1. How can customary sustainable use be strengthened, protected and encouraged in the GBF?

2. How can issues related to land tenure, joint management of protected areas or indigenous peoples and local communities conserved territories, and secure access to terrestrial, fresh water, and marine flora and fauna be integrated into the GBF?

3. What milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF for customary sustainable use monitoring?
• What would the implications be for the monitoring framework of the GBF?

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

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

Mphatso and Norbert

I am Vivienne Solis from Costa Rica and working on biodiversity conservation and human rights issues at the local and regional level. 
Recognized that IPLC governance models and sustainable use and customary practices provide inputs to the conserved and equitable managed territory is a most. We would value and recognized customary sustainable use if we recognized the IPLC territories of life.  One possible indicator will be:   % of IPLC territories of life ( conserved territories) recognized and increased. % of territories of life ( conserved territories) added to the governmental reports of protected areas towards 2030.

Good morning Vivienne! For my education: would communities in France or Germany, as well as municipalities in Philippines be included in the IPLC concept?

"would communities in France or Germany, as well as municipalities in Philippines be included in the IPLC concept?"
This is a good point that requires further clarification. For instance, in Portugal there are several small communities in mountainous areas that manage community lands (some of them in a co-management regime with the Portuguese Public Administration - ICNF). Are those communities also covered by the IPCL concept?

Good morning and thank you for the very interesting question.  From my perspective we IPLC have a very important list of relationships with biodiversity which some are for example:  traditional or local knowledge concerning the use of biological resources, strong link to the territory ( belonging) and customary policies in some cases   ( local norms that have evolved in time). Maybe Ostrom within others studied those relationships in depth.  So, no matter were in the world, we should find that vitality existing in those communities that could promote and guarantee the sustainable use of resources and particularly in common spaces and for common good. Now, Philippines municipalities are not clear to me, but in the case of Latin America, the local governments are part of the structure of the government and so in this case they are a very important actor in conservation but its efforts in conservation related to governmental governance.  All cases are important from my point of view but we need to recognize the examples and also the rights of these IPLC.

Thanks, Vivienne,
What I get from your message is that an important characteristic of IPLCs is that they have a mandate for governance or management of areas on which they depend (necessarily recognized by the State, however).
I agree that "municipalities" would generally be part of the de-concentrated or decentralized management by the Government.
Best regards

Bonjour
Je suis Mohamed Handaine  du Maroc président du Comité de Coordination des peuples Autochtones d'Afrique (IPACC). Je tiens d'abord à vous remercier d'avoir proposé ce sujet très important sur la consommation coutumière. Les acteurs de la biodiversité et du changement climatique au sein de la CBD et de la CCNUCC sont convaincu  plus que jamais que la seule solution pour atteindre les objectifs des ODD, celles de la CBD et les objectifs de l'accord de Paris, c'est le changement du comportement de vivre, et particulièrement le comportement de consommation. "Consommer durablement " est le mot d'ordre qui devrai être dans tous les plans stratégiques des Etats ainsi que ceux de tous les acteurs sociaux. La culture et la civilisation des Peuples Autochtones constituent un trésor  intarissable de la consommation durable. Le droit coutumier autochtone partout dans le monde  peut nous aider à restaurer le comportement de vivre en harmonie avec la nature. En Afrique nous avons des exemples extraordinaires de la gestion de la pénurie de l'eau, l'utilisation  durable de la terre, la protection des forets, le pastoralisme durable. Tous ces actions sont encadrés par un arsenal juridique issu du droit coutumier clair et simple partagé en langue autochtone. La communauté autochtone veuille à l'application et le respect de ce droit coutumier.
Aujourd’hui  la communauté internationale est consciente de l'importance de ces connaissances traditionnelles. Il est primordial de mettre en valeur ce trésor universel au niveau national, continental et au niveau international, par sa reconnaissance  législative, sa promotion à travers son intégration dans les plans nationaux de l'environnement, NDC et autres.

An important topic to be further supported and reflected in texts is the substantial global development of decentralised management for sustainable use of marine live resources with the involvement of IPLCs in low-scale fisheries' grounds management. Experience has shown that directly involving local fishing communities in the management of local stocks (fishing rights, local warding concessions) aids the sustainability of the fishery and hence of the species (including non target ones) and ecosystems embraced by the activity. At the same time, local use rights are re-established regarding fishing resources in their proximity or traditional territories, that are progressively being taken away from local populations. The approach help to confront the "tragedy of the Commons", where nobody would take long term care of a Common that will provide immediate benefit to a "foreign actor"  (a foreign fleet in this case) if the local one restrain or delay itself from exploiting it to the maximum, to allow for recovery and future exploitation sustainability.

