Download Indicators of sustainable use of biological diversity (Agenda

Position Paper
Indicators of sustainable use of biological
diversity (Agenda item 23)
Eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (COP8), Curitiba, Brazil, 20-31 March 2006
Sustainable use of biological diversity is a central objective of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (Articles 1 and 10). It is being addressed as a cross-cutting issue under the work
programme. The Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use of Biological
Diversity were adopted at the 7th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2004 in
decision VII/12. They provide a framework for governments to develop and implement
policies that will foster sustainable use of biological diversity. They also provide guidance
to resource managers on how to enhance the sustainability of their uses of biological
diversity.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) at its 3rd World Conservation Congress in 2004
endorsed the Addis Ababa Principles and committed itself to work with the Parties and the
Secretariat to further their development and implementation (WWC RES 3.074:
Implementing the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of
Biodiversity). At COP7 Parties also adopted a Strategic Plan: Future Evaluation of
Progress (Decision VII/30). The 4th Goal of this Plan addresses the need for uses of
biological diversity resources to be sustainable.
Three sub-targets were adopted and indicators have been proposed by SBSTTA
(Recommendation X/5) See Table 1.
Sub-Targets
4.1:
4.2:
4.3:
Biodiversity-based products derived from sources that
are sustainably managed and production areas
managed consistent with the conservation of
biodiversity
Unsustainable consumption, of biological resources,
or that impact upon biodiversity, reduced
No species of wild flora or fauna endangered by
international trade
Proposed Indicators
Area of forest, agricultural and aquacultural ecosystems under
sustainable management.
Proportion of products derived from sustainable sources.
Ecological footprint and related concepts
Change in status of threatened species
These proposed indicators are at different stages of development and involve several
institutions, e.g., the 2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (BIP), FAO, EEA SEBI 2010
(European region), IUCN, and OECD. Because of the complex issues that need to be
addressed in the development of indicators related to sustainable use, IUCN through the
SSC Sustainable Use Specialist Group (SUSG) and in partnership with the UNEP-World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, established an Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable
Use Indicators1 to foster closer collaboration and consultation amongst those involved.
For more information, please
contact :
Stephen Edwards
Special Advisor
Global Programme Team
Tel: +41 22 999 0224
Fax: +41 22 999 0025
[email protected]
Martha Chouchena-Rojas
Head
IUCN Policy, Biodiversity &
International Agreements
Tel: +41 22 999 0254
Fax: +4122 999 0025
[email protected]
World Headquarters
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 999 0000
Fax: +41 22 999 0002
[email protected]
www.iucn.org
Although the CBD has a clear definition of sustainable use in Article 2, understanding of
the concept varies greatly between different fora and amongst different institutions and
1
The members of the Working Group are: EEA SEBI 2010, FAO, IUCN SSC, IUCN Secretariat, UNEP-CITES Secretariat, UNEPWCMC, Canada, Namibia, United Kingdom, Birdlife International, DICE – Kent University, Diversitas, Fauna and Flora
International, Natural History Museum – France, Swedbio, TRAFFIC International, TRAFFIC South America, Wildlife Conservation
Society, and the Zoological Society of London.
individuals. In the context of indicators the
problem is exacerbated because the following
terms used in the CBD framework of subtargets (see left column of Table 1) were not
defined or clarified: “sustainable use”,
“sustainable management”, “production areas
managed consistent with the conservation of
components of biodiversity”, and “sustainable
consumption”.
No dataset has been explicitly developed to
monitor changes in the status of biodiversity
resources subject to use. However, four globalscale datasets are broadly available that have
relevant data and sufficient temporal depth to
document changes in status over time:
• IUCN-SSC Red List Database;
• CITES trade-related data;
• The World Database on Protected Areas;
and
• FAO datasets on fisheries, fish stocks,
and forest inventories.
International customs records may also be
relevant to measure levels of legal use of
certain biodiversity resources that are classified
as commodities, e.g., gum Arabic, tropical
timber, or medicinal plants. Several regional
and sub-regional datasets may have global
relevance but would likely be limited in their
scope of applicability.
When developing indicators it is important that
they be:
•
•
•
•
Scientifically defensible;
Meaningful with the public;
Policy relevant;
Scalable between global, regional and
national levels, and
• Easy and cost-effective to apply.
Ideally, data should be readily available for
compilation and analysis and should be capable
of documenting change in the status of
biodiversity resources over time.
In regards to Sub-Target 4.1, FAO and UNEPWCMC are looking at means to measure
change in relation to the proposed indicator:
area of forest, agricultural and aquacultural
ecosystems under sustainable management.
