process.  We look forward to hearing your diverse perspectives and please explore and engage in a discussion in all the four topics (threads) presented here.

As Co-leads of this thematic discussion, we would like to give you a special welcome and we will be happy to engage with you during the course of this forum.

Mphatso and Norbert

All sectors in society need to contribute to learn and change professional and administrative practices in favour of sustainable use of society.  Both private as public organisations need to learn what sustainable use is from their sector perspective. This thread is about public organisations. Their role is crucial in relation to interpretation and implementation of legislation and administrative procedures. Public officials often have room for manouvre that needs to be in line with sustainable use. I am a professor in environmental assessment with focus on social-science research and with an ecology background. My research is on Learning and change in organisations in relation to sust dev policy and legislation and the role of policy instruments like e.g. impact assessment, indicators etc

I am Ruth Spencer from Antigua and Barbuda, a community development advocate.Thanks to Tuija Tuija Hilding-Rydevik for the observation and  yes indeed the role of public organization is key  and  plays a lead role in integrating and mainstreaming  knowledge and information on sustainable use. I reflect  in 2019 that  our Ministry of Trade and Consumer Affairs leading an integrated process involving local community  CSO to partner with them to show case  recycled products  seeking to portray  various traits  of a “Sustainable Consumer" and even though we have no control over high imports of foods and products into the country, the message is clear that through our choices, purchases and  consumption we can make important changes . Covid !9 has forced us to consume more local natural products  that  are nutritionally superior so the movement continues to  one health for our personal  human and environment.

This post relates especially to Target 13 and Target 17 and their components.

Public organizations need indeed capacity strengthening on the implications and needs of incorporating knowledge building and generation based on both traditional knowledge and traditional science related specifically to sustainable use.  Good practices of how this information is generating fast and improve examples of management of both continental and marine resources need to be show and scale up soon.  There is no time to wait for governmental/ academic scientific information, the practical knowledge needs to be apply in the territories and sustainable use practices soon.

A general comment on the framework will be the  need to add to the targets not only effective means of action but equitable means of action which will need to bring to each target a new wording to include the social and economic considerations. These need to be very clearly stated at the target level to move into monitor actions later.  This is particularly importance in a gender mainstreaming along the framework.

Dear Mphatso and Norbert,
The Norwegian Government is working on a submission on sustainable use and the post 2020 global biodiversity framework. The submission will be posted on the CBD web-pages. In this submission we will address questions asked in the previous survey. The submission will also benefit from the discussions in the threads.

Kind regards
Gaute Voigt-Hanssen
Chief negotiator
Norway

We need to build on successful initiatives and existing processes that have advance and have been successful in the approach for the objectives of the GBF. Ex. How have governments and civil society advance in the Implementation of the Voluntary guidelines for the sustainability of small scale fishers in the framework of food security and poverty erradication.

The Secretariat received the following comment on September 10, from Mr. Richard Kenchington, IUCN Fisheries Expert Group:


The marine context of Sustainable use.

Concern that text implies use in term in the context of consumption of biodiversity/wildlife as an economic market value.

Perhaps the subject is sustainable consumption of wildlife?

There are challenges to applying terrestrial thinking to marine systems.

How do we measure the effects of single species removal from the function of marine food chains? Terrestrial models of sustainable harvest of herbivore with surface vegetation dependence and limited reproductive output provide limited guidance.

Terrestrial habitats and lifecycles may be understood/defined in terms of surface geology, hydrology and climate. But the biology of species in the water column is the crucial linking component of marine habitats. This is particularly conflating in considerations of stocks of species whose medium to large ranges and food chain roles cover multiple jurisdictions from local to global.

Marine species with planktonic larvae typically have high reproductive output in which few but variable numbers of larvae survive to adult size through growth in complex predatory water column food webs.

An underlying indicator is that LOSC refers to conservation in the sense of maintaining fish stocks in the sense of economically extractable species while CBD uses conservation in the (terrestrial) area based context of conservation/protection of areas with un or minimally disturbed biodiversity.

