A report from the SBSTTA 11 meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity ( Montreal, November/December 2005).

(Barney Dickson attended SBSTTA 11 to promote work on the Precautionary Principle in a side-event but he also made a presentation for SUSG in a side-event on Sustainable Use Indicators, attended by some 50 people and principally organized for us by Steve Edwards. However it is easy to forget that SBSTTA exists, not as an umbrella for side-events, but to do business for CBD. We asked Barney to report on the sustainable use aspects of the actual meeting. He has given us some useful background to the present somewhat unsatisfactory position. Ed.)

A little bit of history

COP 7 (Feb 2004)
In order to assess progress towards the 2010 target, CBD COP 7 adopted a global framework with seven focal areas (including ‘Promoting sustainable use of biodiversity’) and provisional goals, targets and indicators for each focal area.

Significant changes took place in the negotiations at COP 7. The suggested Goal and Targets, put forward by the Secretariat to COP 7 (in COP/7/20/Add.3), were:

GOAL – Halt Unsustainable Use

TARGETS

6.1 Biodiversity-based products derived from sources that are sustainably managed

6.2 Production areas managed consistent with the conservation of biodiversity

6.3 No species of wild flora or fauna endangered by international trade

The goal and targets that were actually adopted by COP 7 were:

GOAL – Promote Sustainable Use and Consumption

TARGETS

4.1 Biodiversity-based products derived from sources that are sustainably managed, and Production areas managed consistent with the conservation of biodiversity.

4.2 Unsustainable consumption, of biological resources, or that impacts upon biodiversity, reduced

4.3 No species of wild flora or fauna endangered by international trade

So, in the course of the negotiations the notion of ‘sustainable consumption’ was added to the Goal, the first two targets were combined into one (4.1) and a new target, relating to consumption, was introduced (4.2).

SBSTTA 10 (Feb 2005)
At SBSTTA 10, following an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group meeting on Indicators for Assessing Progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target (Oct 2004), there were some changes in the suggested indicators for the sustainable use targets. These changes included the introduction of the ‘ecological footprint’ as an indicator for target 4.2.

Targets at SBSTTA 11 (Nov-Dec 2005)

At SBSTTA 11 there was no support for reopening the discussions on targets for sustainable use. This was because there was no support for re-opening the discussion on the 2010 targets at all. There was a feeling that the structure was too fragile and opening it up for discussion could endanger the whole structure. This was the view of the UK delegation, the EU, the Chair of SBSTTA, the Chair of Working Group Two and many other countries. Nevertheless, no one defended the SU targets as satisfactory. The general feeling was that we will have to live with them. The one exception to the unwillingness to re-open discussion of the targets was Colombia – who pushed for a revision of Goal 10 and targets 10.1 and 10.2 (relating to access and benefit sharing). Columbia did eventually get some changes by being very persistent.

Targets are important

The ‘global targets’ are important, not just in themselves, but because they are being used elsewhere within the CBD. SBSTTA 11 saw versions of the targets being incorporated in each of the Programmes of Work. They are also intended to guide the preparation of the Global Biodiversity Outlook.

 Options

To get CBD COP 8 to review the SU targets would require a Party (or Group of Parties) to be as persistent as Colombia. The alternative is to accept these targets; to make as clear as possible that they are unsatisfactory; to argue that in the longer term (i.e. beyond the 2010 target) they will need to be revised; and to propose indicators for the targets that remedy some of problems with these targets.

Recommendation from SBSTTA 11 on Sustainable Use

This includes a section on Indicators, which recognises the need to consolidate work on indicators for sustainable use (at the thematic, global and national levels). It requests the Executive Secretary to report on ongoing and new initiatives on indicators or SU and includes the SUSG-organised Cambridge workshop (January 2006) in an Annex on ‘Ongoing initiatives’. There were some concerns expressed by developing countries that the existing initiatives are too euro-centric.

Conclusions

• The targets and associated indicators for SU are unsatisfactory.
• It may not be possible to change these targets, although we can certainly keep their unsatisfactory nature in front of people’s minds.
• The Cambridge workshop provides an opportunity at which to emphasise the role of SUSG of IUCN SSC as key contributor to the development of SU indicators. The workshop will need to have some outputs on indicators that can be adopted by Parties.
• There is a need to take the concerns of developing countries on board.

December 2005. Barney Dickson is Head of Policy at Fauna & Flora International and a member of SUSG. He is at barney.dicksonfauna-flora.org

Sustainable, January 2006, contents page