1. Which terms should be used in Targets 4: ‘wildlife’, ‘wild species’ or ‘biological resources’?
• What would the implications of these different terms be for the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework? 

2. Would it be more effective to monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting, in addition to trends in legal trade and harvesting?

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

I would rather tend to recommend using the term wildlife as it covers a much wider scope species and derivatives made of them.

Concerning monitoring trends in in trade and harvesting it would from my perspective be more efficient to monitor both, i.e. legal as well as illegal trade and harvesting. There are species that dispose of high ecological plasticity (e.g. certain extremely resiliant crocodilians) where over long time periods illegal trade has been going on and on but which has proven not to be unsustainable as long as their habitat remained intact.

"Biological resources" should be the term employed.
"Wildlife" is too much associated to wild animals; "wild species" is frequently considering Fauna and Flora, forgetting Funga. Uses of both terms do not usually embrace biological resources such as exploitable metabolites of life species, whose harvest may directly affect population dynamics or survival of source species. In addition, soil, as biologically active natural resource is subject of harvest and degradation too and is not well embraced by "wildlife" and "wild species" terms. More supporting arguments for "biological resources" can be sought for through this Forum.

1. Use of the term "Wildlife" does imply animals only in common parlance, although in English it includes all taxa. "Wild species" is fine, and does include fungi, although as another colleague has flagged, it would not include, for example, extraction of peat, which could theoretically be sustainable if extracted at extremely slow rates which are balanced by the rate at which it forms. "Biological resources" would cover the latter, except that we are not only concerned about "resources", but also about internationally threatened taxa, which cannot be considered "resources" in the more banal use of the term, unless we consider them a part of a functional ecosystem, in which case their "resource" value is keeping biomes running. I would suggest "wild species".

2. Monitoring. Both legal and illegal use have to be monitored, otherwise one is only seeing a susbset of what is extracted, and one has no idea what the ratio of the two are: for example, is 10% of the trade legal and 90% illegal? Or vice versa? In addition, the abundance of the species in the wild has to be monitored; this is the other half of the equation for sustainability, because it actually provides a much better metric on whether extraction of a given species is sustainable or not.

I agree that it is critical to monitor populations in the wild—and that includes monitoring the impacts of any exploitation/use. Monitoring the impacts of consumptive use must not only consider the numbers of animals (or plants) removed from the wild, but impacts on the demographics of the population (age, sex, etc.). It is critical to look at both “legal” use, and illegal use, in terms of sustainability. Any quotas that are set must be based on sound science, and must fully take into account both legal and illegal off-take from a population. All too often, the sustainability of a use program is assessed based on legal quotas, while ignoring illegal off-take in excess of that. Furthermore, any monitoring and evaluation of whether or not a use program is sustainable must assess not only biological sustainability for the population in question, but also whether or not it is economically and culturally sustainable; benefits must accrue not only to traders, but also to local communities.  Finally, the term “wildlife” includes flora and fauna, but “wildlife” or “wild species” would be fine (I prefer either to “biological resources”).

One point 1:

I think biologists understand that "wildlife" includes both plants and animals, but I am not sure the general public does.  I suspect they just think of animals.  "Wild species" is a more inclusive term.

On point 2:

If possible, then it is of course preferable to monitor both legal and illegal offtake.  This makes sense.

It should be noted, however, that the point of monitoring will influence how much data can be gathered on the impacts of legal vs. illegal trade.  For example, if you're monitoring the wild population directly, in the field, then you may be capturing the impact of BOTH legal and illegal trade on that population. 

If the question is simply "should we be monitoring trends", then this presumably means "trade or harvest data".  In which case it is important to attempt to understand trends in both legal and illegal trade to get an accurate picture.  However, I agree with Dr. Lieberman that while monitoring trade or harvest numbers is useful, without trend data on sex ratios, minimum sizes at sexual maturity, mean body sizes, etc, etc, harvest data alone are not particularly insightful for the purpose of understanding sustainability - especially when unrecorded illegal harvests are taking place.

Hello all.
On point 1, it is worth recalling that some terms are already defined in Article 2 of the Convention - notably sustainable use itself (which refers to the use of the 'components of biological diversity') and also biological resources - but not wildlife or wild species. I'll probably come back to what term we prefer later but I agree that ‘wild species’ is more inclusive than wildlife which gets interpreted differently by different people.
However, a key point, which the UK made in our written comments, and which is referred to above by Daniel Cebrain, is that we are not talking here only about ‘plants and animals’! The reference in the updated zero draft to ‘wild species of fauna and flora’ excludes any uses of fungi, for example, which are a separate Kingdom to plants and animals. So, in my opinion, we should delete reference to ‘of fauna and flora’ in this draft target – it is unnecessarily restrictive for a Convention dealing with all biodiversity.
Secondly, we should also recall that whilst our focus might be on the consumptive uses of wild species, the definition of sustainable use includes non-consumptive uses too – and the Addis Ababa guidelines, for example, were intended to refer to both categories.

On point 2, in terms of monitoring, we should be clear what we are monitoring and for whom. Clearly, those managing harvests of species need to monitor a range of parameters to ensure any harvests are sustainable. But the key here is what can we measure and aggregate which gives us a meaningful picture at a global level. And whilst we do need to know levels of offtake which are taken or traded illegally, it is far more challenging to measure illegal harvest and trade than for legal activities. Typical indicators, such as recorded seizures for example, confound a range of variables (enforcement effort & effectiveness & actual levels of illegal trade). So it is much more challenging.

And a final initial comment on monitoring, we should not focus solely on target species when assessing the impact of any uses of biodiversity. For example, it is possible to have a perfectly sustainable fishery (for the target species) which at the same time has a detrimental impact on a non-target species or ecosystem. So, for example, some of the suggested indicators on by-catch linked to target 8 in the draft monitoring framework (rows 110-111), would more usefully be linked to target 4.

