1. How can un/sustainable consumption and production be measured to ensure the sustainable use of biodiversity across sectors?
• What would be the implications for the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework? 

2. How can the monitoring framework of the GBF better integrate productive sectors to ensure and promote the sustainable use of biological diversity?
• What would the implications be for 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

Ok

How can un/sustainable consumption and production be measured to ensure the sustainable use of biodiversity across sectors?
There are several labeling /certification systems already in place (e.g. for medical plants, marine and forest products such as MSC or PFC/FSC) that have proven to be more or less effective to ensure sustainable harvesting and  production of wild living resources. Building on such effective systems could provide an appropriate way forward to measure the sustainability of their use.

Thankyou so much.. we are looking ahead to an enriching discussion

Research shows that young consumers behaviour is important in relation to sustainable consumption.  So does there exist possibilities for measuring consumption behaviors that are relevant both in terms of their sustainability impacts and their suitability for teenagers and in relation to biodiversity? See e.g. Fisher et al, 2017 Measuring Young Consumers’ Sustainable Consumption Behavior: Development and Validation of the YCSCB Scale

Labelling /certification systems in place for fisheries products are a good response measure to face un/sustainable fishing challenges from the consumer perspective.  It is also important that the Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries drives strongly such production sector activity, and that the focus on industrial-minded approach  to set quotas based on Maximum Sustainable Yield is recognised as ecologically unfitted and unreliable. IUU values are too uncertain, but usually much high, World around to allow the consideration of MSY as scientifically warranteer of sustainable stock exploitation. Monitoring, control, and surveillance is not expected to solve IUU in the medium term for most countries owed to shortage of capacity and is clearly inefficient for ABNJ, while overfishing is increasingly affecting stocks of different species  worldwide, including target and untargeted ones, with severe impact on vulnerable marine species and ecosystems, and on healthy trophic chains stability.

In addition to consumption measures, it is crucial that producers sectors engaged on marine resources exploitation enhance their biodiversity concerns. That should be boosted through reinforced institutionalised synergies among biodiversity protection Inter-Governmental Organisations and RFMOs to address the above topics through commonly agreed binding solutions by their Parties/Members.

1. Sustainable consumption and production can not be measured without mainstreaming traditional knowledge of the indigenous communities living within the catchment area of the study.
Because only these communities are holding the history knowledge of the place that can be used for future comparisons in order to understand if the sustainable consumption and production is correlating to  the sustainable use of the biodiversity in their areas.

Strategic perspective plans in corresponding biodiversity plans shall highlight the broad contours of sectors such as Water Resources, Agriculture, Forestry, Energy along with Climate Change Adaptation, Knowledge Management and capacity building through whole-of-society perspective. Nexus approach should become an integral part of biodiversity policies as a sine qua non for attaining sustainable development. Transversal priorities to build water, agriculture, forestry and soil shall appropriately integrate sustainable use, conservation and restoration of biodiversity, strengthen energy efficiency, mainstream climate resilience in food systems, improve regional knowledge sharing and capacity building and adopt green practices that will help build climate resilience and support transition to sustainability by reducing trade-offs and generating additional benefits. For instance, transition from social to economic forestry results in alternate livelihood opportunities for people, remunerative incomes and market values for the produce and economic sustainability of inter-linked sectors. Further, to support agricultural productivity, forests, soils, and related ecosystems, Eco-system based Adaptation (EbA) shall addresses the crucial links between climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable resource management.
Biodiversity and ecosystem services in underpinning sustainable development and ensure that the twin goal of natural resource management and livelihoods are simultaneously integrated in every biodiversity action plan. Since ecosystem restoration and realization of cross-goals SDGs 2030 has heightened our commitments to achieve biodiversity related targets, it has become imperative that actors across sector systematically integrate biodiversity management through multi-stakeholder partnership.

It is important for consumers to be able to make good consumption choices in relation to biodiversity. There is a need to increase this kind of labelling to make it easier for an ordinary person bying food, furniture, clothing etc to take a consumption choice that benefits biodiversity.

So an increase of labelling and certification is important. But we also need to enhance the general willingness for consumers to choose these products. So reaching goal B and C is crucial. Target 15 and especially Component T15.2 and T15.3 are important as are Target 17, Component T17.1 and Target 19 and Components T19.1-19.3.

Increasing the will to change, learn and act in favour of biodiversity - in all sectors, private and public and among the general public - need to be at the core of societal and social transformation the coming years.  With this willingness in place we will find ways forward. The willingness to do good for biodiversity will enhance the effectiveness of policies, legislation, and other economic and administrative Tools.

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

3. How can the framework monitor progress of ‘ensuring people everywhere understand and appreciate the value of biodiversity’, taking into account ‘individual and national cultural and socioeconomic conditions’?