Customary sustainable use can be strengthened, protected and encouraged through the capacity building,networking and the mainstreaming of the IPLC representatives and relevant experts in the entire process including decision makings on such issues directly affecting them.

Concerning what milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF for customary sustainable use monitoring?

Global biodiversity loss happens because we are loosing the Indigenous cultures and encroaching  indigenous territories, the framework need to be clear on these connection. Protection of indigenous territories, rights and traditional knowledge and self-determination should be integrated across the framework.   We should measure explicitly how we are recognizing the  self governed territories of IPLC as effective area-based conservation measures that respect all rights . Cultural values, customary sustainable use and traditional knowledge should also be mainstream in all policies, processes and education systems.

1. How can customary sustainable use be strengthened, protected and encouraged in the GBF?

Sites recognized for customary sustainable use in programmes such as MAB and GIAHS should be monitored and included in CBD processes, and the GBF should encourage parties to work with these and similar relevant programmes to expand and promote good programmes to build synergy.


2. How can issues related to land tenure, joint management of protected areas or indigenous peoples and local communities conserved territories, and secure access to terrestrial, fresh water, and marine flora and fauna be integrated into the GBF?

The GBF needs to ensure land tenure to protect biodiversity and its sustainable use in a just and rights-based manner. For this purpose, the consultation process included consultations relevant to these issues, particularly forums on gender and on landscape approaches, and less directly related to the GBF, a dialogue on biocultural diversity (focusing largely on IPLCs). Unfortunately, so far the co-chairs have not incorporated outcomes of those consultations into the draft GBF in a meaningful way. Landscape approaches in particular have been shown to be a useful tool for incorporating rights and land tenure into planning processes and to bridge gaps between different stakeholders. We were assured that the GBF drafting process would be an interactive process based on the outcomes of the consultations recognized throughout the process, and reports from all of these consultations have been made available to the co-chairs and all CBD parties. These should be incorporated in a more robust way into future drafts.

An interesting point elated to that reflection (#1836) is in the concept of "surplus" included in the Law of the Sea. Under that concept, coastal nations having been granted rights on the fishery resources, if they could not extract themselves the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) of their resources should consider giving access to it to foreign fleets. We have argued long ago on the inequity of this provision, as , on a given stock, the foreign fleets do not just harvest the "surplus", they also reduce the overall abundance of the stock, and the catch rates and profitability of the national fleets, aggravating the "Tragedy of the commons", even though the total exploitation might be "sustainable".

The implication is the the overall "sustainability" may be achieved in different ways and equity remains a key factor to consider. This is why, with good wisdom, the Law of the Sea recognizes that coastal nations determine what they consider MSY, accounting for ecological but also economic and social factors.

For both Q1 and Q2, there are already many policy tools and instruments, and even Principles supporting the priority of customary sustinable use in planning and decision-making, with the priority of Indigenous Peoples entrenched in Article 8j.  The knowledge to use those tools and instruments to make such priorities a reality generally exists, emphasising the importance of drawing on the diversity of knowledge systems that can be used.    What seems to be lacking in many places is the will to apply the knowledge effectively.  I’m sceptical that the GBF can build will where it does not exist (although the lack of will could certainly limit the GBF), but it could build greater accountability for  fulfilling commitments that have already been made but not yet delivered.  
A concern, though, is that the boundaries of what activities of non-indigenous local communities are and are not “customary use” are fuzzy and are being debated even within this thread.  From my experiences for, for example the fishery-dependent communities of Atlantic Canada, residents today do not live exactly as their ancestors did.  the children go to modern schools; health care is available; the fishers doing fish with the same types of boats and nets as their ancestors.  But there is absolutely a culture characteristic of those communities, and that culture has centuries-deep roots.  So are their practices  “customary” or not.  That’s a matter of opinion, but a crucial one, and it goes to the heart of Q3. 
Q3 is about indicators, benchmarks and monitoring.  To have any real meaning, indicators have to capture the value of what is trying to be measured.  Cultures and the biodiversity in which they occur co-evolve.   The biodiversity of an area has shaped the cultures within it, and the human uses have altered the surrounding biodiversity.  Successful co-adaptations survive, and the values of the cultures come to reflect the importance of the biodiversity on which they depend.  If we accept that the maintaining cultural diversity of Humanity is as important to the future as maintaining the biological diversity, then we have to accept a few consequences as well.  Different cultures may attach quite different “value” to similar biodiversity components, and some specific biodiversity components may be values very differently by different cultures.  Unless w are willing to say there is one right culture of all of humanity, there cannot be one right value for any component of biodiversity.  That does not mean there are no wrong value values – waste and wanton destruction are wrong, whatever culture causes it.  But use for “benefits” can be fully legitimate as long as the uses do not degrade the things being used, even if the benefits are of great value to one culture and little value to another.  And because of that, there are no specific indicators that are going to be broadly appropriate for a planet supporting diverse cultures.  Perhaps the focus needs to be on indicators of activities considered inconsistent with values of most cultures, with policies trying to minimize those activities where the indicators say they are prevalent.