Dear participants, please see the following additional questions for your further consideration:

3. What indicators could be used in the monitoring framework to ensure the safety of sustainable use?

4. What techniques currently exist to estimate sustainable harvest, trade or use limits and quotas?

4. What techniques currently exist to estimate sustainable harvest, trade or use limits and quotas?

Under CITES Parties have agreed already a long time ago to establish annual export quotas. There are two kind of annual export quotas, i.e. quotas that have been established by the Conference of the Parties (either via resolutions or annotations in the appendices) or annual export quotas which the Parties communicate on a voluntarily basis to the CITES Secretariat (https://www.cites.org/eng/resources/quotas/index.php). These quota systems have proven to be highly efficient to ensure that both the taking in the wild and the international trade in the species concerned are legal, verifiable and sustainable. Overall, a great success story of the Convention that could readily be used as a blue print under other international trade agreements, conventions or UN bodies to ensure a wise use of wild living resources.

At present, the focus is very anthropocentric – emphasis on nature’s contributions to people. This will develop a utilitarian mindset, which is totally contrary to the need to educate and move towards Harmony with Nature. Particularly if there is no ethical evaluation of the purpose and practice of uses i.e. in the case of wild animals, no weighting of human necessity against the taking of sentient animal lives, and risks to biodiversity/species (including spin-off risks), or consideration of animal welfare aspects (or indeed human health/pandemic risks!). This is unacceptable. The focus should not be on commercial trade, but on local subsistence uses using humane and sustainable practices. There should be more emphasis on peoples’ contributions to nature because good biodiversity outcomes arise from close relational values between humans and nature, and this is what ultimately builds Harmony with Nature – not commercial exploitation.
In addition, there is a need to address the right to a healthy environment for living in Harmony with Nature. The right to a healthy environment brings together all that humanity has learned about how human rights and the environment interact.

This message is in response to Dr Dietrich Jelden, CIC .
I would question the applicability of CITES for a number of reasons. It has a limited remit, which covers endangered species, as opposed to all species, and only in a trade context. It is not possible to extrapolate its use to all species in the wild. Especially given spin-off effects on other species and habitats.And indeed human and animal health and welfare. Also, its efficacy must be in question given the wildlife extinction crisis (including endangered species). In reality it is impossible to police and implement, especially given poor policing and governance challenges in many source African countries. The real lesson of CITES should be that in this day and age, there is a strong need for a real precautionary approach, and a wider systemic approach to policy, regulation and implementation. COVID-19 has shown how important interconnections are, and the danger of not taking these into account.

On question 3, I think it is essential in draft target 4 that we have some indication of what we mean by the use of the term ‘safe’ – safe to what or whom(?) - before we can address what should be in the monitoring framework
Clearly in the current pandemic there is a focus on reducing the risks of use and trade in wild animals to human health. But as this Target (4) is in the section of the Framework on ‘reducing the threats to biodiversity’, I suggest that ‘safe’ here should refer to being safe from an ecological perspective only and being ‘safe’ from a human and/or animal health perspective should be addressed elsewhere in the framework?
So, ‘safe’ could / should be defined as ensuring harvests are within safe ecological limits for the target species and are also ‘safe’ (i.e. do not threaten) for non-target organisms. These are important important elements of current Aichi target 6 (even though that focuses mostly on fisheries), notably with respect to ensuring that any uses apply ecosystem-based approaches, avoid detrimental impacts on non-target species & habitats, and are within safe ecological limits, but which are lost from the current draft. Taking this view could re-structure some of the indicators in the monitoring framework (I’ve already commented on how some bycatch indicators should be linked to this target)

I agree with those who have pointed out the term "biological resources" is more in line with the text and spirit of the CBD. The monitoring framework should certainly look at illegal and legal use, harvest and trade, there is no ground for excluding illegal use.

4. What techniques currently exist to, trade or use limits and quotas?

Fisheries science provides diverse established techniques regarding harvest limits on fish (fishes, crustaceans and molluscs in FAO terms): Statistical analysis sourcing on physiology cycles biological data, conditioning environmental variables data, sampling data from trawl surveys, acoustic surveys, onboard observers of catch , landing port surveys, direct counts (divers, ROVs,…)  for particular ecosystems e.g. reefs and meadows linked species, etc.
Recalling first that quotas have shown in several fisheries not to finally ensure sustainability, establishing quotas and monitor them aiming sustainable harvest  is easier in single species fisheries (e.g. Tuna), while individual quota management in multispecies fisheries and in fisheries with significant bycatch is more challenging. There are higher enforcement and operational difficulties of setting quotas for each of the species being captured concurrently, a common challenge in coastal fisheries and so frequent in low scale fisheries, usually operated by IPLCs.
The overall added constraint to all the above techniques, if aiming to estimate ecologically safe sustainable harvests, is that fisheries are currently managed (wherever it happens) having as goal to fish up to the Maximum Sustainable Yield, bringing the ecosystems to stress, in the best of the cases, while a yield far from the maximum theoretically calculated (but questionable as a mathematics fact, since we act on ecosystems) should be the goal to allow keeping ecosystem resilience.

On questions 1 and 2 ...
1. Which terms should be used in Targets 4: ‘wildlife’, ‘wild species’ or ‘biological resources’?
As a marine biologist in Africa I can assure you that 'wildlife', especially when used by specialists, means just that - terrestrial wild game and those most interesting to tourism and hunting. And certainly the public sees it that way too. So I advocate very strongly for using 'wild species' (and better than 'biological resources' as not all species are direct resources). If a broader term than 'wild species' can be used that would be fine, but 'wildlife' is too misleading and will be harmful to the general scope of 'living in harmony with nature'.

2. Would it be more effective to monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting, in addition to trends in legal trade and harvesting?
There is no justification for monitoring only one or the other - all offtake of nature's contributions to people must be measured, and whether it is legal or illegal has huge implications on responses/management. The system needs to be monitored for its critical dynamics, so this also means aspects of population biology where possible, as noted in several responses.

Regarding the terminologies: wildlife, wild species, biological resources, and considering that different inputs have well backed arguments for the term supported, maybe we would need as solution an inclusive answer, by choosing as term "biological resources, including wild species". We already know that the second term is embraced by the first one, but remarking it through mentioning the second one enhances the components that the second term brings forward, notably for general public, while still preserving the terminology included in Article 2 of  CBD Convention text.  Similar approach is taken in other fora e.g. when talking in marine gatherings on "open seas, including deep sea areas".