Comment to question 3:
I guess the monitoring has at least two components:
- Measuring the different efforts made by governments, regions, municipalities, companies, and all educational organisations, labelling efforts, information campaigns etc in "ensuring" the development of an increase in understanding and appreciation. Monitoring this shows the progress of efforts in this direction.
- The other part of the monitoring is about monitoring the actual appreciation and valuation of biodiversity by people. This is about monitoring human values. An example of this is the World Values Survey that has a long record methodologically.  So monitoring values is not something new but needs to be developed to suit biodiversity. Methods for measuring and monitoring values this exist among social scientists and also in e.g. advertisement field.

I suggest caution in relying solely on third party certification schemes, such as those seen in fisheries and forestry, as your only measure of sustainability (or unsustainable production). These offer valuable tools to measure these industry and actions, but are often inaccessible to many resource users whether it's because a standard doesn't exist in the country, the threshold for obtaining it is high (e.g. cost prohibitive for smallholders, or the knowledge isn't there), that the country has strong governance frameworks already that certification is not adding much, or simply that they don't get the return on investment.

In the case of forests, it's also important to note that typically productive (harvested) forests are certified, and not those set aside exclusively for conservation outcomes (formal protections). So we don't get near full coverage of the biome. So we need to find a way to look at tools beyond certification, which typically build on existing governance frameworks set by governments at national, subnational and local levels.

From a forest management perspective, it would be useful for CBD to consider the range of monitoring and reporting frameworks already in existence. These report on the sustainable management of forests and their trends, and there should be a use case for them here. Broadly this information is captured in the five-yearly FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (the 2020 report was recently published), but to undertake this reporting many countries subscribe to specific criteria and indicator frameworks such as Forests Europe, Montreal Process, and ITTO's framework.

I would encourage this post-2020 process to work with those existing frameworks to leverage them, and thus long-term baseline datasets and processes that are accounted for in existing monitoring/reporting budgets, to forge a path forward. The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), of which CBD is a member, is trying to forge a consolidated path forward and could be a useful mechanism to prosecute this opportunity better.

On question number 3 posted, I would recommend to consider how we are valuing and appreciating the traditional values of biodiversity present in the  vitality of the territories of life of IPLC.   We should measure how social and environmental resilience on those territories is being recognized and maintain and with them the recognition of the diverse values of biodiversity in a broader and integral way, and much beyond an economic perspective.  Certainly we have so much to learn from the appreciation and values of these rightholders on other forms of appreciating nature and its biodiversity.  So, what about taking a look at strategies towards sharing and learning processes from these IPLC recognition of the value of nature and biodiversity resources, both from governments and Civil society organizations?

The second part of the comment #1832 by Hiding-Rydevik is correct in my mind and connects with the question raised by Chrispoher about : 3. How can the framework monitor progress of ‘ensuring people everywhere understand and appreciate the value of biodiversity’, taking into account ‘individual and national cultural and socioeconomic conditions’? My point is that there are no agreed global Ethics, yet. They are developing slowly through international interactions, but there is still a lot of "distance" from the UNGA, CBD, IUCN, FAO developing "ethics" about biodiversity and those on the ground where global and local ethics may clash. Just think about the numerous clashes around eating turtles, dolphins, manatees, whales, bats, and pangolins, and the old debate about "bush meat". So, Christopher asks how we can make everybody understand global ethics -often developed in modern urban contexts. loped contexts). But should the process not be two-way? Should the "global community" not make also an effort to understand  the foundations and diversity of the local ethics, as a good foundation to find out if changing them will, or not, change the distribution of costs and benefits? Raising resistance?
Serge Garcia IUCM-CEM-FEG

Comment to Serge Garcia.
Yes it is important to have a two way process - also understanding national, regional and local contexts in relation to biodiversity and its use and ethics. So all efforts for change  - be it through CBD or any other policy - can not just be a top down approch - change also have to take a starting point in what already exists of practices, ethics etc. This is not easy.

Sustainable consumption and production of nature and biodiversity can only be measured through a regulatory framework that sets agreed values for environmental assets with and without market prices and a methodology for how ‘natural capital costs’ are transferred along value chains along with an explicit incorporation of those into companies’ accounting. Corporate natural capital accounting should be mainstreamed across all sector making explicit  the contributions of nature — such as water, biodiversity, soil and energy resources — in a company’s products and income.
<http://www.worldagroforestry.org/blog/2020/04/20/feature-go-green-and-white-eu-must-mainstream-natural-capital-accounting>

The implications for the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to include an element that measures the Trend in businesses that use corporate natural capital accounting. Examples are here: <https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/DRAFT-TEEBAgriFood-Operational-Guidelines.pdf>

