Animal Health & Welfare key to an effective Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
.jpg)
The World Federation for Animals (WFA), Born Free, and several other NGOs put forward these recommendations to delegations attending the Geneva meetings through this joint Position Paper.
Extending the sustainable use narrative to prioritise biodiversity
Since the inception of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, biodiversity has been declining at record rates. “Around 25 percent of animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of the drivers of biodiversity loss” noted the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment report. The same report demonstrated that human actions, such as land and sea-use change, the direct exploitation of wildlife, and climate change, are among the major direct drivers of this rapid decline.
The concept of ‘sustainable use’ in relation to animals and plants, and how this is measured, is therefore essential for the effective design and implementation of the Framework. Yet, a suitable definition is currently absent from the draft. Instead, the latter maintains a biased narrative through which socio-economic aspects of sustainability take precedence over environmental ones.
In the Framework, the term ‘sustainable use’ should:
● Only be applied in reference to uses which have been demonstrated to meet strict criteria for assessing biological and ecological sustainability, that will allow species and the ecosystems of which they are a part to thrive;
● Be measurable by robust methods to consider all uses and pressures on species (including both legal and illegal wildlife trade) and incorporate the impacts of wildlife exploitation on human and animal health and well-being; and,
● Have as prerequisites successful species and habitat conservation, and biological stability/ sustainability. Without these, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits cannot be achieved.
As such, we recommend the inclusion of revised language with a clearer and more holistic interpretation of sustainable use that allows for more ambitious goals and targets. For instance, we would favour using the term “sustainable management” of species, proposed at the Geneva meeting, as opposed to the ambiguous and conservative “sustainable use” concept. Despite being well-enshrined in the CBD’s realm, this concept can and ought to be challenged. ‘Sustainable management’ remains very anthropocentric but reflects less of a ‘utilitarian approach than using nature and species as ‘mere resources’. Therefore, if maintained in the final version of the draft Framework, this could be considered as a first step to extend or even reframe the ‘sustainable use’ narrative towards a more ecologically-oriented new strategy for nature and people.
2. Integrate animal health and welfare considerations into the Framework
Regulated and unregulated exploitation, trade, and use of wildlife present threats to human health. Crowding, stress, and injury among wild and domesticated animals provide the perfect environment for pathogens to spread and mutate, and their close proximity to people during capture, farming, transportation, butchering, processing, and trade creates many opportunities for transmission between individuals and species, and potentially to people. 75% of emerging human pathogens are of animal origin.
The Framework represents an opportunity to recommend effective approaches to mitigate pandemic risks as well as to conserve and protect biodiversity, while halting and reversing its loss. An integrated biodiversity/zoonotics perspective is urgently required.
We therefore strongly encourage eliminating the commercial trade and markets of wild animals (from the wild and captive bred/farmed), regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, or considered sustainable or unsustainable, prioritising the mitigation of animal and human health risks.
Animal welfare is also important and necessary to protect human, animal, and ecosystems health. Individual animals play a crucial role in maintaining populations and protecting ecosystems. The pioneering work of the UN Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) on the importance of cultural and social learning provides an innovative pathway on how we consider animals – from simple components of populations to individuals who offer specific and invaluable contributions to their wider social groups. This shows that positive conservation outcomes can depend on individual animals, behavioural diversity and the restoration of cultural knowledge. Such emerging insights may be vital for effective conservation efforts and sustainable wildlife management.
Specific recommendations on the Framework can be found in our Position Paper.
Moving forward
Our recommendations echo the recently approved UNEA resolution, which acknowledges the role of animal welfare in promoting One Health, protecting the environment, and achieving sustainable development. Further, these are in line with the draft action plan on biodiversity and health negotiated under its Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice.
We urge participating delegates to take our recommendations onboard in the negotiations. Including animal health and welfare can only strengthen the Framework and enable its effective implementation.
One Health and related matters including animal health and welfare can not be left behind.
Contact:
● Silvia Mantilla, WFA Communications Manager - comms@wfa.org
● Sabine Brels, WFA -Legal Advisor - sabine.brels@wfa.org
● Adeline Lerambert, Born Free Foundation International Policy Specialist - adeline@bornfree.org.uk
● Léa Badoz, Eurogroup for Animals, Junior Policy Officer l.badoz@eurogroupforanimals.org