My apologies for not having had time to engage deeply with each of the threads. I've been following the discussions through email notifications and would like to contribute the following thoughts, trusting I'll beat the deadline and you will be willing to consider them where they belong:
1) The best terminology is "sustainable use of the components of biodiversity" as per the second objective, i.e. ecosystems, species and the genetic diversity of species. If we use any of these unsustainably the whole inevitably suffers. At the local level, where specificity matters, people know what this means for their situation.
2) It is crucial to recognise that sustainability is a dynamic concept: customary uses that were sustainable at low population levels might no longer be so when more people are targeting the same resources for direct consumption, and even less so when they are also harvesting extra to sell to commercial biotrade markets (but with good management such markets might be highly sustainable)
3) As a general rule of thumb, due to human population growth and climate change impacts, any use of biodiversity can only be sustainable if it leads to an increase in biodiversity; any system that merely seeks to maintain a situation ex ante (of which baselines, anyway?) is bound to fail, slowly or quickly. Sustainable use targets in the GBF must therefore explicitly pursue an increase in the particular components of biodiversity involved
4) "Wild species" is wildly inappropriate; most ecosystems contain a mix of undomesticated, semi-domesticated and fully domesticated species, but in the Anthropocene none of them is truly "wild" (and most IPLCs would tell you that they are in fact part of the natural family of all life); semi-domesticated species (aka "new and under-utilised crops") and the genetic diversity of domesticated species that is preserved in traditional farming  systems are crucial to human survival in the face of climate change
5) The 2050 goal (or is it a vision? a delusion? a fever dream? a hallucination?) of "living in harmony with nature" is unworkable because it is based on the fallacy that humans are separate from nature. To bring about transformative change we have to understand that we are the clever monkeys who got ahead of ourselves, grew too big for our shoes, took more than our fair share while pushing every other life form to the brink, and have now landed up with all of the world utterly at our mercy; if we and the rest of life are to survive we must assume our responsibility to steward life and increase both its abundance and its diversity
6) The only real examples of true sustainable use that we have for guidance are the traditional practices of IPLCs; therefore recognising, affirming, honouring, boosting, celebrating, protecting and spreading these practices and their foundation - the land tenure, resource rights, biocultural identity and independent agency of the IPLCs involved - is absolutely essential if we are to find a way out of the current mess
7) Ultimately this is a question of economic fairness and equity: as long as it remains more profitable to destroy biodiversity than it is to use it sustainably (i.e. in a way that increases it) biodiversity will continue to decline. To reverse this trend, to "bend the curve", to bring about a "transformative change" it is essential that we find a way to make sure everyone who benefits from biodiversity is obliged to fairly and equitably share enough of that benefit to ensure sustainable use and conservation. No more free riders.

I regret not having entered the discussion earlier. It is now literally the 11th hour. I am an economist who has published widely about access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits from their utilization.

I daresay that no use has less negative impact on biodiversity than access to genetic resources through databases of gene sequences, enzymes, proteins and so on. Biotechnology is a trillion-dollar industry yet benefits do not flow. Access to digitized natural information is largely open, i.e. free, free, free. Even when the genetic resource is not dematerialized and is legally accessed, benefits do not flow. Users jurisdiction shop. Competition has resulted in royalties between 0.1 and 1.0% in the ABS legislation of the most mega-diverse country in the world. Numbers bring home just how low that percentage is: on a billion-dollar blockbuster drug, royalty income could be as low as 1 million dollars. Perversely, Aichi Target 16 is considered partially achieved because of such legislation: "By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation". Although the Nagoya Protocol is in force, national legislations cannot operate fairly and equitably; unbounded competition in information is inherently not fair, not equitable and above all, not efficient.

The solution is basic economics: rents.  Just as artificial information enjoys rents through monopoly intellectual property, natural information can enjoy rents through a Global Multilateral Benefit-Sharing Mechanism, which is  Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. With distribution of royalty income among countries of origin, incentives would align for habitat conservation, thereby allowing people in this and future generations to enjoy the other sustainable benefits discussed in this forum.

Joseph Henry Vogel
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras

I regret not having entered the discussion earlier. It is now literally the 11th hour. I am an economist who has published widely about access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits from their utilization.

I daresay that no use has less negative impact on biodiversity than access to genetic resources through databases of gene sequences, enzymes, proteins and so on. Biotechnology is a trillion-dollar industry yet benefits do not flow. Access to digitized natural information is largely open, i.e. free, free, free. Even when the genetic resource is not dematerialized and is legally accessed, benefits do not flow. Users jurisdiction shop. Competition has resulted in royalties between 0.1 and 1.0% in the ABS legislation of the most mega-diverse country in the world. Numbers bring home just how low that percentage is: on a billion-dollar blockbuster drug, royalty income could be as low as 1 million dollars. Perversely, Aichi Target 16 is considered partially achieved because of such legislation: "By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation". Although the Nagoya Protocol is in force, national legislations cannot operate fairly and equitably; unbounded competition in information is inherently not fair, not equitable and above all, not efficient.

The solution is basic economics: rents.  Just as artificial information enjoys rents through monopoly intellectual property, natural information can enjoy rents through a Global Multilateral Benefit-Sharing Mechanism, which is  Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. With distribution of royalty income among countries of origin, incentives would align for habitat conservation, thereby allowing people in this and future generations to enjoy the other sustainable benefits discussed in this forum.