Q1  A fundamental factor in the un/sustainability of use of a population in all sectors is whether or not the rate of use exceeds the productive capacity of that population to compensation for what is removed.  So any measure intended to inform decisions about the bio-ecological sustainability of use needs to be one where a biologically based benchmark can be set for how population productivity varies with population status.  That provides a basis for evidence-based discussions of whether harvesting is sustinable. Without such a basis setting benchmarks become just another part of politicized debate. This foundation is true not just for the target population(s) being harvested,  but for all the ecosystem impacts of the harvests.  At COP X a diverse and expert group crafted an inclusive Target 6 for fisheries, spelling out all the bio-ecological effects of fishing that need to be evaluated in assessing sustainability, and it has been very useful in improving fisheries policy and management.  It could be a valuable model for other sectors. 
In fisheries, at least, substantial progress has been made in methods to select indictors with  sensitivity, responsiveness and specificity, and to set appropriate benchmarks on those indicators for populations.  Work is at much earlier stages for measuring sustainability of community, habitat and ecosystem impacts, but progress is being made.
However this does not address the important aspects of sustainability associated with how the benefits taken through the uses are distributed across society.  I’m no expert in indicators of equity, particularly because there is no single currency by which “value” can be measured across cultures. Moreover, even with nearly universal acknowledgement that needs and rights of IPLC  deserve priority in distribution of benefits from uses of biodiversity, and its explicit presence in Article 8j of the Convention, I know of no consensus on how such priority ought to be recognized  These concerns are the subject of another thread in these consultations, but any treatment of the concerns of this tread in the post 2020-framework needs to fully accommodate the outcome of the consultations in the thread where the IPLC priority is treated. 
Q2 As far as implications for monitoring frameworks, for the bio-ecological indicators, greater screening needs to be done for the sensitivity, responsiveness and specificity of metrics for monitoring. For social and economic aspects of sustainability, clearly many more are needed, but their properties need to be set by other experts.

I agree that your point 1 is a good way forward. One information campaign I liked much is the 'Future 50 Foods' as it is scientifically researched. 75% of the world’s food comes from 12 plant and five animal species. It’s essential to change consumption habits to ensure we protect our health and that of the planet. These 50 Foods can make a difference if consumed more https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/wwf-and-knorr-launch-future-50-foods. Regarding labelling efforts, I caution that they often challenge the cropping system of niche markets rather than the change towards the consumption of diversified food crops. So am questioning if this is the successful game changer, although I see their value.

Building on transparent certification systems that have proved to be successful will help in monitoring sustainable consumption and production, notwithstanding the caution of relying on these alone as highlighted by Australia’s submission [#1847]. The targets related to sustainable consumption and production should however be phrased in a manner that considers both individual and a systems change.
It is also possible to assess the overseas environmental footprint of the largest consuming nations (see e.g. WWF UK/RSPB reports ‘Risky Business (2017)’ and ‘Riskier Business (2020)’ on UK overseas land footprint.  Such measurements provide useful assessments of how sustainable or not consumption and production patterns are in major sectors.

Question 2 relates to the nature’s benefits to well being question. If a production sector understands how nature contributes to its sustenance, it will promote sustainable use to ensure improved benefits. There is need for the monitoring framework to also consider monitoring nature’s benefits to a production sector. For example, a recent report from the World Economic Forum suggested half of World’s GDP ($44 trillion of economic value generation) is moderately or highly dependent on nature. The analysis is broken down by 163 industry sectors and their supply chains, showing it is possible to disaggregate this data between different productive sectors.

Answering the two questions, it is needed a more detailed framework establishing a second layer of SMART sub-targets for each sector, being ambitious in the aspects that each sector has to apply to develop a transformative change to ensure sustainable production, as well as sustainable consumption. Tools like labelling and certification systems can contribute to these objectives. In the same line, a transition to a circular economy model will help to a more sustainable production and consumption, limiting the demand for new resources. In extractive sectors and activities such as mining, ecological restoration needs to be applied systematically to ensure sustainable production. Moreover, more focus is needed in reducing food loss and waste to achieve sustainable production and consumption.
For monitoring these sectorial SMART sub-targets, it will be needed specific indicators, sector by sector. Otherwise, the framework is going to be too general, not helping to give clear guidance to each sector to achieve biodiversity sustainability, making more difficult the engagement of the private sector.
For example, right now there is no references in the GBF monitoring framework to sectors like tourism or mining, and about energy, there is just an element related to Goal B: “Trends in provision of energy supply from biological resources”.

Apologies for not introduce myself first. I´m Santiago Gracia, Biologist at the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge, working in the Biodiversity Unit.

Q1 – Any measure of sustainability has to be based on ecological and biological criteria, and incorporate potential population-level impacts from the removal of key individuals from socially complex animal groups, not simply whether, in the short term, the use is ‘replaceable’. It should also account for risk which could result in serious future harm to human well-being, animal health, and/or economic systems, such as emerging zoonotic disease risks.