On Question 4, there are a lot of techniques (some referred to by others above) to manage harvests and trade to help to achieve or demonstrate sustainability, including some certification schemes with global or regional reach. There’s also a lot of guidance available to Parties and others through CBD (e.g. the Addis principles and voluntary guidance on wild meat in Decision 14/7) and CITES (e.g. with guidance on non-detriment findings etc) and more elsewhere. But the question here is how does knowing these techniques help us to inform development of the post-2020 framework? The latter will set targets for what we want to achieve and develop indicators to measure progress, but the techniques used to achieve sustainable use in practice will be decided by Parties and by other actors / stakeholders.

Response to Q4:

CITES alone cannot begin to reach the majority of wild species that are extracted from the wild, because (i) CITES applies only to taxa that cross an international border, and (ii) most of the Earth's taxa are not on the CITES Appendices.

For example, the vast majority of wild animals that are hunted in Central Africa and then consumed as bushmeat do not cross an international border, and are not on a CITES Appendix, so CITES is completely irrelevant for these. However, the rate of extraction of these animals is in most cases at least an order of magnitude, if not more, above sustainable levels, and it is getting worse over time. A few species appear to be extracted at sustainable levels in some places, especially medium-sized rodents, but even these are quasi-absent in some of the region's more densely settled areas.

The SWM (Sustainable Wildlife Management) programme, a seven-year, multi-continent effort, has been set up to explore ways of reversing these trends, to date at a set of "model" sites across the tropics. Different indicators and monitoring methods are being studied, with the view to advising how to best use which approach with which characteristics of habitat/ wildlife and human communities, but all with a strong accent on quantitative, measurable, precise and repeatable data that can be used to robustly detect trends in use and availability of wild species.

[http://www.fao.org/forestry/wildlife/95602/en/]
[https://www.swm-programme.info/]

Question 1. I would clearly exclude term wildlife, since to my knowledge it only covers animals. I would prefer the broadest term and I would agree with those who suggest biological resources.

Question 2. What we need to achieve is to know population trends. However, since monitoring of all species is impossible and most of the countries can monitor only limited number of species, I would say that monitoring of legal and illegal trade is something how you can decide which species to monitor. However, this is of course not enough, because the populations may decline because of several reasons in combination, or  high levels of trade may not be the root cause of decline. I think trade data   , ideally in combination with other monitoring information is a good decision-making tool to decide which species should be monitored.

Question 4. We have been using licensing and quota system for plants and hunting species except migratory birds. Daily limit system is used for migratory birds. I think this is also linked to trade monitoring data. Where we know that the demand and trade volumes are high, some restrictions should be put in place to ensure sustainability.

Also, I think quotas should be based not only on trade volumes, but also other criteria. E.g. data on habitat fragmentation and climate change, etc should also be considered when deciding whether the use is sustainable or not.

In response to Dietrich Jelden and others, quotas adopted by the CITES Parties only relate to CITES-listed species, and to international trade in those species. I concur that there have been successes for some species. However, the majority of CITES quotas are issued by Parties unilaterally, and are supposed to be based on the science-based non-detriment findings required under the CITES Convention. Unfortunately, all too many countries either choose not to make these non-detriment findings (and issue quotas or permits based on the needs of traders and not on sustainability), or they have limited capacity to do so. WCS works with a number of countries to provide assistance in building that scientific and management capacity, but it is important to look at both sustainable and unsustainable use beyond the CITES context. The ability of a country to issue and implement science-based adaptive management is critical to sustainable use, and should be reflected somehow.

In response to an earlier comment from Vin Fleming, I strongly concur that sustainability must refer not only to the species that is being exploited/removed from the wild or otherwise utilized, but should also refer to impacts on non-target species and the role of a species in its ecosystem (marine, terrestrial, and freshwater). Reliance on some certification schemes will miss this important component. For example, a tuna fishery may be biologically sustainable for the tuna species in question, but may be extremely harmful to species that are caught without any management or mitigation measures in the same fishery (e.g., cetaceans, sharks, rays, seabirds, marine turtles). Sustainability should not be mechanistically looked at on a single-species basis only.

1. Which terms should be used in Targets 4: ‘wildlife’, ‘wild species’ or ‘biological resources’?
• What would the implications of these different terms be for the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework?

We really cannot understand why the co-chairs used the term “wild species” in the draft targets, as biodiversity is of course about much more than wild species, even considering the difficulty of defining what exactly “wild” means in this context. Species directly used in agricultural biodiversity, and many more species that are to some degree managed by humans through landscape and seascape management, are as important or even more important, and should have at least the same safeguards for their harvesting, trade, and use. We would much prefer to see terminology that acknowledges both wild and non-wild species, or preferably that does not create this false dichotomy. Among the choices in this question, “biological resources” would be the best option, but just using the word “species” in Target 4 and related targets would be a simple solution, or following the Convention text to say “…of biological diversity” would seem to make sense.


2. Would it be more effective to monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting, in addition to trends in legal trade and harvesting?

This should be under the scope of CITES rather than the CBD. CITES has the experience and knowledge to carry this out. If we want to mention it, it should only be to say that we will work with CITES.

On harvest levels and quotas: Modern Fisheries management has developed a large range of methodologies to assess resources potential, define sustainable reference levels of harvest, Total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas that are revised every year based on continuous monitoring using industry and science-based data. Decision-making is based on Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) the quality of which is checked using Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) at whole system level. Where well applied, the approach has produces expected results, maintaining or rebuilding stocks. However, in many countries, poor enforcement remains a problem. Another issue relates to the fact that this approach manages "stocks" i.e. populations and not the entire species assemblages (trophic chain). This would requires fuller coordination or even integration of all fisheries management plans (FMPs) of all fisheries operating in the ecosystem (or exclusive economic zone). This integrated approach has been developing slowly in the last 2 decades but is still very far from being a recognized good practice, even in well developed nations.

Agree with Dr Lieberman that the ability of a country to issue and implement science-based adaptive management is critical to sustainable use, and should be reflected somehow. However, many countries will simply not have the governance, capacity, resources and knowledge to effective implement sustainable use policies.
There is also the need for effective international monitoring, including scientific analysis of current and projected risks and threats which could detrimentally impact biodiversity (massive impacts and interlinkages with climate change, pandemics/zoonoses and environmental degradation – as well as natural disasters and conflicts). A precautionary approach is vital.
But in practical terms, how will there be CBD/international monitoring covering all use? This is patently impossible in practice. After all, CITES cannot even effectively regulate the far more restrictive category under its remit – trade; endangered species.