Good afternoon, my name is Bertha Garcia Cienfuegos, titular researcher at the National University of Tumbes, Peru; working for many years in local and national protected areas of Peru, I have some research based on climate change in protected areas and fragile ecosystems. It is an honor to be able to interact in this important Forum, on topics so important that they will contribute to the strengthening of protected areas and the conservation of biodiversity.

Greetings, and some comments from WWF on questions 1 and 2:

1. Aichi Target 18 profiled the strategic importance of customary sustainable use and its enabling conditions: “By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.”
In the updated zero draft of the post-2020 GBF, there is no equivalent dedicated target, nor direct reference to customary sustainable use as such.

2. There is a need for specific and dedicated target/s on IPLC's (including women) rights over resources and traditional governance including customary sustainable use practices and related benefits. Much of the world’s terrestrial wild and domesticated biodiversity lies in areas traditionally managed, owned, used or occupied by IPLCs (IPBES 2019), and there are roughly 4 billion ha under community management (forthcoming 2021 “State of ICCAs” report). IPLC management, traditional institutions and mechanisms, and knowledge systems are critical to guaranteeing the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use.

A target could read something along the lines of: “By 2030, appropriately recognize and secure 100% of the rights to the lands and waters traditionally and collectively governed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities for the conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity and respect their right to Free Prior and Informed Consent”.

With regard to question 1, on strengthening, protecting and encouraging customary sustainable use in the Global Bodiversity Forum, I consider that an interaction between sustainable customary use and traditional knowledge is important, that communities shape social and ecological systems, landscapes and seascapes, plant and animal populations, genetic resources and related management practices. It is necessary that it can be achieved by implementing environmental governance, that there is close collaboration between the actors, that there is commitment and that equity in conservation be promoted.
To date, humanity and all living beings face unprecedented dangers, especially the extinction of biological diversity caused by man and the increasingly dramatic effects of climate change; In this context, it is advisable to use more agile methodologies for the evaluation of the values and functions of protected areas and fragile ecosystems, so that the damages are easily demonstrable, and to have an ecosystem approach to the territory to facilitate its conservation. Urge governments to comply with environmental conventions.
In short, consider the three main objectives of the CBD, the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. Also, Resolution 3.012 of the IUCN on Governance of natural resources for conservation and sustainable development.

Further comments from WWF on question 3:

Relevant indicators and monitoring elements should take into consideration the knowledge and governance systems that sustain customary sustainable use.

Suggested indicators for recognising and securing the rights to the lands and waters traditionally and collectively governed by IPLCs:
- "the proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenure" (SDG Indicator 1.4.2)
- Additional sources of possible indicators: Local Biodiversity Outlook (LBO) on traditional knowledge and practices; ICCA Registry

Suggested indicators for trends in use of customary practices (ICCAs, LMMAs) to manage aquatic and terrestrial wild species:
- Quality and vitality of customary practices (ICCAs, LMMAs) used to manage aquatic and terrestrial wild species. The LBO (produced every 4 years) is a source of this data, plus documentation that might be in local registries and the ICCAs registry.

1. How can customary sustainable use be strengthened, protected and encouraged in the GBF?

Even though issues of customary sustainable use may vary from country to country depending on national circumstances, customary sustainable use is one of the components mentioned under article 10 of the convention to be protected and encouraged where compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements. The post 2020 GBF should recognize the important role that indigenous people and local communities play in biodiversity conservation and how customary sustainable use can support conservation.
2. How can issues related to land tenure, joint management of protected areas or indigenous peoples and local communities conserved territories, and secure access to terrestrial, fresh water, and marine flora and fauna be integrated into the GBF?

Just as with OECM’s, the post 2020 GBF should consider development of guidelines for recognition and protection of land tenure rights for IPLCs.

3. What milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF for customary sustainable use monitoring?

Monitoring of recognition of land tenure rights for IPLCs could serve as a potential proxy.

