1. Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use? 

2. Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

3. One of the aims of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, should it monitor activities that ensure benefits to people through sustainable use?

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

Community dialogue through bottom-up approach is significant alongside role of natural biodiversity in underpinning sustainable development & natural resource management through whole-of-society approach. A paradigm shift of biodiversity-related ideas and knowledge into practice through innovative action research that helps people make better use of natural resources and fostering community resilience through ‘Putting People First’ approach. Sustainable use of resources assists in transformation of ‘invisible to visible’ actors, especially at the grassroots right up to the decision making level with their contribution to biodiversity conservation largely recognized with the “biodiversity-community relationship” immediately relevant towards realizing ecosystem services, improve green foot prints and bridge various cross-sectoral SDGs aspirations. Through a gender-specific lens, an enabling environment for inclusive growth and sustainable development is bound to be created for women not through direct benefits transfer to women but by making the them fiscally and economically sustainable. Therefore, through capacity building measures and training, communities can be empowered to change their ways and have more respect for nature made them aware in preserving the biological, social and economic values of natural resources, reshape attitudes and norms, achieve implementing delivery outcomes at grass root level.

Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

There are of course other important benefits that the post-2020 GBF should monitor more closely. These benefits are derived for example from activities related both to the primary and secondary level of the textile or leather industry and may comprise such exotic species as the vicuna, crocodilians, hippos, monitor lizards or crocodilians. In addition the jewelry industry is to some extend as well dependent of marine species as ornamental corals or marine shells collected by local communities that can provide some significant income to them.

Benefits to people should focus on the benefits to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Obviously, if there is commercial exploitation of a species, someone benefits; usually, the greatest benefits accrue to end markets in developed countries, traders, businesses, etc. It is not appropriate or consistent with the objectives of the CBD to focus on the benefits of commercial use to the luxury jewelry or luxury leather products industry; that is a given. Rather, the focus should be on whether or not the use benefits local community livelihoods and well-being, while also ensuring that it is biologically sustainable, and does not harm human or animal health.

I am responding to the message above from Dr. Lieberman.  I'm not sure I agree.  It is absolutely appropriate and consistent with the objectives of the CBD to focus on all benefits derived from wild species - regardless of which stage in a supply chain those benefits are accrued.

We might celebrate the benefits gained by Indigenous people and local communities more than other sectors of society, but benefits are benefits. The statement above suggests some livelihoods are more worthy than others.  If harvest/use is verifiably sustainable and environmentally friendly then the benefits of wildlife to humanity should be celebrated regardless of who is benefitting.

Critically, many wildlife supply chains start with indigenous communities but finish in developed countries - possibly in a luxury market. They are intertwined.  If the benefits to the luxury sector are not considered, and the market collapses, then the benefits derived from that trade by Indigenous or local communities are also lost.  So we would be amiss not to recognize and consider the benefits wildlife can provide to all people(s).

I am responding to the message from Dr Daniel Natusch, IUCN.
In this day and age, any policy which promotes the use of biodiversity - including sentient wild animals- for any purpose whatsoever with no consideration at all for their intrinsic value, lives, welfare, families and social structures is unethical and untenable. We have an extinction crisis which must be addressed, and which will not be helped by a mindset which treats the lives of wild animals in the same way as wild fruits for every man to pick. Clearly subsistence use by local communities and indigenous people is a totally different case to commercial trade for inessential, luxury uses (or the entertainment of the wealthy). This is neither ethical nor sustainable - because compassionate citizens and the media will campaign against it ceaselessly, and markets will dry up over time. Also, luxury uses lead to a hike in values which encourages poaching and illegal trade. In this time of multiple overlapping crises we have the duty to think across silos, in a holistic and systemic manner, exercising extreme precaution. This demands a humane and ethical approach.
https://africanelephantjournal.com/ethics-and-the-iucn/

1. It is because natures benefit to people varies from place to place. For instance there are places were the indigenous and local communities depended almost 100% on nature especially in some parts of the Sahel region of Africa and/or in some parts of  the Amazon rain forest were modern social amenities are beyond the reach of the communities, so when you focus directly on Sustainable development in their environment without considering their relationship to nature; this would alter their ways of livelihoods and in return go against the United Nations  SDGs goals  1,2 and 15.

I agree with #1805 but would add benefits related to recreation (tourism)

I agree with those who have pointed out it is important to distinguish sharply between local use by IPLCs, women and other rights holders that is sustaining their livelihoods and use, harvest and trade for national or international commercial markets. Also in line with its existing decisions related to poverty eradication, it is essential the CBD distinguishes between different kinds of benefits for different rightsholder and stakeholder groups. There is ample scientific literature in the social sciences about how differentiated and often gendered types of use provide differentiated livelihood benefits that play a differentiated role in poverty eradication. Simply said, one cannot compare the needs of a poor rural woman of colour with the demand for luxury products of a wealthy urban white man. By failing to make this gender, ethnic, racist and class distinction in access and benefit sharing the CBD risks reinstating existing inequities. See also https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/vyid10.1007_s10784-020-09476-6.html. Moreover, claims that policy tools like conventional protected areas contribute to poverty eradication and the SDGs are often unfounded in this respect, as they lack such differentiated analysis.