Global populations of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles plunged by 68% between 1970 and 2016, according to the WWF and Zoological Society of London (ZSL)’s biennial Living Planet Report 2020. Two years ago, the figure stood at 60%.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/10/humans-exploiting-and-destroying-nature-on-unprecedented-scale-report-ao

With regard to Q1 the best term is “wild species”.  Best does not mean great, because I think many of us feel “wild species” lacks charisma for public communication.  But in my experience that same public things “wildlife” is just animals, and excludes plants, even if the expert community is less likely to to take that view.  The education task needed to change that widespread interpretation in the public would be massive and is unnecessary.  And “biological resources” is too restrictive.  Harvesting biodiversity for trade can have impacts on biodiversity components not actually uses, and therefore might not be considered “resources”.   As bycatches in fisheries demonstrate, for harvesting to be sustainable thse impact on non-targeted biodiversity components need to be sustinable for the harvesting to be sustainable. 
With regard to Q2, monitoring illegal trade would be quite effective, if (and only if) the monitoring of the illegal trade was credible, and there was evidence that aggressive actions would be taken when such monitoring detected problems.  Even then, we have learned that even monitoring legal trade demands lots of resources and well organized governance, with bottom up and top down  governance processes cooperating effectively.  By its very nature illegal harvesting and trade can only be harder to monitor than legal harvesting and trade, so even more resources and better governance coordination – when illegal trade is occurring outside the existing governance frameworks to begin with.  If monitoring of illegal wild species trade is done well there would be many desirable consequences, but for the above reasons I fear it would be very hard to do well, and done poorly it would drain management resources needed elsewhere as well, while producing  few changes in the illegal harvesting and trade.

1. I think the best option is to use "wild species"; as in some countries wildlife is interpreted as only animals, while wild species also considers plants. I think that the term "biological resources" is too broad, and it can refer to too many things (ie., soil) and it would be impossible to monitor them.

2. To monitor illegal trade and harvest is a real challenge, as many illegal activities are unidentified, and it depends a lot in each country's capacities to carry out monitoring and surveillance activities. Even within different years/administration periods, the efforts that governmental authorities dedicate to these activities varies, as resources (for hiring/maintaining inspectors salaries, vehicles, gas, etc.), can increase or decrease significantly from one year to another, and it is therefore impossible to observe real trends on illegal trade and harvesting. Concerning legal trade and harvesting, it is no doubt easier to monitor and observe real trends.

Paola Mosig R.

I totally agree that the term "biological resources" is too wide to be applicable here. It is also highly utilitarian, and not conducive to building Harmony with Nature or precautionary use. It is definitely not appropriate for use when describing sentient wild animals (which are not inanimate resources).

So to follow up on my earlier comments, and on those by others, I agree 'wild species' is the best to use - it is most likely to be understood more widely and to resonate with the public and non-specialists.

1. WWF concurs with others who express a preference for the term “wild species”,  since this covers all WILD living resources ("biological resources" includes farmed resources, which does not fit with this target). It will be important to ensure consistency in the monitoring framework so that specific issues with specific species are addressed.

2. Ideally yes, it would be good to monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting. However, it is intrinsically difficult to monitor trends in illegal harvest and trade. Therefore, harvest regimes, when setting sustainable limits, should assume a certain level of illegal harvest based on local circumstances and should practice adaptive management to test these and other assumptions, and to respond to unforeseen circumstances, such as weather events, disease outbreaks, civil unrest etc.
In the case of bigger plants or dense vegatation, e.g. mangroves, illegal harvesting can be measured and monitored in a comparatively easy way, based on national legislation and analysis of remote sensing data (if extent is lost in areas where harvesting is forbidden, it's clear that illegal activities took place). This gets more difficult of course if use is allowed to a certain extent, e.g. when quotas apply.
Re monitoring on the ground: forest services tend to control areas for illegal activities and tree cuts can be identified for quite some time on the ground, but overall and centralized data availability tends to be limited/hardly accessible. Still, remote sensing would allow for monitoring of illegal harvesting to a certain extent.

Like many others, IFAW favours the term ‘Wild species’. As has been often pointed out, the term ‘wildlife’ may lead to interpretation issues - some may interpret it as wild animals only and therefore may not monitor use of other plant species.

While Article 10 of the convention talks of sustainable use of biological resources and therefore for consistency, the term biological resources could be used, we feel that use of the term resources as it is commonly understood tends to commodify nature and encourage exploitation.
Similarly, we also feel the term harvest is not appropriate in the context of sentient wild animals, as in common understanding harvesting implies something more benign. Removal, extraction or exploitation could be alternative terms that might better reflect the reality for all species, animal or otherwise.

With regards to question 2; It is critical to monitor both trends in illegal and legal trade and harvesting.  As WCS and others have pointed out, otherwise you are only seeing a subset of what is being used/extracted. As also pointed out by WCS and others, it is important not just to understand trends in harvesting and trade but the impact of those activities on wild populations. And this is not just about numbers but also demographics of exploited populations.  And as the Vin Fleming, UK, [#1814] pointed out, this applies not just to target species but impacts on non-target species as well. We fully support the suggestion to use indicators on by-catch linked to target 8 in the draft monitoring framework (rows 110-111), under target 4 as well.

Monitoring legal and illegal trade and harvesting activities may also bring insight into the ‘safety’ of such activities or serve as an early warning system, if it highlights high levels of exploitation of and trade in species known to be higher risk in the spread of zoonotic diseases .

As others have observed CITES processes provide some monitoring activities but these alone are insufficient because of the scope of CITES being limited to threatened species and those in international trade. Also as noted by others, determinations of sustainability under CITES are entirely left to individual parties and these decisions are not always transparent. Also, as above, in terms of fisheries management in particular, it is important to ensure we are using ecosystem-based approaches that consider impacts beyond just the target species.