The EEA SEBI 2010 initiative to streamline
European 2010 biodiversity indicators is looking
at ways to measure the sustainability of
management of agricultural and forest
ecosystems, and potentially at fisheries.
No dataset exists to operationalize the second
proposed indicator: proportion of products
derived from sustainable sources. It may be
The World Conservation Union (IUCN): Position Paper
possible to identify a “basket” of flagship
commodities (e.g. grains, livestock, benthic
organisms, coffee, bananas, shrimp, palm oil,
capture fisheries, livestock, certified timber,
legal wildlife trade, medicinal species and other
non-timber forest products) that, when taken
together, could provide a “sustainability index”
that could be used to document changes.
However, the criteria and methods for selecting
the flagship-commodities would have to be
developed and the suite of commodities
selected would have to be representative of the
spectrum of biodiversity products used globally.
In regards to Sub-Target 4.2, the relevance of
the proposed indicator ecological footprint and
related concepts to sustainable use is not clear.
The ecological footprint has been used to
assess the capacity of ecosystems to deliver
needed goods and services within a prescribed
area. Thus, it may be an appropriate tool to
monitor/assess the impact of use at the
ecosystem level.
In regards to Sub-Target 4.3, there are several
potential sources of data on species in trade
that could be relevant to the proposed indicator
change in status of threatened species. FAO
data on fisheries and forest products,
species/trade data provided by Parties to
CITES, and data on trade in biodiversity that is
maintained by TRAFFIC and UNEP-WCMC
would be relevant.
The Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable Use
Indicators has suggested that decline in the
number of key species threatened by use
[=consumption] would be a good indicator to
address Sub-Target 4.2 (see Table 1). This
indicator could be used to monitor the impact of
domestic and international trade on the status
of key species. The IUCN-SSC Red List Index
would provide the data on species status; the
transfer of a species between categories of
threat would provide the means of measuring
change.
A recent meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group
on Sustainable Use Indicators held in
Cambridge, UK, on January 2006 identified
several potential candidate indicators that
would measure rates of change in the status of
populations, species, and communities subject
to use (Annex 1). IUCN’s Species Survival
Commission is developing candidate indicators
to monitor the impact of trade on the status of
species, using information from the IUCN Red
List Database. In developing trade related
indicators, the applicability and relevance of
available biodiversity-based trade datasets (e.g.
CITES, ITTO, FAO, TRAFFIC, Customs) should
be assessed; case studies on commodity
Page 2
groups (e.g., medicinal plants, wild species
used for meat, sport hunted species) would
provide insights and background information
that would be helpful. In addition, it would be
useful if data on the status, level of use, and
trade for select commodities were compiled and
analyzed along with use and trade data on
limited taxonomic groups, which are currently
the focus of the IUCN Global Species
Assessments, e.g., mammals, birds,
amphibians, conifers, cycads.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) urges
COP8 to:
•
•
•
encourage representation and
contributions from developing countries
and specialists working on Article 8(j),
Access and Benefit Sharing, and
Agricultural Biodiversity in the
development and testing of candidate
indicators relevant to sustainable use;
request SBSTTA, in accordance with
paragraph 4 of Decision VII/12, to
consider indicators of sustainable use
as a matter of priority, noting that the
IUCN Ad Hoc Working Group on
Sustainable Use Indicators (referenced
in Annex 1 of SBSTTA
Recommendation 11/13) is ready to
assist SBSTTA in the development of
these indicators;
call on the Executive Secretary to
clarify terminology used in framing Subtargets 4.1 to 4.3 and to ensure that
terminology used in indicators is
standardized, and where necessary
that terms be defined and/or clarified;
The World Conservation Union (IUCN): Position Paper
•
ensure that all work on sustainable use
indicators be within the 2010 framework
and consistent with the Addis Ababa
Principles and Guidelines for the
Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity;
•
request the Executive Secretary to
facilitate development of indicators to
monitor the impact of trade on the
status of species (vis-à-vis Sub-Target
4.3);
•
invite Parties to contribute to the further
development of the IUCN Red List
Database, which is serving as a crucial
data resource for the development and
application of indicators to monitor the
status of most species and populations;
•
acknowledge and support the important
role the 2010 Biodiversity Indicator
Partnership will play in fostering
collaboration and cooperation, while
avoiding duplication, amongst the
various institutions engaged in working
on development and testing of
indicators to monitor the status of
biological diversity;
•
note the EEA SEBI 2010 work to
streamline European 2010 biodiversity
indicators related to sustainable
consumption of forest and other
ecosystems and the FAO initiatives to
develop indicators to monitor the status
of fisheries subject to exploitation.
Page 3