A general comment on this topic:

It is of course vital to recognise that many rural communities across the world rely on the extraction of natural wild resources for protein, fuel, etc. We also recognise that extraction can be sustainable or unsustainable, and that this is a function of the rates of extraction and of the intrinsic biology of the target species. We must take care, however, not to fall into a paradigm that frames all use by rural, traditional communities as sustainable, even where there is no commercial use by said communities.

This is clearly evidenced by the elimination of the largest land mammals (the gomphotheres, giant sloths, etc) from the Americas  after the arrival of humans 15-30,000 years ago, and hunting pressure was also a very important component of the extinction of the woolly mammoths in Beringia, the last of which were found, astonishingly, only 3-4000 years ago.

1. How can customary sustainable use be strengthened, protected and encouraged in the GBF?

The latest GBF draft has a focus on traditional knowledge (target 19) and participation of IPLCs in decision-making (target 20). However, the important role that IPLCs play for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, management and monitoring through e.g. customary sustainable use should be highlighted. The key role that IPLCs have for the implementation of the GBF should be acknowledged in the relevant goals, targets, components and monitoring elements (Goal B, Target 4, Target 8, Target 9 and others).
Sustainable use, and customary sustainable use, builds on close relational values between IPLCs, conservation, sustainable use and benefit-sharing. CBD articles 8(j) and 10(c) embed traditional knowledge and customary sustainable use as integral components of In-situ Conservation and Sustainable Use, and this approach should be reflected in the relevant targets of the post2020 GBF.                      
It should be considered that the commitment of having IPLCs, women, and youth full and effective participation and rights to resources, not solely in a separate, stand-alone and final target, rather than being addressed in all relevant Goals and Targets.

3. What milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF for customary sustainable use monitoring?

The existing global indicators for status and trends in the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities, as welcomed by the CBD COP decision XIII/28, should be considered for all targets linked to customary sustainable use:
(a) Trends in linguistic diversity and numbers of speakers of indigenous languages (decisions VII/30 and VIII/15);
(b) Trends in land-use change and land tenure in the traditional territories of indigenous and local communities (decision X/43);
(c) Trends in the practice of traditional occupations (decision X/43);
(d) Trends in which traditional knowledge and practices are respected through their full integration, safeguards and the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the national implementation of the Strategic Plan.
Further, the conclusions regarding indicators on the national level presented in “CBD/SBI/3/2/ADD4. Progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 on traditional knowledge and customary sustainable use of biodiversity” should be considered.

What would the implications be for the monitoring framework of the GBF?

That guidelines and frameworks be developed and adopted to support parties in applying these indicators at national level and to stress the need for disaggregated data on IPLC’s.
Could be compared to the SDG indicator framework which has an overarching principle of data disaggregation: “Sustainable Development Goal indicators should be disaggregated, where relevant, by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location, or other characteristics, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics (General Assembly resolution 68/261).”

Les indications géographiques (IG) renvoient à un droit de propriété intellectuelle. Il protège le lien (qui doit être démontré) entre une appellation, un territoire et les caractéristiques d’un produit. Parmi ces caractéristiques figurent notamment les savoir-faire autochtones et locaux qui y sont associés et des formes particulières de la biodiversité domestiquée et cultivées (ex. variétés particulières, races locales). Les productions sous IG des communautés autochtones et locales sont ainsi protégées et valorisées, ce qui permet de mieux rémunérer les producteurs.