Joseph Henry Vogel
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras

As a complement to the response by R. Kenchington, about the LOSC and CBD. It would be important to note also that the LOSC precedes the CBD and the CBD is supposed to operate "consistent with the LOSC" as long as it does not contradict the CBD objectives. In practice the LOSC DOES NOT JUST PROTECT THE COMMERCIAL SPECIES, but also the dependent and associated species (Art. 51.4) and the environment (Art. 192). Article 61.4 states that "In taking such [management] measures the coastal State shall take into consideration the effects [of fishing] on species associated with or dependent upon
harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such associated or dependent species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened". The MSY level recommended for commercial stocks is a level at which the reproduction is not threatened. So, in reality, although MSY is not mentioned (rightly) for species that are not caught or not landed, associated and dependent species (i.e. the trophic chain, is treated with the same standard: no significant adverse impact on the species concerned. And this is completely in line with the CBD requirements for biodiversity: no Significant Adverse Impact (SAI). This criteria has been indeed explicitly adopted in the Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (MEs) in deep-sea fisheries.

So while a lot of progress is still needed to really achieve full alignment of fisheries and conservation in the ocean, the convergence of the policy and management frames is important.

A general comment: why is sustainable use not explicitly included in the monitoring framework for Target 3 which reads By 2030, ensure active management actions to enable wild species of fauna and flora recovery and conservation? Sustainable use can be one form of "active management action" that enable species recovery. I think we need to be clear not to assume that the management action should be preventing use, when at times and when well regulated, use provides a positive incentive for conservation

One if the key question of the discussion of sustainable use, is to define the operative meaning of the term in the context of the global biodiversity framework in general, but also specifically for every target. Only with a common understanding of the term in the context of goals and targets will it be possible to identify meaningful target components, monitoring elements and related indicators. (See See also the presentation by Dilys Roe, IUCN from the briefing session).
From our perspective, the global biodiversity framework and its targets should ensure that the use of biodiversity is sustainable for biodiversity. Economic or social benefits from the use will be accompanying effects but should not be the main objective.
The framework should strive to define the thresholds, i.e. 1) establish in which ecological limits / planetary boundaries biodiversity can be used sustainable by different sectors and on different levels and 2) inform on measures needed to avoid/prevent any unsustainable use.
It should be clear who defines the limits and who has to account for that the use of biodiversity is sustainable. E.g. companies/the productive sector should be asked to report their ecological footprint and show to what extent their sustainability strategies contribute to the decrease of negative impacts on biodiversity. 
We observed a discrepancy between the target components and some of the monitoring elements and related indicators, since the indicators proposed in the draft monitoring framework do not always measure the proposed monitoring elements. Examples are target 14, target element T14.1. “Reduction of at least [50%] in negative impacts on biodiversity”, monitoring element “Trends in ecological limits reached or surpassed” and proposed indicators.

That is an important point from Dilys Roe, about re-wording Target 3 to highlight that "use provides a positive incentive for conservation". Yes, and sustainable use (especially at a local/community level, involving close bonds of people and their environment) not only can support conservation actions, but also can provide a crucial knowledge base and ongoing monitoring of ecosystems.

On behalf of WCS: We are concerned that “use” is being conflated with “sustainable use”, as if the two are the same. There is unfortunately extensive use of biodiversity that is unsustainable, and all efforts must be made (science, management, enforcement, etc.) to prohibit that use, or to change its regime such that it becomes biologically, culturally, socially, and economically sustainable. We recommend a target on the elimination of unsustainable use (with associated indicators in the monitoring framework).
The IPBES Global Assessment clearly states that over-exploitation of organisms is one of the direct drivers of change in nature with the largest global impact. It states, “For terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, land-use change has had the largest relative negative impact on nature since 1970, followed by the direct exploitation, in particular overexploitation, of animals, plants and other organisms, mainly via harvesting, logging, hunting and fishing.” We would prefer to see far more focus in the Global Biodiversity Framework and Monitoring Framework that commits governments to take strong action to combat overexploitation, whether terrestrial or marine, and whether flora or fauna; that should include clear indicators on reduction in overexploitation, implementation of science-based management measures, etc., that can provide incentives to governments and others to eliminate unsustainable use/overexploitation. That is missing currently.
WCS believes that it is vital to ensure that any use (consumptive or non-consumptive) of wild fauna and flora should be biologically, economically, and socially sustainable, but we also believe it is important to include in the framework that all use of wild fauna and flora that is not biologically, economically, and socially sustainable should end. The target, elements, and monitoring framework to date appear to advocate use, with the goal of hoping that it is sustainable. Rather, use that is unsustainable should be stopped or changed, such that there are incentives for it to become sustainable.
We believe there should be an increased emphasis on national decision-making (plans and policies) around sustainable and legal use, as called for in CBD Article 10 -- with measures designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity (as per Article 10 (b)). Instead of an ad hoc approach to use, there needs to be strategic management of sustainable use regimes, which must be aligned with broader policies on ecosystem conservation and impact avoidance, species management and recovery plans, etc.
We therefore strongly urge Parties to ensure that the global biodiversity framework clarifies that use should not be facilitated or allowed if it is not demonstrably sustainable, legal, well managed, and of no risk to human or animal health.