The Africa CSOs (Africa CSO Biodiversity Alliance, ACBA) strongly support a focus for the GBF on ‘Sustainable Use’ – which is in alignment with the 3 CBD objectives (biodiversity, use, equity) – given that services are provisioned by nature and are used by people. This framing incorporates the concerns raised here about both the sustainability of biological systems under use, and the equitable sharing of those benefits. In submissions by ACBA on the GBF monitoring framework and indicators (Submission 154) and a set of policy briefs being prepared by ACBA (see https://www.facebook.com/acsosba/ for updates), the Alliance is advocating for this sustainability/rights-based approach to underpin the GBF. To facilitate this, we strongly support the elements of Goal b structured on each of the 18 IPBES-defined contributions from nature to people (NCPs – see https://ipbes.net/news/natures-contributions-people-ncp-article-ipbes-experts-science). This approach can ensure that all benefits from nature (see comment #1805) can be included in the framework depending on local context, as well as on development of indicators and methods for monitoring and regulation to ensure both sustainability of benefit provision and equitable sharing of those benefits.

I think the benefits (both monetary and non-monetary) provided through the sustainable use of biodiversity are extremely important for local communities. That is probably key for poverty alleviation and also to reach our goal of living in harmony with nature. However, we face the situation that in most cases e.g. only raw plant material is exported for very low price, instead of added value product or well-known imported products are preferred by consumer. This sometimes leads to overharvest or cultivation of same species, which causes habitat destruction. Ideally, I think that the countries should promote entrepreneurship through sustainable use, within their local communities and support them in producing their own added value product and encourage domestic use of such products. Not sure how this could work in economic model, but should at least work for food products and medicinal plants.

In case of luxury products, probably it is important to raise their awareness about the benefits of nature, since they're still the ones who receive such benefits.

Specifically on your second question:
2. Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

Food and medicine is quite a narrow lens which excludes other physical resource-related benefits to people such as fibre (clothing, but also heating and cooking) and shelter (timber and other fibres in houses). Further natural benefits through to people can come in the form of spiritual and cultural connection which could manifest in the way the landscape or resource is used, or as another commentator suggested, in the form of tourism activities to generate a living income or even simply to share culture/history/learnings.

As for how this flows to question 3, that will need greater reflection.

To be able to reach target 8 and ensure benefits to people through sustainable use we need the framework to be very clear in the need of a human rights base approach and be able to measure how much we are advancing at securing tenure rights, access to the sustainable use of resources, recognition of customary and traditional laws and specially  how IPLC governance models for the protection of territories of life are recognized, legitimize and valued. We need to move from a "ensure benefits" to ensure rights of the custodians of those resources were we have right holders.

On the issue of benefits, and in response to the thoughtful contributions from Janice and Simone:


1) I think it would be useful to see reference to the CBD Convention text/objectives, where it suggests that the benefits of biodiversity to people are only considered if they involve Indigenous people and/or local communities. To my reading, it says no such thing.

2) I’m not sure it is useful to focus on ethical arguments. Whose ethics?  Mine?  Yours?  An indigenous person?  Ethics are subjective and are influenced by factors that have no bearing on the issue of biodiversity conservation.

3) We should keep in mind that most biodiversity utilized by people does not involve sentient animals. Most biodiversity use involves plants - some wild, some cultivated.

4) Limiting the consideration of benefits to indigenous people and communities would not represent reality and would undermine biodiversity conservation. We all benefit from biodiversity daily.  Remove biodiversity from your home and you won’t have furniture, a bed, bed linen, curtains, the clothes you wear – or likely the home at all (making several basic assumptions).  Biodiversity is used daily by almost every single person on earth. Some is domesticated and cultivated, some is wild, and its use has both direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity conservation. Since we are all users benefitting from biodiversity, we should recognize those benefits – regardless of how worthy we consider the beneficiaries to be.

5) I agree with Simone that CBD can and should differentiate between types of benefits and beneficiaries. For the reasons elaborated. We just need to be careful not to discount the benefits derived by all stakeholders from biodiversity.  The benefits of luxury companies, for example, are often intertwined with the benefits of indigenous and local people. We can certainly differentiate the two, but not considering them – as suggested by some, above – would hinder the CBD’s biodiversity conservation efforts.

So in summary, and bringing this back to Question 1 & 3 posed by the moderators:

Question 1: Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use?

Sustainable use would not take place if some people, somewhere, were not benefiting from that use. You cannot have sustainable use without benefits to people. In other words, if the post-2020 framework can ensure use that is sustainable, then by default it is ensuring nature’s benefit for people.

Question 3: One of the aims of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, should it monitor activities that ensure benefits to people through sustainable use?

As above, if the answer to Question 3 is “yes”, then CBD will be monitoring ALL use of biodiversity by default – because it all creates benefits.

So if the post-2020 framework can ensure use is sustainable, then it will have achieved its goal of ensuring benefits to people.  If the goal is in fact to ensure disproportionate benefits to some people and not others (e.g., favouring indigenous people) then this requires a different question.

1. Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use?

First of all, the terminology used by IPBES among others now is “nature’s contributions to people”, and it would be better to use this term rather than “benefits to people”. Nature’s contributions to people and sustainable use are two sides of the same coin, so they should be considered together in the GBF and elsewhere. That said, the current draft frames many of the targets as targets for meeting human needs, rather than for protecting biodiversity, which is the purpose of the Convention. It would be more consistent with the mission of the CBD to rephrase these targets as primarily biodiversity targets, with the benefit of providing contributions to people, rather than the other way around. For example, draft Target 8 would be better phrased as something like “…ensure that management of [biological resources / species / biodiversity – this terminology is being discussed in the other thread] is sustainable while providing benefits …”. This kind of rephrasing would make sure that the targets are actually biodiversity targets within the scope of the CBD, and should be applied to all relevant targets.


2. Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

Yes, there are many others, including clean water, clean air, disaster risk reduction benefits, and others. Some of these are covered in, for example, Target 10, but it is unclear why some contributions are suggested to be provided through wild species, and others provided through nature-based solutions and ecosystem approach. All of these benefits come from sustainable management (most prominently through landscape and seascape management). Perhaps most importantly, cultural benefits are often forgotten and should be mentioned explicitly. Without cultural aspects, the 2050 Vision of “living in harmony with nature” is impossible, as is recognized by IPBES and others already.


3. One of the aims of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, should it monitor activities that ensure benefits to people through sustainable use?

Sustainable use is one of the three objectives of the Convention and should be monitored along with the other objectives in a balanced manner. The current draft puts too strong an emphasis on the benefits people get from nature rather than on making sure use is sustainable. Further, it is very difficult to measure sustainability of use using quantitative data. Any attempts at monitoring should avoid imposing global or outside standards (which can be a form of ideology or even neocolonialism) on use in specific cultural contexts. Monitoring can also take advantage of programmes incorporating sustainable use, such as GIAHS, MAB, emerging work on OECMs, and others.

In relation to Q2, it is worth noting that target 8, as currently drafted, refers to a wider range of benefits than ‘food and medicine’ as suggested in the question. It also refers to livelihoods, nutrition, health (provision of medicine is not the only health benefit that biodiversity provides) and human wellbeing (which I feel includes cultural and spiritual benefits amongst others) – so it captures a wide range of benefits. It seems that the Target, as worded, adequately captures the full range of benefits provided to people through sustainable use of wild species but also highlights the need to consider the most vulnerable, which might include those whose livelihoods depend most directly on biodiversity.

However, I was going to come back on some points that I see Daniel Natusch has just addressed. As Daniel says, we all use and depend on biodiversity in our daily lives even if to varying degrees (and whether uses are consumptive or not) and even if some people and groups depend on biodiversity more directly than others. The target is also in the section of the Framework entitled ‘meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit sharing’; the risks to biodiversity from over-exploitation are addressed in target 4.

So I agree that it is important that the framework reflects the benefits of biodiversity to all people (especially the most vulnerable), not least because that gives us all an incentive (should we need one) to ensure that the natural world can continue to provide those benefits into the future. And these benefits can only be continued if our uses are genuinely sustainable – so to respond to Q1, ensuring benefits to people provides an incentive (not necessarily the only one!) to use biodiversity sustainably and so reduce the risks of over-exploitation. As William Dunbar states above, nature’s contributions to people and sustainable use are two sides of the same coin.

I also think some of the discussion above has focused on supply chains that might be typical of some CITES specimens - for example, specimens harvested by IPLCs and exported to (typically) wealthier consumers in other parts of the world. But not all supply chains are like that. There are also lots of direct uses of biodiversity in wealthier countries themselves, through fishing, harvests of wild plants, hunting and non-consumptive uses; the products of some of these uses might also enter supply chains both for internal and external markets. So, it is important to bear in mind that uses of biodiversity (and so the benefits) occur everywhere even if the nature and scale of uses might differ.

It is noted that Dr Daniel Natusch, IUCN, says that he is not sure it is useful to focus on ethical arguments. His reasoning is that personal ethics differ and are influenced by factors that have no bearing on the issue of biodiversity conservation. The whole reason for applying a well-designed ethical decision-making matrix (principles here: https://www.foodethicscouncil.org/app/uploads/2019/02/Ethical_Matrix_1.pdf ) is to bring out and focus on relevant ethical considerations. An ethical lens would be needed even to draw out and analyse any internal tensions within the CBD (e.g. equitable and just benefit sharing). And must be needed in the context of limited biodiversity and a wide range of potential users and uses?

Further, because much biodiversity use does not involve sentient animals is no excuse for ignoring the issues involved when sentient animals are involved. 182 countries have already agreed to animal welfare standards and Guiding Principles which – inter alia – state that “the use of animals carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure the welfare of such animals to the greatest extent practicable”.

Harmony with Nature implies a balance and a mindset that will not be achieved without an ethical lens which gives due consideration to the interests of nature and animals, as well as humans.

Q1  To me the key point in Q1 is the “Why is it IMPORTANT  that the post 2020 agenda ….”   It is Important for the same reasons I agree we should be  talking about Nature’s Contributions to People and not Nature’s Benefits to People (as some other comments have proposed).  Biodiversity contributes diverse things (far more than food and medicine of Q2)  to our physical and mental well-being.  How we use and value those contributions determines how much (or little) we may benefit from them.  Much of Humanity pays insufficient attention to those contributions, leading to squandering the potential benefits from Nature and not conserving the biodiversity supporting those contributions.  So the post 2020 agenda’s treatment of this set of questions should focus as directly on “ensuring the benefits” as ensuring Humanity is consciously aware of those contributions, how the contributions increase their own well-being (making the contributions into benefits), and how the continuity of those benefits depends on healthy biodiversity.  Then the measures needed to conserve biodiversity become incentives to increase well-being for all us (a view IPLC have kept alive for many generations) rather than just further constraints on our freedom to act as we please.  That in turn “ensures the benefits”.

I would like to direct the discussion to also include Traget 9. Food, nutrition and human health are intrinsically linked and we had ample of landmark reports last year that highlighted the food system both as the creator and the solver of the problem.