Q2 – See above – any measure of sustainability needs to be based on ecological and biological parameters, as well as incorporating future risks.

1. How can un/sustainable consumption and production be measured to ensure the sustainable use of biodiversity across sectors?

As mentioned under general comments, it is important to have a common understanding and/or definition of sustainable consumption, production practices and supply chains.
Draft Target 14 is aiming to “achieve reduction of at least [50%] in negative impacts on biodiversity” caused by production by promoting sustainable practices, while Target 15 is aiming to “eliminate unsustainable consumption patterns” in general.
For both targets, the monitoring framework need to establish what is unsustainable or when ecological limits reached or surpassed. That is not easy to measure on a national scale and cannot be done sufficiently with the current proposed indicators. Further indicators will have to be identified or developed. The ecological footprint is a good starting point and could be applied on national level as well as for on sector, company or individual level. However, to monitor so called tele-coupling effects or impacts of a sector / company on biodiversity in another region will require additional indicators.

• What would be the implications for the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework? 

The monitoring framework will also need to establish who should account for that production practices and consumption patterns are sustainable for biodiversity and within ecological limits. Indicators like the SDG indicator 12.6.1 “Number of companies publishing sustainability reports” that did not show the impact on biodiversity or positive trends in that regard are not sufficient.
Trends related to sustainability certifications should include indicators that show that these certifications have positive effects for biodiversity. They should also be supplemented by indictors on other forms of sustainable use and management for the relevant sectors. In the case of the MSC certification (current Aichi target 4 and 6), a positive role for marketing and consumption patterns can be assumed, but requires caution as a biodiversity indicator given that the effectiveness of certification for biodiversity remains challenged in scientific literature (see e.g. Bush et al 2013 Marine Policy 37: 288-293  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.011 ). Considering also that small fisheries or fisheries in developing nations may not be able to certify due to steep application costs it is difficult to imagine it can represent a fair indicator for sustainable production at a global scale (see e.g. Stratoudakis et al. 2016 Fisheries Research 182:39-49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.08.021 ).
Trends related to the application of circular economy principles and practices should make use of existing approaches and international knowledge e.g. JRC has done work to follow sustainable consumption from a lifecycle approach (https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sustainableConsumption.html) and the International Resource panel has found that large parts of threats to biodiversity is due to material management. Another helpful source could be SCP hotspot analysis (http://scp-hat.lifecycleinitiative.org/module-2-scp-hotspots ).  It would be beneficial to see if such approaches need to be improved to cover biodiversity sufficiently, rather than developing own isolated approaches.

2. How can the monitoring framework of the GBF better integrate productive sectors to ensure and promote the sustainable use of biological diversity?

As stated under the general comments, 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 use 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.

I agree strongly with Born Free Foundation that measures of sustainability have to be based on ecological and biological criteria. All too often, however, they are based on individual ethical positions which result in particular forms of sustainable use being vilified or supported depending on whether or not they are compatible with that ethical position - regardless of ecological and biological criteria. Covid 19 highlights that traditional definitions of sustainability - based on economic, social and ecological pillars - may need to be redefined to incorporate additional dimensions of human and animal health. However, assessment of all dimensions of sustainability should be based on a neutral assessment against globally accepted criteria and not on individual values or ethical positions.

I agree with Mr Santiago Gracia Campillo (Spain); In response to Q 1 & 2, WWF suggests that  the concept of ‘consumption and production’ needs to be ‘unpacked’ into different sectors and that specific targets be included in the GBF which address productive sectors that drive nature loss, in particular, targets specifically focused on: fisheries and forestry, food and agriculture, and infrastructure sectors. In addition, these productive sector targets should be underpinned by cross-cutting targets focused on the transformation of economic sectors, incentives and subsidies, the financial sector, sustainable consumption and pollution.

Having targets that speak directly to specific productive sectors will make engagement with those sectors easier during implementation of the GBF. To reinforce this, the framework should also include a target on the establishment of action plans for each of the productive sectors (at national, regional and global levels), to ensure a just transition for each sector in becoming nature positive.

The document in the link below provides some suggestions for the types of targets and indicators that are relevant to measure production and consumption that I discussed in my earlier contribution:
https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/halving-the-footprint-of-production-and-consumption/

I agree with Kirsty Leong, WWF International #1922 that the targets need to be different for different sectors.

Agree with Malte Timpte [#1917] that in order to measure sustainable consumption and production it is important to have a common understanding and/or definition of sustainable consumption, production practices and supply chains. I would add that such understanding should be fairly specific. In this context I also agree with Jake Rice {1865] that a fundamental factor in the un/sustainability of use of a population in all sectors is whether or not the rate of use exceeds the productive capacity of that population to compensation for what is removed, which will provides a basis for evidence-based decision making. Further, I agree with this post’s statement that the framework should strive to define the thresholds.