Dear Mphatso and Norbert,
I am Frederick Kwame Kumah, of Africa Wildlife Foundation, but sending this submission on behalf of the Africa CSOs Biodiversity Alliance.  Ours is coming late in the day, but we hope you all will give your kind consideration.  
Our submission cuts across at least 3 of the 4 threads, so it was difficult to post comments there.  We have opted to use the general comments and questions section to post our submission.  Here is the submission:
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE AGENDA OF SUSTAINABLE USE (SU)
o To achieve the CBD targets, sustainable use needs to be the anchor and glue that delivers on all three goals of the Convention. By default, a SU approach delivers benefits and conservation outcomes because it is people-centered and nature positive. Sustainability denotes the increasing value of nature while delivering on societal aspirations.
o Past biodiversity targets such as the AICHI targets have mainly focused on conservation as a means to halt biodiversity loss. The issue of benefits under the Nagoya Protocol is narrowly defined with reference to genetic resources. Sustainable use presents a unique opportunity to deliver on all three goals of the CBD convention in a reinforcing manner.
o Nature’s contributions to people are not limited to local communities and indigenous people alone and thus meaningfully advancing sustainable use needs to be a collective responsibility of humanity.
o We acknowledge that whilst there are direct benefits of sustainable use of nature, there are also indirect benefits i.e clean water, clean air, food security health and cultural value, although vital, are often overlooked.
o The SU concept enables a holistic approach to managing multiple objectives at the landscape level, placing people at the center of decision-making and managing the trade-offs between competing interests so that we can not only create better resilience but also anticipate and avoid pandemics like COVID-19.

TRADEOFFS
o A requisite for sustainability is that user-groups understand and accept that there are local and global limits to use levels. In increasing cases these limits are being exceeded. The more people understand and respect these limits on how they use nature, the easier it will be to achieve sustainable use.
o In order to enhance biodiversity conservation and maintain ecosystem integrity whilst ensuring fair and equitable distribution of benefits from the system, there need to be trade-offs to minimize conflicts and negative impacts on nature and society. The SDGs show the interconnectedness between the users of nature and economic and social benefits, and also provide a framework for addressing the tradeoffs.



GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
o SU demands an effective and enforceable governance framework that includes policies and practices that govern the relationship between user groups and nature and hold them accountable to each other and society for their actions. Understanding the impact of power relations is critical if there is to be meaningful engagement with and empowerment of the shareholders and ultimate custodians of natural assets.

TARGETS; LOCAL AND GLOBAL
o Sustainability at the local level can be difficult to measure using only quantitative data or by imposing global metrics/standards. SU is site and context specific determined by local natural endowments, user group dynamics and external influences. This local context needs to be understood as it can influence user group behavior and the resilience of ecosystems can be compromised by indiscriminate use of biodiversity.
o Opportunities to use qualitative data and proxy indicators to assess sustainability at the local level should be encouraged and capacitated

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS, RIGHTS AND CULTURE
o SU practices have evolved with communities and therefore the communities can offer valuable lessons on adaptation and resilience in order to evolve modern SU practices.
o Local communities are already dealing with the effects of Climate Change on biodiversity and we are not learning from their responses. We need to find a smart way to combine this local knowledge with formal science and scale-up.
o Need to acknowledge and accept the role of user groups as custodians of nature and their rights to use their land and resources.
o Culture plays a vital role with respect to how and who manages nature and the type of decision-making structures that govern use. Failure to understand this can undermine sustainability efforts. 



AFRICA CSOs BIODIVERSITY ALLIANCE (ACBA) CASE STUDIES

1. Wildlife Community Forest Reserves, Pastoralism, and Water Rehabilitation - https://bit.ly/3hntp2E
2. Locally Managed Marine Area: Kuruwitu co-management area - https://bit.ly/3k8b9Mx
3. Namibia CBNRM Case Study - https://bit.ly/3bNxmfY
4. Sustainable use consultation submission - https://bit.ly/35s2WPf

Dear All,
In this late hour I limit myself to concurring with some important observations made by Plessis [#1881]: “It is crucial to recognise that sustainability is a dynamic concept” and “- Ultimately this is a question of economic fairness and equity: as long as it remains more profitable to destroy biodiversity than it is to use it sustainably biodiversity will continue to decline. “
I also support the observations by Kumah [#1945] in that for sustainable use it is essential to address ‘trade offs’ and governance frameworks.