Nature contribution to sustainable diets and food security is achieved through both Traget 8 (wild foods) and Target 9 (cultivated foods). Together the targets could lay the foundations for a transformational shift in the way we produce food. However, it needs clearer guidance through the monitoring framework. For Traget 9 there needs to be an explicit recognition of the importance of integrated land-use practices that mimic natural processes, making the best of interactions between each part. The fertility of the soil is improved thanks to protection and recycling of nutrients by trees and manure from animals so crops are more productive and better protected from pests and diseases, with less need for artificial inputs like fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Such systems, combined with the deliberate incorporation of wild trees and shrubs, the maintenance of uncultivated land and niches and the establishment of corridors, will transform food production.

Real subsistence uses are extremely rare in our world. Even in remote traditional systems, barter is common and it is a form of trade. In NW Africa, before colonization, fish from the NW Atlantic caught by artisanal fisheries was traded up to the other side of the Sahara: Artisanal fisheries products from say, Senegal, are found all over west Africa down to Congo. And this inter-regional trade sustains women and livelihoods in really remote and vulnerable communities.

Sustainable use should be as defined in the CBD convention, i.e. practiced in the long-term, maintaining the resources for future generations. Whether the harvest is artisanal or industrial, exported or eaten locally, turned into food or objects of decoration, borne by the community or exported, ought to be irrelevant as long as the potential inequalities that may emerge in these uses make that use "unsustainable".

I have seen myself very traditional (and well organized and managed) fisheries in remote places of Côte d'Ivoire, 40 years ago, with flourishing villages in which 100% of the population worked in fisheries, and lived well thanks to intense and well organized trade from the village to the Capital (Abidjan). So, trading, per se is not the problem. The progressive globalization of liberal economics and the changes coming with it, and the resulting de-ruralization modify traditional communities faster and faster. I have also seen in other fishing villages the confrontation of two different interpretation of the information and trends in their environments, one by the old fishers (the tradition) and one by the younger ones (looking for progress). One generation time had been enough to shift from the traditional to the modern mode.

In line with some of the above arguments I think its important a) that the GBF focuses on the CONTRIBUTIONS from nature to people (ie. the tangible (and in some cases intangible) things that transact from nature to people).  b) goal c on equity and other text in the convention further requires that the equitable distribution of those contributions is a concern, so this certainly a fundamental concern of the monitoring framework. This can be done by measuring the distribution of the contributions (directly, e.g. amount of food per capita, its variance, etc), but also potentially the benefit (e.g. food security, nutrition benefits, etc). 

With this example, however, it is more the role of other entities, such as FAO to measure in greater depth aspects of food supply and nutrition, and herein lies the importance of complementarity and a 'handshake' between the CBD/GBF and other global entities, in this case FAO, all packaged under the Sustainable Development Goals.

I agree that this has to be a concerted effort, but we all need to recognise that GBF is an opportunity that must not be lost for an influential sector of the international community to decide that future food systems should be designed to conserve biodiversity and the vital farm-friendly services that biodiversity provides.

1. It is important in too many ways; but if people get benefits from the sustainable use of wild species and their livelihoods are enhanced, it is an excellent incentive to keep sustainably using these species and avoid for ex. land use change in order to carry out other activities that have a negative impact on the ecosystems (ie, livestock and agriculture, urbanization, etc.).

2. Of course there are many other benefits (direct ones, for example clothing, wood, fibers), and anything that can provide an additional income as well (sustainably producing and selling wax, resins, leathers, furs, pets, trophies, wood, medicines, ecotourism, etc.). All these and many other uses also contribute to livelihoods, as theses provide resources for IPLC which can then be used for improving people's wellbeing.

3. It would be very interesting to monitor and be able to identify trends in activities that provide benefits to people and enhance livelihoods of IPLC through sustainable use of wild species (it can be foreseen that trends in sustainable use will be directly related to trends in benefits to people).

Paola Mosig R.

I agree that the essence of Q1 should be about nature's contributions to people as nature also provides disservices not just services in terms of benefits. Omitting one consideration is not a balanced base or sufficiently holistic approach to ensure sustainable use, as it may enhance/reduce one or the other service/disservice. One of the key struggle farmers deal with are disservices such as weeds, pests and diseases, hence solutions need to be found to integrate i.e. mainstream biodiversity properly into for instance crop production. In Target 9 I would add the notion of connectivity to ensure biodiversity gains as this has been one of the gaps not sufficiently addressed.

My name is Ruayei Obispo, I am from Puerto Ayacucho-Venezuela, specifically from the Venezuelan Amazon, I belong to the Amazon Cooperation Network-REDCAM. I will speak from my experience as a young person in my area of ​​action.

Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

Yes, an example is the use of trees by the logging industry, every day many trees are cut down in the Amazon without large companies reforesting the hectares where they work, they even invade, under the auspices of local governments, places that are sacred or are living territories of local communities or indigenous peoples.

Here to prevent large companies from invading the lands that are sacred or belong to indigenous peoples and / or local communities, small cooperatives or mini family businesses have been created, taking advantage of the benefits that nature gives to people, you plant, harvest and They produce different natural rubles, an example is the cocoa that they take advantage of to create different chocolate sweets that they commercialize with the communities near them or in large urban areas, that if always respecting Mother Nature.

Another case that I can present and that I am a promoter of this idea is the creation of scientific research centers of fauna and flora near school or university areas and their direct and indirect benefits from nature to people, in my case I created a herbarium in my school for the investigation of the flora and fauna on the school grounds and their direct relationship with the school.

These two experiences show an example that nature provides a wealth of benefits and that the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework should include and monitor.