1.  Having returned to the different opinions including mine #1800 on the appropriate terms, with their advantages and problematic, I would fully support  Mr du Plessis, view #1881  on the need to retake the terminology already in Article 2 of the Convention associated to sustainable use, which is “components of biological diversity”. Indeed, there are many considerations which will be excluded by using “wildlife” or “wild species”, already expressed within this thread on sustainable harvest, trade and use of biodiversity, notably when rendering all these efforts’ results  to the general public. As recalled by our UNU colleague in  #1854, we need enough inclusiveness in the terminology, since this is a critical topic for the GBF. At the same time, limiting the approach to the consideration of biodiversity as just “resources”, keeps in the external world an anthropocentric and materialistic, say utilitarian connotation as remarked by Cox #1876, and encourages exploitation as mentioned by IFAW #1897. We risk sending the implicit message that it is suggested to revert again many years backwards on conservation philosophy when planning with a 2050 vision, by focusing on biodiversity just as an exploitable asset, with the generated dramatic consequences that we are facing now.

(Article 2.: ...//… "Sustainable use" means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations ...//…)

Question 1: CMS concurs with others on the term to be used in Targets 4: "wild species" is far preferable to “fauna and flora”, not least because the latter excludes fungi.

Question 2: It would important to monitor the impacts of any kind of take/use.

Question 3: Indicators developed to address the monitoring of safe harvesting operations will need to ensure that “safe harvesting” is assessed not only in terms of safe ecological limits for the target organisms, but also for the unintentional mortality or bycatch of non-target organisms.  In fact some parts of an indicator suite for this element could conceivably focus specifically on the bycatch aspect.

It is clearly necessary to consider any impacts on non-target species/habitats. But beyond this, I am most concerned that defining aspects of sustainable use are being considered without any holistic overview of other pressing environmental and health/safety concerns. There can also be impacts and spin-offs for existential threats such as climate change, increased pandemic risk and environmental degradation. Despite the fact that post-COVID all relevant UN and international organisations are promoting a “One Health” approach which considers all these interlinkages, there has been no mention of this?
If the CBD  fails to produce workable and precautionary analysis and controls, safeguards and effective implementation, the CBD process will be directly responsible for encouraging unsustainable consumption, quickening the rate of biodiversity loss and animal extinctions, and exacerbating other existential threats.
Where are the consultations on each of the major drivers of biodiversity loss, and how to address these? Until the impacts on systems of the various strands of use are examined and analysed, how can you consult on “sustainable use”? The biodiversity loss and extinction crises have gone too far for a “business as usual” approach. We should now be looking at disaster limitation and build-back; and stringent producer regulation and responsibility. (Nice as they sound, voluntary regulation and labelling schemes will not serve to reverse the crises we are facing.)

Q1 – Agree with WAN's Janice Cox and advocates of the term ‘wild species’, deemed most adequate and inclusive. ‘Biological resources’ reflects an anthropocentric view suggesting that biodiversity merely exists for human consumption. There is a compelling need to instil the notion of co-existence with nature in the new framework, and to respect that biodiversity is worthy of protection in its own right – and indeed that people benefit physically, psychologically, socially and culturally from the protection of biodiversity, and not only from its utilisation as a resource. The term ‘biological resources’ does not encapsulate the multiple values of biodiversity, including its intrinsic value mentioned in the preamble text of the CBD.

Q2 – Concur with WCS, IFAW and others: both legal and illegal use have to be assessed. However, as regards illegal trade, by virtue of it being illicit, sustainability would be almost impossible to calculate with any degree of certainty, especially at the global scale being called for.
It is also crucial to note that use of species within legal limits is no guarantee of sustainability. Monitoring trends in legal and illegal trade and harvesting are measures of legality, not sustainability. Trends in the proportion of wild species traded legally will only become evident in the long-term, and in the meantime trade (both legal and illegal) can erode biodiversity. The new framework needs to recognise the unsustainability of most current uses of wildlife (noting that overexploitation  was identified in last year’s Global Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment by IPBES as the second most important driver of nature’s decline), and it is essential that emphasis is placed on maintaining and increasing biodiversity in order to support biological and ecological sustainability. Sustainable use can only be achieved once ecosystem integrity has been established. Clear and objective measures of biological sustainability, which take into account all uses of/pressures on species (including legal and illegal uses, and including impacts on non-target species), and incorporate the potential impacts of wildlife exploitation on, for example, human health, with all the societal and economic consequences, are required. Such indicators could be structured around the rate of offtake/harvesting/use, and associated changes in abundances/diversity in natural systems and resulting habitat changes. Further, efforts to directly address the illegal trade in wild animals are intrinsically linked to, inter alia, consumer behaviour and consumption patterns, policy structures, and governance issues. There should also be indicators on trends in the adoption of policies and regulations, as well as measuring the degree of implementation and enforcement efforts through international instruments for all types of wildlife.

For #2, certainly it is important to “monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting”. But of course, this can be very difficult to do. At a local level, ‘best practices’ involve governments providing empowerment and capacity-building for local communities to support in the monitoring. This can work well within the context of participatory co-management. Local people are involved in setting rules on what is “illegal”, and when such communities are involved in this, experience shows that they are among the best at monitoring rule-breaking. This is well-documented (e.g. http://www.communityconservation.net).

Q3 – As clearly explained by UK's Dr Vin Fleming, the term ‘safety’ should be more explicitly defined.  In order for any use to be sustainable, the safety aspect in terms of human, wildlife and ecosystem health and well-being is critical. At present, no elements have been identified for monitoring human health or well-being in relation to wildlife use, rather the only element related to this will monitor measures ensuring safe harvesting operations/trade operations which may fall short of actually keeping people safe. If COVID-19 has proved anything, it has demonstrated that the use of wildlife is currently unsafe and opens up the potential for zoonotic disease emergence. Without a significant shift in how we utilise wildlife, the future safety of people from zoonotic diseases cannot be ensured.
Further, safety from an animal health and welfare perspective should be considered, using the One Health and One Welfare frameworks. The welfare of individual wild animals must be taken into consideration as part of the effort to sustainably conserve entire species, recognising the intimate relationship between animal welfare, human well-being, and the broader health of the environment. Consideration of wild animal welfare is important on ethical grounds because of the suffering inflicted on wild animals, but also has considerable implications for the success of any sustainable use programme. Applying the One Health and One Welfare frameworks would facilitate a holistic approach to both halting biodiversity loss and mitigating human health risks from human-wildlife interactions.