Regarding milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF, and it implications, I will continue to focus on the issue of environmental governance, in this context, the process in the framework will result in a set of conclusions and written recommendations in a Governance Assessment and Analysis Report, present checklists and tools designed to present the results of the analysis in the country reports to the CBD on its progress on the PoWPA and in the CBD reports beyond the PoWPA, including National Strategies and National Action Plans on Biological Diversity. In fact, the analysis and evaluation process should also lead to the elaboration of an Action Plan for governance, which may include short, medium and long term components.
Mainstreaming sustainable customary use of biodiversity with the effective participation of indigenous and local communities in national biodiversity strategies and action plans is an important and strategic way of integrating Article 10 (c) and its implementation as a matter intersectoral in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the period 2011-2020 and efforts to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the importance of which was reiterated in decision XI / 14.
It is therefore essential in this framework (case studies, mechanisms, legislation and other appropriate initiatives), when identifying best practices, Parties and other relevant stakeholders may wish to consult existing international initiatives, reference materials and tools. of best practices related to protected areas and customary use of biological diversity, such as, the CBD Technical Series No. 64: Recogni-zing and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities - Global overview and National Case Studies on territories and indigenous and community conservation areas, the Whakatane Mechanism, community protocols; likewise, the Durban Action Plan and the Work Program on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Regarding milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF, and it implications, I will continue to focus on the issue of environmental governance, in this context, the process in the framework will result in a set of conclusions and written recommendations in a Governance Assessment and Analysis Report, present checklists and tools designed to present the results of the analysis in the country reports to the CBD on its progress on the PoWPA and in the CBD reports beyond the PoWPA, including National Strategies and National Action Plans on Biological Diversity. In fact, the analysis and evaluation process should also lead to the elaboration of an Action Plan for governance, which may include short, medium and long term components.
Mainstreaming sustainable customary use of biodiversity with the effective participation of indigenous and local communities in national biodiversity strategies and action plans is an important and strategic way of integrating Article 10 (c) and its implementation as a matter intersectoral in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the period 2011-2020 and efforts to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the importance of which was reiterated in decision XI / 14.
It is therefore essential in this framework (case studies, mechanisms, legislation and other appropriate initiatives), when identifying best practices, Parties and other relevant stakeholders may wish to consult existing international initiatives, reference materials and tools. of best practices related to protected areas and customary use of biological diversity, such as, the CBD Technical Series No. 64: Recogni-zing and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities - Global overview and National Case Studies on territories and indigenous and community conservation areas, the Whakatane Mechanism, community protocols; likewise, the Durban Action Plan and the Work Program on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

1. How can customary sustainable use be strengthened, protected and encouraged in the GBF?

Presently, the draft goals and targets have focused on protecting ecosystems, species and genetic resources from people, and reducing threats resulting from actions of people. The Goals A-D, should have components that support peoples' contributions to nature as well, of which customary sustainable use is part of.

Specifically, for Goal B,  people’s contributions to nature should be emphasized to build upon achievements in sustainable use practices. As such, an additional component here could be “Peoples’ contribution to nature”. A monitoring element under it could be “Trends in customary sustainable use”, and an indicator could be the four (4) adopted indicators related to indigenous peoples/traditional knowledge.. To support and complement this, Goal A also needs to have an element on legal recognition of lands, waters, territories of IPLCs, as indigenous peoples need the legal recognition of their rights in order for them not to be criminalized for their customary sustainable use practices, as well as monitoring of the status of species within indigenous lands, waters and territories. This is where Community Based Monitoring Information Systems (CBMIS) can be maximized, and thus should be supported and promoted.

Goal C should also ensure sustainable use with access to resources, and particularly for indigenous peoples, should ensure access to resources should not negatively impact customary sustainable use.

2. How can issues related to land tenure, joint management of protected areas or indigenous peoples and local communities conserved territories, and secure access to terrestrial, fresh water, and marine flora and fauna be integrated into the GBF?

The indicators do not reflect the overlap of key biodiversity areas and indigenous territories. Evidence shows that there are high conservation value lands in indigenous territories, and the IPBES Global Assessment Report 2019 says that while there is a general trend of decreasing biodiversity globally, the rate is much less in indigenous lands.

Indigenous lands and territories should be recognized as a separate land category in spatial planning (Target 1) and conservation (Target 2). Although indigenous territories are not necessarily a conservation category, because conservation is a co-benefit of their customary governance systems and practices.

3. What milestone, component, monitoring element or indicator could be strengthened in the GBF for customary sustainable use monitoring?
• What would the implications be for the monitoring framework of the GBF?

First and foremost, CBMIS of indigenous peoples and local communities should be supported, as they are most aware of the changes in theyre environment, as well as species they interact with in their territories, in their livelihoods, food systems, ceremonies and etc.
A component that reads "Trends in customary sustainable use" under Targets 4, 8 and 9 is necessary to take into account positive practices of Indigenous peoples.  Under Targets 8 and 9, already adopted indicators, as well as SDG and FAO indicators could be applicable, such as:
• Number of countries with action taken to enhance decent rural employment opportunities, entrepreneurship and skills  development, especially for youth  (UN Decade on Family Farming)
• Number of countries with an improved set of institutions and strategies–including policies, guidelines, regulations and tools and programmes–aiming to generate decent rural employment, particularly for youth  (UN Decade on Family Farming
• Number of countries with action taken to accelerate gender equality and rural women’s economic empowerment (UN Decade on Family Farming)
- Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status (SDG indicator 2.3.2)
- Trends in the practice of traditional occupations (decision X/43)
- Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure (SDGs 5.a.1 (a) 
- trends in land-use change and land tenure in the traditional territories of IPLCs (decision X/43)