@ Annik. Thanks for bringing up disadvantages and connectivity. In the context of nature to provide benefits to people this is directly linked to compensational payments and incentives. Sustainable land-use or hunting/ harvesting practices if they result in conservation of both biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g. connectivity in the case of biodiversity friendly farming) need to be compensated. Which is Target 17. The monitoring elements for Target 17 are currently talking about sustainable use of biodiversity. It would be helpful to include sustainable land use

Greetings friends. Apologies for not contributing to this space earlier. My name is Ben Schachter and I lead the work of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on environmental issues.

A rights-based approach to all aspects of biodiversity action is critical as a matter of legal obligation, of policy coherence, and of effectiveness. In his recent report on human rights and biodiversity, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment found that biodiversity is necessary for ecosystem services that support the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and culture. Sustainable use of biodiversity is essential to protect these and other human rights for current and future generations. Biodiversity and habitat loss can result in human rights violations.

As a result, States have procedural and substantive obligations under international human rights law to address biodiversity and habitat loss and promote sustainable use. These obligations should be reflected in all laws, policies and programmes related to the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity including in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. They include obligations:
1. To prevent biodiversity and habitat loss and their negative human rights impacts.
2. To ensure meaningful and informed participation by all relevant stakeholders in decision-making processes related to biodiversity. 
3. To ensure accountability and effective remedy for human rights harms caused by biodiversity loss as well as the actions taken to prevent biodiversity loss.
4. To protect environmental human rights defenders from harm and ensure their access to justice.
5. To guarantee equality and non-discrimination in all actions to address biodiversity loss including through measures to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples, gender equality, and the rights of children, the elderly, minorities and others in vulnerable situations are protected in and reinforced by biodiversity action.
6. To ensure equity, including intergenerational equity, in biodiversity action and the distribution of its benefits.
7. To cooperate internationally, and to mobilize adequate resources to prevent human rights harms caused by biodiversity loss.
8. To hold businesses accountable for their contributions to biodiversity loss and related human rights harms.
9. To ensure all children the right to an education with respect for nature.
10. To protect indigenous peoples and local communities traditional knowledge, livelihoods, lands, resources and territories.
11. To guarantee all persons the right to benefit from science and its applications.
12. To protect against human rights harms caused by actions taken to conserve biodiversity including through development and effective implementation of environmental and social safeguards.
13. To respect and protect the cultural, religious, spiritual, aesthetic and recreational values associated with biodiversity including the human rights to culture and freedom of religion, and the right of the child to play.

Hello and apologies for being slow to this discussion - this is Dilys Roe, Chair of the IUCN SUstainable USe and Livelihoods Specialist Group. I strongly agree with Dietrich Yelden than benefits to people from sustainable use go way beyond food and medicine. Sustainable use can generate a wide array of economic, cultural and other social benefits that in turn provide incentives for conservation - for example through trade, hunting and fishing (both recreational and subsistence), tourism etc. In many cases these benefits generated are absolutely critical in terms of swinging the balance as to it is worth keeping land under conservation rather than using it for something that will generate more benefits. So lets not limit our discussion (and the CBD Framework) to a limited set of benefits

Just replying to this message on the extinction crisis: lets be clear when we talk about this, what is driving the crisis. In some cases it is use, in other cases it is habitat loss, in other cases it is something else. Responses therefore need to reflect the driver. SO saying only subsistence use is acceptable if use is not a driver of loss is surely illogical. And indeed use can provide the neccessary conservation incentives to improve a species conservation status and prevent extinction - look at Saltwater Crocodiles in Australia as an example. The key issue we should be focussing on is sustainability of use  not whether it is for subsistence of "luxury" purposes. That distinction is a value judgement from one particular mindset.

As others have already noted, the framework reflecting benefits to people may help to incentivize sustainable use - If people are better able to understand nature’s contribution to their wellbeing then they are more likely to use it sustainably. If the relationship between nature and wellbeing is not clearly understood, there will always be a challenge with ensuring any uses are sustainable. A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. In the current climate of overexploitation of natural resources, it is important to also emphasize that even uses and benefits at their current level may become impossible to sustain into the future, unless current management improves. As others have noted, this is a compelling reason to ensure that any targets related to benefits to people are framed in the context of achieving sustainability, so that any benefits that accrue to people can be sustained into the future.
IFAW also supports the comment from William Dunbar [#1853] that it could be better phrased as contributions to people not benefits, as the term benefits can often be narrowly construed to be economic benefits, from consumptive/extractive uses in particular, whereas the contributions to people are far wider than that e.g. provisioning services, disaster risk reduction, health and mental/spiritual wellbeing, and can include non-use in the context of biodiversity that is protected in certain spiritual or cultural contexts.

with regards to  question 2; Nature’s benefits to people range from tangible and intangible benefits. From food and medicine, to regulation of climate, clean water, clean air, disaster risk reduction, health and recreation, and more, all these are relevant for monitoring in target 8. More importantly, it is appropriate that the focus is especially on the most vulnerable because they disproportionately rely on these benefits and act as custodians of natural resources, particularly  Indigenous Peoples and local communities.  There is also need to monitor benefits in the value chain, which to some extent may relate to measures under the Nagoya protocol.

As others have noted whilst responding to the third question,  it is more important to monitor the sustainability of activities, as only if they are truly ecologically sustainable can benefits to people be sustained in the long-term. However, as others have pointed out in this discussion, it is important to understand where and to whom those benefits are accruing, if the intention is to ensure the most vulnerable are benefitting, as there are plenty of existing uses where benefits accrue disproportionately to people in developed nations to the detriment of the most vulnerable and often at a cost to biodiversity.

1. Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use?
The more benefits that nature can deliver to the people, the more nature can be valuable by the people and contribute to its conservation, entering in a positive circle. In this line management and conservation actions need to give solutions to reduce human-wildlife conflict, achieving that the outcomes are not detrimental for the benefits from nature, and neither for conservation of biodiversity. In the case of some semi-natural habitats, their use to obtain benefits lead to a higher biodiversity at the same time. If the use decreases or stops, biodiversity is affected negatively. Ecosystem services should therefore be considered an integral part of sustainable use; i.e: sustainable use is the one that does not compromise the ability of nature and ecosystem to continue delivering in the future the potential ecosystem services associated to them.
2. Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?
The ability of nature and ecosystem services to provide for other benefits (including regulatory services) should also be considered.
3. One of the aims of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, should it monitor activities that ensure benefits to people through sustainable use?
Yes, it contributes to the objectives of the Convention and should be monitored.

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

For #1 and #2. Sustainable use is a crucial part of nature’s contributions to people… Sustainable use includes extraction and use of natural resources, but also non-extractive use, including eco-tourism, arts such as painting of landscapes, recreation such as walking and bird-watching, and so on. Then, nature’s contributions to people goes further… notably to additional ecosystem services of all forms, notably ones that are diffuse (i.e. not tied to a person walking in a forest, etc.). This leads to #2: certainly, a very large number of “benefits to people” could be noted, in addition to food and medicine. To be specific, one area in particular that could be more systematically monitored is cultural benefits/contributions.

Q1 – What is important here is how we define terms like ‘benefits’ and ‘sustainability’. Nature benefits people in countless ways, most of them not associated with commercial gain through direct exploitation. And “sustainable use” is not clearly defined by CBD (or at least the means by which it is evaluated are not clearly defined, nor do they take account of many of the factors that affect sustainability).

Q2 - Absolutely agree with views by Janice Cox on ethical considerations.

Also reinforcing the point that benefits of biodiversity to human health and well-being should not be relegated to being an afterthought. Intact and functional natural ecosystems help to reduce health threats to people by limiting the opportunities for pathogen emergence, mutation, multiplication and cross-transfer to people. Intact systems also contribute to climate change mitigation, clean water, clean air, as well as individual, societal and cultural well-being. The benefits to people from nature and biodiversity are incalculable and cannot (MUST not) be limited to commercial factors.

Q3 – Note the caveats above around the use of the term ‘sustainable’. If use of wildlife and biodiversity can become truly sustainable, the benefits to people, both immediate and generational, will be immense. The problem with the current paradigm is that the term “sustainable use” is used as if it is tangible, when in reality no reliable criteria have been developed which allow it to be truly evaluated.

1. Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use? 
As explained under target 4, the objectives of the CBD are to conserve biodiversity and to ensure that all use is sustainable.
A target on the benefits of nature to people should therefore first of all ensure that nature/ecosystems are and will continue to be able to provide benefits. That could be achieved by applying sustainable management practices or customary/traditional use. The target should shift the focus from providing benefits to enable / ensure that benefits can be provided.

2. Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

Target 8 should cover all benefits/ecosystem services that nature can provide to people by ensuring that wild species are managed sustainably in relation to biodiversity.  We propose to delete “of flora and fauna” as well as “used for food and medicine” in the monitoring element T8.2.
We would also like to highlight, that the draft monitoring framework does not include monitoring elements on benefits. These can currently only be found in the indicators for goal B.

3. One of the aims of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, should it monitor activities that ensure benefits to people through sustainable use?
From our perspective, the framework should monitor that use is sustainable as well as unsustainable trends. That can include the monitoring of practices and activities that have no or limited negative impact on biodiversity e.g. certain sustainable management practices or customary use. 
To measure progress, monitoring elements and indicators e.g. on aquatic wild species should monitor the trend in fish stocks, but also in population size of aquatic mammals.

1. Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use?

We would like to invite the parties and stakeholders engaged in the discussion on sustainable use to reflect on a proposal presented by youth and supported by other stakeholder groups at OEWG-2 on the question of intergenerational justice. It was proposed to have an own goal on the question:
“By 2030, ensure that benefits arising from the sustainable utilization of nature’s contributions to people and associated traditional knowledge are shared fairly and equitability, taking into account intergenerational equity and the gender perspective” (see CBD/WG2020/2/4, Page 8)

Targets on sustainable use should include elements of the proposed goal and address the use and availability of nature’s benefits to people/ecosystem services over time as well as the use within ecological limits/ planetary boundaries.

Sorry to be late in that discussion. I have followed the debate. I am puzzled because  the title of this session is correct (ensure benefits to people THROUGH sustainable use, but the question 1 tends to pit the two concepts one against the other. Obviously sustainable use is practiced by people ... for people, presumably because they draw benefits from such use, in the short and long terms. And these benefits are from nature and require human investments (in terms of energy, funding, education...management,  and human lives (fishing is one of the most lethal jobs on Earth). So, how could the strategy just be for sustainable use without generating benefits to people. there is a contradiction in terms. If anything "sustainable use" looks for a balance between benefits to humans and benefits to nature... which in term ensure the long-term delivery of the benefits to humans.  So, if "sustainable use" is understood as defined by the CBD with the strongly held objective the the CBD to ensure equitable governance (in terms of recognition, procedures and distributional effects), question 1 does not stand as it is impossible to pretend that you have a sustainable use that does not generate benefits for people. communities. Perhaps a key issue may be that of the equitable distribution of costs and benefits. One could imagine an "ecologically sustainable use" that would lead to dispossessing (grabbing away) the coastal communities from their livelihoods, but it would not be socially sustainable.