Q4 – CITES has established annual export quotas for some products derived from some listed species. Export quotas are usually established by each Party unilaterally, but they can also be set by the Conference of the Parties. However, the applicability of CITES is questionable. First, it has a limited remit, does not regulate all wildlife trade and only covers endangered species. Under CITES, authorities are supposed to make science-based non-detriment findings (NDFs) to ensure export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species before a permit is issued. The biological concept behind the establishment of an NDF is the maximum sustainable yield. However, in practice, NDFS are rarely conducted and permits are issued to benefit traders. In addition, NDFs rarely account for all the pressures on target populations, and are generally based on population numbers while failing to account for the population-level effects that might accrue from the removal of key individuals in socially complex species. 
Wildlife populations, including of endangered species, have experienced catastrophic declines over the past 50 years, as reaffirmed by the latest WWF Living Planet report. This strongly emphasises the need for a more precautionary approach to any use of wildlife, and demonstrates the lack of efficacy of CITES tools in ensuring the sustainability of trade in wild species. In many cases, species continue to decline following their listing on the CITES appendices. A wider systemic approach to policy, regulation and implementation are strongly needed.
Certification schemes, usually operated by industry, are also used but do not necessarily guarantee ecological sustainability. We need indicators that are based on biological and ecological parameters, and to avoid relying on industry-led certification schemes which themselves may be deeply flawed. For example, there are serious concerns about the ecological sustainability of many MSC-certified fisheries, as well as FSC and PECF, though considered to be the gold standard. There would need to be some kind of ranking of certification schemes with independent evaluation, based on ecological criteria.

1. Which terms should be used in Targets 4: ‘wildlife’, ‘wild species’ or ‘biological resources’?

We would suggest to use “wild species” without “of fauna and flora” to be as broad as possible and also include fungi’s and organisms.
The monitoring elements for target 4 in the monitoring framework should be aligned accordingly to the chosen term, since all trends currently refer to ‘biological resources’.

Further, we would like to underline the objectives of the CBD and to ensure that harvest, trade and use should be ecologically safe and sustainable in relation to biodiversity. The GBF should ensure healthy ecosystems, habitats and populations to avoid negative effects on human health and wellbeing. The cooperation of CBD and WHO has contributed to show interlinkages of biodiversity and health and the benefits that intact ecosystems and its services can contribute to human health. These benefits should be monitored and communicated, but the focus of the target should be on sustainable harvest, trade and use.

2. Would it be more effective to monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting, in addition to trends in legal trade and harvesting?

Illegal and legal trade and harvesting should be addressed and monitored. A trend to monitor could be the increase / decrease of illegal harvest, trade and use compared to legal activities. Otherwise, legality can be achieved by legalising all harvest, trade and use.
It is also important to keep in mind, that the differentiation between legal and illegal harvest/use should not have negative implications for customary sustainable use by IPLCs.
Further it should be clear, that legal harvest, trade and use does not have to be sustainable or ecologically safe. The first objective of the target should be that all harvest, trade and use is sustainable for biodiversity.

1. Which terms should be used in Targets 4: ‘wildlife’, ‘wild species’ or ‘biological resources’?
It´s true that the term “biological resources” has a clear definition in the text of the Convention: “Biological resources includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity”. Nevertheless, in the context of current Target 4, using the term “wild species” could be fine. In any case, the three terms are used in the current draft monitoring framework, so they can continue to be used combined.
• What would the implications of these different terms be for the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework?
The most important thing is to be clear and specific in all the cases.
2. Would it be more effective to monitor trends in illegal trade and harvesting, in addition to trends in legal trade and harvesting?
To minimize and eliminate illegal trade, it has to be tracked and monitored.

Santiago Gracia. Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. Biodiversity Unit. Spain

I agree.

I agree that CITES is a good example of how data can be collected. CITES collects data and information for a subset so we could look to see how it could be scaled up outside of CITES for other species.

I think a key piece of this discussion is what monitoring is realistic with the differing levels of resources available for monitoring in different countries. We can't put something into place that can't be implemented. While I completely agree with Comments made by Sue Lieberman and Daniel Natusch about the need for sound science and the need to gather more than just trends, is this a realistic expectation and currently if not how do we get the resources needed to make this a reality?

I agree with Vin Flemming that the term safe should be defined and also should be limited to ecological and not human health in this target.

La perte actuelle de biodiversité a un impact négatif sur l'agriculture. L'agriculture peut soit contribuer à cette perte, soit s'attaquer à ses causes profondes. Tout dépend des approches et des pratiques agricoles, qui sont plus ou moins fondées sur la biodiversité.
L'agroécologie (qui comprend l'agriculture biologique certifiée) est conçue pour parvenir simultanément à une utilisation durable de la biodiversité et à la sécurité alimentaire.
Cette approche intégrée et systémique reconnue  et intégrée  au niveau international repose sur trois principes clés :
1. Renforcer la biodiversité (y compris les ressources génétiques pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture) dans l'agroécosystème ;
2. Renforcer les fonctions et les services des écosystèmes ;
3. Fermer les cycles biogéochimiques (y compris l'azote, le carbone et le phosphore).
L'agroécologie vise à réduire la consommation d'énergie, d'eau, d'engrais, de pesticides chimiques et de produits vétérinaires (y compris les antibiotiques). Elle englobe de nombreuses pratiques agricoles telles que le biocontrôle, l'agroforesterie, la gestion intégrée de la fertilité des sols, la lutte intégrée contre les parasites, l'accroissement de la diversité (au niveau génétique et au niveau des espèces) des plantes cultivées (par exemple, la rotation des cultures, la polyculture, les cultures intercalaires) et l'accroissement de la diversité (au niveau génétique et au niveau des espèces) des animaux domestiques.
En ce qui concerne les pesticides, nous devrions fixer un objectif mondial ambitieux afin de réduire leur risque et leur utilisation. Nous devrions également nous concentrer sur des solutions, telles que la promotion du biocontrôle ou des pratiques agroécologiques (par exemple, les cultures multiples, les infrastructures agroécologiques), la mobilisation de la recherche sur les alternatives et sur l'atténuation des risques, la promotion d'outils qui optimisent l'utilisation des pesticides et la promotion de l'approche agroécologique - y compris l'agriculture biologique certifiée (qui interdit l'utilisation de pesticides chimiques).
En ce qui concerne les engrais, nous devrions réduire la dépendance de l'agriculture mondiale à l'égard des engrais provenant de sources non renouvelables. Les engrais sont cependant des éléments essentiels à la nutrition des sols et des plantes. Par conséquent, les enjeux consistent plutôt à : prévenir les fuites vers l'eau et l'air, réduire l'utilisation d'engrais chimiques (cf. coûts de production et émissions de gaz à effet de serre associées). Garantir que les engrais recyclés ne nuisent pas à la biodiversité des sols (en ce qui concerne leur composition - par exemple les perturbateurs endocriniens ou le niveau de métaux lourds - ou la manière de les utiliser), et promouvoir des pratiques agroécologiques qui abordent cette question (telles que la gestion intégrée de la fertilité des sols, la polyculture et une rotation plus longue des cultures, y compris les protéagineux).
L'agroécologie apporte des solutions innovantes, tant pour les pays développés que pour les pays en développement, quelle que soit la taille de l'exploitation. Cette approche aborde simultanément plusieurs questions environnementales (telles que le changement climatique, le sol, l'eau, la biodiversité) et assure une meilleure rentabilité économique (autosuffisance accrue, réduction des dépenses, meilleure résilience/gestion des risques).
C'est la raison pour laquelle nous soutenons la poursuite du développement des approches et des pratiques agroécologiques. Elles devraient être intégrées dans le futur cadre mondial de la biodiversité pour l'après-2020, comme le proposent Wanger et al. dans Integrating agroecological production in a robust post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, un article publié dans Nature Ecology & Evolution plus tôt en 2020.

En plus d'abriter plus de 75 % de la biodiversité mondiale, les forêts contribuent à l'atténuation du changement climatique et jouent un rôle clé dans l'adaptation au changement climatique, la protection des sols et l'approvisionnement en eau douce. Les moyens de subsistance de 1,6 milliard de personnes dépendent dans une certaine mesure des ressources forestières et 60 millions d'autochtones dépendent directement des forêts pour leur survie.
Selon la FAO, sur la période 1990-2015, environ 129 millions d'hectares de surface forestière mondiale ont été perdus, ce qui représente deux fois la taille de la France ou près de huit fois la taille des forêts métropolitaines françaises. La production agricole et l'élevage sont les principales causes de la déforestation à l'échelle mondiale, et un tiers de cette production est exporté, le reste étant consommé localement.
Dans les pays tropicaux et subtropicaux, l'agriculture commerciale à grande échelle et l'agriculture de subsistance ont représenté environ 70 % de la déforestation entre 2000 et 2010 (avec des variations régionales).
Le principal type de production agricole lié à la déforestation importée ou survenant après des phases progressives de dégradation des forêts varie d'une région à l'autre : élevage de bétail et production de soja en Amérique latine, plantations de palmiers à huile en Asie du Sud-Est, production de cacao en Afrique. Les fronts de déforestation pour certaines de ces cultures s'étendent désormais à de nouvelles régions, notamment au continent africain (Afrique de l'Est pour le soja, Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre pour l'huile de palme).
Selon l'étude d'impact de 2013 de la Commission européenne, entre 1990 et 2008, le soja (tourteaux ou graines) représentait 60 % des importations de produits à risque, l'huile de palme et le palmiste 12 %, et le cacao 8 % pour l'Europe. Ces matières premières représentent à elles seules 80 % des importations susceptibles de provoquer la déforestation dans les pays producteurs.
L'étude de la Commission européenne de 2013 sur l'impact de la consommation européenne sur la déforestation montre également que les pays européens sont responsables de plus d'un tiers de la déforestation liée au commerce international des produits agricoles. Par conséquent, même si un nombre croissant de pays émergents - notamment en Asie - sont devenus ces dernières années les principaux importateurs de nombreux produits à risque, l'UE - acteur économique majeur au niveau mondial - détient une responsabilité importante qui déclenche un engagement exemplaire. Par conséquent, des mesures visant à réduire l'impact de la consommation de l'Union européenne (UE), tant sur le marché intérieur que sur les importations, de la déforestation doivent être adoptées rapidement, et des actions précises et efficaces concernant ces impacts doivent être mises en œuvre, notamment pour éviter ou réduire au minimum la mise sur le marché de produits associés à la déforestation ou à la dégradation des forêts dans l'UE .
La lutte contre la déforestation est l'un des enjeux mondiaux de ce siècle dont dépendra la réalisation de l'agenda 2030 et de ses objectifs de développement durable, de l'accord de Paris et des objectifs d'Aichi de la Convention sur la diversité biologique.
La préservation des forêts est encore plus prioritaire en raison des futures échéances multilatérales pour la conservation de la biodiversité, en particulier : la 7e session plénière de la plateforme intergouvernementale sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques (IPBES) en 2019, le 7e Congrès mondial de la nature de l'Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature (UICN) - tous deux accueillis par la France - ainsi que la première session de l'Assemblée des Nations unies pour l'environnement et la 15e Conférence des Parties à la CDB.
Ce sujet est une priorité de l'agenda politique international. En effet, il y a une mobilisation mondiale d'acteurs privés et publics influents, tant dans les pays du Sud que du Nord, qui appellent régulièrement à éradiquer la déforestation et à favoriser les produits sans déforestation importée par le biais d'initiatives internationales telles que la Déclaration de New York sur les forêts et la Déclaration d'Amsterdam. Signataire de la Déclaration de New York sur les forêts des Nations unies de 2014, la France s'est engagée à mettre fin à la déforestation d'ici 2030. Enfin, les entreprises et les investisseurs intègrent de plus en plus cette question dans leurs stratégies et prennent des engagements.
La déforestation est responsable d'environ 11 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Malgré le ralentissement mondial du taux de déforestation nette, la période 2000-2010 a vu une perte annuelle nette de 7 millions d'hectares de surface forestière, notamment dans les pays tropicaux, et un gain annuel net de 6 millions d'hectares de surface agricole. Les préoccupations relatives à la déforestation se concentrent sur le bassin de l'Amazone, le bassin du Congo et l'Asie du Sud-Est.
Au-delà des impacts environnementaux, la déforestation liée à la production de matières premières agricoles soulève des questions de développement économique et social dans les pays producteurs, des questions de sécurité alimentaire mondiale et de droits des peuples indigènes et des communautés locales en accord avec les lois nationales.
De manière plus générale, le problème de la déforestation importée remet en cause la durabilité de notre modèle de consommation actuel et incite à plus de sobriété afin de préserver les ressources naturelles de la planète, notamment les forêts.
De nombreux facteurs sont à l'origine de la déforestation : exploitation non durable des produits forestiers, développement des infrastructures, expansion urbaine, changement climatique, parasites et maladies, exploitation minière et certaines causes naturelles telles que les incendies de forêt, ainsi que la mauvaise gouvernance, les effets de la spéculation foncière, les facteurs économiques (par exemple les fluctuations de la valeur des matières premières sur le marché), etc. Toutefois, l'expansion de l'agriculture et de l'élevage est l'un des principaux moteurs dans toutes les régions du monde.