Ms Dilys Roe gives the example of saltwater crocodile farming in Australia as evidence that sustainable use may be the best way to save wildlife (even if for luxury markets). This is interesting, because it is the only example I have ever heard to support this claim. I wondered why this was, given that it sounds such an awful example?! So I investigated, and found the below article. This refers to a "one trick pony", because other examples have indeed not been forthcoming. This is an example of a luxury trade - for inessential vanity products - and the ‘equitable benefit sharing’ for local communities, from egg collecting, are said to amount to 0.33%. Hmm.
The article deserves careful reading.
And we should seriously question the widespread acceptance of the "ideology" of sustainable use of wild animals without widespread and verifiable proof. And we should not use this as a central tenet of the Post-2020 Framework without incontrovertible proof.
There has to be a reality check. And an ethical check.
See:
https://natureneedsmore.org/what-does-a-one-trick-pony-and-australian-crocodile-farming-have-in-common-sustainable-use-ideology/

WRT q 2., Are there benefits to people, other than food and medicine, that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should monitor in Target 8?

WWF believes, like many contributors to this interesting discussion, that nature generates a number of economic, cultural and social benefits that should be taken into account in the GBF and a comprehensive set of indicators should monitor these benefits. (The language in target 8 in the updated draft 0 goes beyond food and medicine and talks about benefits, including nutrition, food security, livelihoods, health and well-being). Furthermore, while sustainable use and its monitoring are critical, there is also an important distributional element to the benefits of nature that need to be addressed to enable sustainable use and the role of nature in achieving the SDGs.  We suggest that, in order to address the use and benefits in a comprehensive manner, the framework should include indicators to monitor distribution of and access to the benefits especially wrt the vulnerable groups and for indigenous peoples and local communities. Local Biodiversity Outlooks and ICCA registers can be some of the data sources for these indicators. Additional elements of a comprehensive approach include:
* Targets and other elements to address unsustainable consumption (as discussed in a another threat)
* Embedding a rights-based approach in the framework through a dedicated target to create enabling conditions and appropriate legal and policy frameworks

This is a wonderful discussion. Apologies for joining so late. I don't think I can summarize my comments better than Daniel Natusch (1852), Dr. Vincent Fleming (1856) and Ms Paola Reidl from CONABIO (1874) did in their comments. Well said

It is the 11.5th hour in this discussion yet there are many points that are worth debating. Just briefly:

On the inextricable relationship between sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing. Indeed – they cannot actually be achieved except together. This is contained within the theory of change that underpins the GBF, explicitly given as the sustainable development paradigm as given by the Sustainable Development Goals. In the most simplistic binary model they might be separable and independent, but in the real world they cannot be separated, and the history of nature’s use and cultural conflicts over control of resources shows they can only be achieved together. So full and complete attention to both sustainability of natural systems and our use of them, and to equitable sharing of benefits from that use, is the only way to achieve either.

On the equivalence of luxury and subsistence uses, the argument for this being that ‘use is use’ and one must apply values (whose values?) in determining if one is ‘better’ than the other. But this is obviated by the above point on equity. It’s not a matter of deciding that one group’s values are more correct than another (though this is the way most cultures have worked historically). But collectively, given all the different value systems that exist, the only way to not judge any of them is through an equity principle. In the context of subsistence vs. luxury this is about just principles, which include both addressing minimum needs, but also distributional equity (and that justice is a process as much as an end). The bottom line in today’s over-crowded world is that luxury must give way not only to subsistence, but also to more equitable distribution of benefits . There’s no other way to meet the rights and needs of those who have too little, and stay within planetary limits.

The Africa CSO Biodiversity Alliance (ACBA) argues that Sustainable Use is the principle to address these, through goal b), in a policy brief that will be available at this location - https://www.facebook.com/acsosba/.

In comments on the monitoring framework ACBA also recommends that indicators to monitor sustainable use and equitable benefits sharing are not yet ready to specify for the GBF. To accommodate this, making space for these to be developed in coming years is essential (rather than excluding them because they’re not ready). These can be framed by the 18 classes of Natures Contributions to People (NCP) and need to cover three areas:
a) the amount of each resource in the NCP classes, within the context of their biotic sustainability/regeneration (in agreement with many earlier comments on this forum);
b) access to the resource/NCP, disaggregated by gender, disadvantaged groups, etc.
c) distribution/sharing of benefits from the resource/NCP, also disaggregated.
A policy brief further explaining this will also become available at the ACBA site.

These positions are developed through CORDIO East Africa’s work founded on coral reef sustainability and fisheries, in the context of climatic and global changes, and we are bringing these into ACBA for more general presentation, joined with experiences from other African CSOs.  We are also bringing these into work in the Earth Commission on a safe and just corridor/operating space for humanity and the planet into the Anthropocene. In this regard the CBD goals, the Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision are inextricable and essential components of the Sustainable Development Goal framework (theory of change), as are the complementary planetary and societal goals linked to all the other goals (climate change, food, poverty, health, rights, etc). This is why the state of nature, its sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits from use have to be treated together within the GBF, recognizing that moving outwards in this sequence the GBF progressively ‘hands over’ to other institutions responsible in the other SDGs.

(with apologies; I've lost WiFi due to a storm and I can't read all of the other comments 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.

“Target 8. By 2030, ensure benefits, including nutrition, food security, livelihoods, health and well-being, for people, especially for the most vulnerable through sustainable management of wild species of fauna and flora.”

Like the new draft target itself, question 1 is putting the cart before the horse. While certainly gaining benefits from biodiversity is a key motivation for us to care about biodiversity, it is not by setting targets for maximising (short-term) benefits from the use of nature that we will make use sustainable or reach the CBD’s objectives and the 2050 vision. Rather, it is the other way around: We need to use the earth’s resources and biodiversity in a sustainable way so future generations can still profit from it. If there is no biodiversity in the future, there are no benefits. Therefore we need to sustain it.

The CBD itself defines sustainable use in its 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.”

So rather than setting a target for the benefits we receive, we need to focus on how to make use “sustainable”.  Like Daniel Natusch says in #1852, if the post-2020 framework can ensure use is sustainable, then by default it is ensuring nature’s benefit for people. “Sustainable” use in the context of the convention on biodiversity means that any use is not to the detriment of biodiversity, i.e. that the use does not lead to the decline or loss of the species used or other species and habitats.

We therefore urge to emphasize the sustainability of use and rephrase the draft target along the lines William Dunbar (#1853) suggests, and in full coherence with CBD’s second objective “…ensure that management / use of biodiversity is sustainable while providing benefits …”, or, as FoE Europe have suggested in their submission to the zero draft: “All areas used by people for nutrition, water supply, resilience to natural disasters, for carbon sequestration or other essential benefits are used in sustainable way, ensuring maintenance of species and habitats in a good status and the long-term supply for ecosystem services/ Nature’s Contributions to People.”

Setting targets for benefits, even when they are supposed to be generated in as sustainable way, risks that the success is judged by its benefits (i.e. the quantity produced) while the sustainability of the production process is neglected or ignored. A target demanding in increase of benefits might even be used as an excuse to intensify and industrialise land use while destroying species and habitats. Also, this raises the question of distribution (benefits for whom, evenness?) and equity and is better discussed in the framework of Agenda 2030 (e.g. SDG 10).

So, to get back to the original question “1. Why is it important for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to ensure nature’s benefits to people and not just sustainable use?” – I would say: sustainable use is the only way to ensure nature’s benefits, both are two sides of the same coin, with the latter being the basis for the former and benefits being a result of sustainable use; and while we should by all means explain that we get a cornucopia of benefits from biodiversity and use it to “sell” our cause, we should not set a target for ensuring them.

On question 3. One of the aims of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is to ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, should it monitor activities that ensure benefits to people through sustainable use? – I would concur with Dr. Daniel Natusch (IUCN SSC), #1852 that this would need to be monitoring all use of biodiversity by default, because it all creates benefits, or – we would prefer this term – nature’s contributions to people.

I agree completely with the statement of Sue Lieberman that “the target, elements, and monitoring framework to date appear to advocate use, with the goal of hoping that it is sustainable.” And further, as Adeline mentions the term sustainable use “is used as if it is tangible, when in reality no reliable criteria have been developed which allow it to be truly evaluated.” It is imperative that the benefits (contributions) to people are balanced against the use being promoted. There are uses of biodiversity with clear benefits to human need and wellbeing. But, there are other uses which contribute only to people’s greed, and often in the process impinge on others’ opportunities for biodiversity to meet their needs (such as the logging mentioned by Ruayei Obispo Guzman) or cause unnecessary harm to wild animals.

Additionally, there are scientific fields that are rapidly evolving alongside biodiversity conservation and which require consideration under the concept of sustainable use. There is a growing body of science that shows that animals are sentient, demonstrates their cognitive abilities, and illuminates what constitutes good animal welfare for various species and their specific needs.
That this ought to be addressed isn’t only the perspective of NGOs. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has been tasked with addressing animal welfare, and 182 countries have agreed to the implementation of the OIE's standards for animal welfare, as has been mentioned. The OIE's Global Strategy for Animal Welfare specifically states that the use of animals carries "an associated ethical responsibility to ensure any such use is humane, as defined through the OIE’s international standards for animal welfare, in recognition of the sentience of animals." Harm to wild animals must be incorporated into considerations of the cost and benefits of various uses. To say that this harm does not matter, and that all uses should be considered equally so long as they are sustainable, is indeed to take a value-laden position, and one that it is out of sync with science, too.
For what it is worth, the IUCN itself contains an Ethics Specialist Group, and this group, after deliberating specifically on the issue of trophy hunting, concluded “Trophy hunting is not consistent with “sustainable use”... The critical question is whether trophy hunting as it is practiced by individuals and promoted by certain hunting organizations may be consistent with IUCN’s general objectives as expressed in Articles 2 and 7. This is clearly not the case. Any other view would threaten IUCN’s credibility for providing moral and ethical leadership in conservation policies. It would certainly undermine the many efforts of IUCN members to promote a just and sustainable world.” It would have been interesting to hear from members of this Group in this forum.
It is clear that ethics should indeed be considered, and the desire to keep a simplistic view and avoid having to address wicked problems will not make them go away. The science on animal sentience and welfare will continue to grow, and along with it so to will society’s interpretation of ethical treatment of animals. It is something that the concept of Sustainable Use and the CBD will have to address and adapt to eventually.
So to answer 1: It is important for the GBF to ensure that nature’s contributions to people (our preferred terminology, in line with IPBES) are balanced against a holistic view of sustainability (socially, ecologically etc.). Focusing excessively on benefits of use causes an imbalance in the approach which makes achieving (loosely defined) sustainable use a real challenge, as use becomes the primary goal.
2: The CBD should monitor uses beyond food and medicine, because to not to do so would mean that a variety of potentially harmful uses would go without monitoring.