Wrt q 3.  What indicators could be used in the monitoring framework to ensure the safety of sustainable use?
The IUCN red list is one valuable indicator although the timetable of updating will not correspond with the framework. In the case of CITES-listed species the trade data, when combined with other factors (including red list status / population trend) can be an indicator.

wrt q 4.  What techniques currently exist to estimate sustainable harvest, trade or use limits and quotas?
There is a wealth of material available for species listed on CITES Appendix II, which is applicable to harvest and trade of species more generally. See here (https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-16-07-R17_0.pdf)for the nine-step process on making non-detriment findings, and here for CITES Resolution  Conf. 16.7 (Rev. CoP17) on non-detriment findings.

With respect to fisheries: the degree of which States and competent organisations are implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries (See FAO, The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4 Suppl.2, 2003). This would be consistent with Aichi Target 6 and the efforts by FAO to align their Code of Conduct reporting mechanisms with Aichi Target 6.

Additional recommended indicators (aligned with Aichi Target 6) include:
* The status of target and non-target stocks
* The status of threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and corresponding conservation and management measures applied to those;
* Trends and status of ecosystem structure and function (see Garcia, S.M. and Rice, J. Assessing Progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries. Technical Series No. 87. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 103 pages)
* Degree of implementation by States and competent organisations of measures to: (a) eliminate or minimise bycatch, (b) require impact assessments (as per UNFSA, Art. 5(d); (c) impose rebuilding plans with the shortest feasible timeframes; (d) protect habitats; (e) eliminate destructive fishing practices; (f) prioritise small scale fishing that supports livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities over industrial fishing in the territorial seas.

On question 1, we consider ‘wild species’ to be the most preferable term to use as it includes plants, animals and fungi, although we acknowledge that this does exclude other components of biodiversity, which may be more difficult to define and measure trends. We agree that ‘wildlife’ can be considered to mean different things, such as only relating to animals.

On question 2, a monitoring approach that takes into account both legal and illegal trade trends would be more effective if feasible. As Dr Lieberman and others note, any data/knowledge on illegal trade should feed into “on-the-ground” sustainability assessments for legal trade, such as CITES non-detriment findings.  As part of sustainability assessments, population trends need to be regularly monitored to ensure that offtake (legal + illegal) is non-detrimental and there are feedback mechanisms to adjust legal trade levels accordingly. The level of detail needed to monitor trends may be dependent on the species and commodity type in trade (e.g. live plants vs timber harvest vs hunting trophies etc). 

At a broader scale, preliminary research conducted by UNEP-WCMC to evaluate trends over time has shown that there are relationships between the legal and illegal trade, although the association is complex and nuanced (see: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12724).
Whilst there are of course challenges in monitoring illegal harvest and trade, based on the fact that not all countries have the same resources, enforcement tools and reporting mechanisms, collating data not only on legal trade but on seizures and enforcement effort at a country level is essential for understanding any relationships between the legal and illegal wildlife trades. Since 2017, CITES Parties have been required to report on illegal trade in CITES-listed species, which may add additional understanding to these relationships going forwards (see https://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/Annual_Illegal_trade_report).

On question 3 on indicators, we make an assumption here that “safe” means within the ecological limits for the species concerned.

We would also like to make the point that whilst we fully agree that CITES does not cover all taxa, the Convention does include more than 38,700 species, many of which are utilised and traded internationally, so these species represent an important subset.  The CITES Trade Database, maintained by UNEP-WCMC on behalf of the CITES Secretariat, represents the largest global dataset on wildlife trade, containing more than 21 million trade records since 1975. Based in this global dataset, the IUCN Red List and other CITES data, we propose some further indicators that could be used in the monitoring framework specifically under target 4:

• "Changes in Endangered/ Critically Endangered species reported in international trade". Critically Endangered and Endangered species are priority species and any trade could be detrimental. Data are available for annual analyses and are currently run every 3 years under the CITES Review of Significant Trade process. The trend could be back-dated as far as IUCN data are available. Data source = CITES Trade Database and IUCN Red List. 
• "Change in the [number/proportion] species considered threatened by international trade". This indicator monitors trends in time in the number of species assessed by the IUCN Red List as threatened by trade. It should be available in 2021 and could be run at least every three years. Trends could be back-dated as far as IUCN data are available. Data source = IUCN Red List.

Agree totally that regenerative agriculture is an example of sustainable use, if practised effectively. This is an example of a systemic change towards sustainability. As opposed to extractive or consumptive use.

(with apologies; I've lost WiFi due to a storm and I can't read all of the other messages properly on my phone):   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.

In the last Survey for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, it was asked if the draft goals and targets of the framework adequately incorporate all the considerations of the sustainable use of biological diversity, as defined by the Convention: "The Convention on Biological Diversity defines "Sustainable use” as the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations".

We suggest to:
"The Convention on Biological Diversity defines "Sustainable use” as the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining OR EVEN INCREASING its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations".

Because in several cases, and it should be a trend, the sustainable use implies  recovering and increasing the size of the target populations under management and use. And this is one of the main reasons for adding economic value to species, increasing their productive potential in generating wealth in order to ensure their conservation and the biomes associated with them.

We also believe "Biological resources" should be the term employed.

Although it is claimed that, in the case of species under threat, they could not be considered a "resource", the fact that it is adopting and applying sustainable use practices already brings with it the need for such target species to be considered as a resource. After all, we can only adopt sustainable use of what is considered a resource.

Even species under some threat level can have their use guaranteed in a sustainable way, including to ensure that such a sustainability mechanism can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations of the species and the increase of their productive potential, from the regulated use.

Therefore, the broadest and most appropriate term to be used, in our view, is "biological resources".