ICSS 2024 › Forums › The Fifth Science-Policy Forum for Biodiversity and The Eighth International Conference on Sustainability Science › Session 1 – Breakout group 2
- This topic has 10 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
izabeladelabre.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
April 8, 2021 at 11:22 am #6860
Science4biodiversity Moderator
KeymasterDear visitor,
Welcome to the Q&A block for the Session 1 – Breakout Group 2 of the The Fifth Science-Policy Forum for Biodiversity and The Eighth International Conference on Sustainability Science, scheduled on 13 April 2021.
Please note that, since all the questions cannot be handled in the time provided, this section is made for all the presenters, panelists and attendees to continue the exchange through the forum which will remain open for three days after the end of this session, i.e; till 16 April 2021.
Thank you for your patience.
-
April 13, 2021 at 1:30 pm #7139
Science4biodiversity_moderator
KeymasterANNA HEWSON questioned
Can sustainable trade agreements supporting sustainable industries be produced? I.e. no trade agreement supports palm oil if not certified *and audited* as sustainable. Only invest in sustainable industry. Could there be extra payments for sustainable systems produced by countries and for diversifying from ‘traditional’ industry?-
April 14, 2021 at 12:08 pm #7219
izabeladelabre
ParticipantHi Anna,
Thank you for this question. This could absolutely be part of building sustainable global value chains. Stefano Ponte (2019 book “Business, Power and Sustainability in a World of Global Value Chains”) discusses the use of import/export taxes as part of innovative financing to support sustainable trade. Use of sustainability standards by regulators, public procurement policies, and import and export taxes could help to move towards sustainable trade to secure fairer contracts and more sustainable and biodiversity-friendly practices. Tax revenue could then be diverted towards diverse economic options.
Best wishes
Izabela
-
-
April 13, 2021 at 1:32 pm #7140Keymaster
ANNA HEWSON questioned
In the UK we have written ‘net gain’ for dev into our ‘impending’ env bill at around 10% or more (following this being best practise in the private sector for a number of years). And planners are already looking for planning conditions for dev in respect of this, should we be aiming for rewilding and net gain to meet indedependant UN Goals for all development? -
April 13, 2021 at 1:34 pm #7141Keymaster
Alice Hughes questioned
Desert and savanna systems are increasingly being targeted for “greening” projects, how do we ensure that we always develop a baseline of biodiversity as a basis for development and greening rather than replacing a naturally dry ecosystem for carbon or economic gains? -
April 13, 2021 at 1:34 pm #7142Keymaster
Keita Hamada questioned
Thank you very much for your informative presentation Dr. Izabela Delabre. I would like to raise a question regarding the economic growth based on plant based commodities such as palm oil, which is being labelled as an example of high ILUC commodities by the EU. What are some alternatives for these countries and regions that depend on these commodities? Is sustainable production of commodities such as palm oil possible and if so, how can we achieve this without hampering economic development?-
April 14, 2021 at 6:39 am #7173Keymaster
Hi Keita Hamada, thank you very much for raising this important question. In the paper we do discuss the role of sustainability standards and discuss how these can be made more effective – Certified sustainable palm oil (through the RSPO or other standards) could contribute to sustainable food systems if the biodiversity requirements are strengthened, in combination with greater corporate accountability, more transparency in land transactions, and appreciating diverse, multifunctional agricultural landscapes that support local resilience. This may mean a redistribution of how profits from the sector (and more broadly) are currently shared at the moment.
-
-
April 13, 2021 at 1:36 pm #7143Keymaster
Dario Piselli questioned
Hi all! I have a comment for Prof Maron: as an environmental lawyer, I find your point 5 (‘capture key biodiversity’) incredibly compelling. I would argue that under that point one could also consider how the post-2020 GBF will define concepts such as ecosystem integrity or ecosystem-based approaches. Excessively broad normative definitions will make some of the action targets impossible to implement/monitor in a way that contributes to the desired net outcomes, even if associated with quantitative indicators.-
April 14, 2021 at 6:39 am #7172Keymaster
Martine Maron responded
Thank you Dario – appreciate your comment. I agree that measuring impact/contribution is such a challenge, and yet impact is all that matters in terms of action targets. I think there are some excellent developments in defining ecosystems and ecosystem inttegrity eg through the Red List of ecosystems group – i think there is a strong science basis developing.-
April 14, 2021 at 6:40 am #7174Keymaster
Thank you for the answer Martine – indeed I am particularly curious about the normative uptake of recent products such as the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology. Considering that a specific definition of integrity might not be included in the post-2020 GBF, the subsequent work of the COP/SBSTTA will be crucial to provide some level of consistency at the country level.
-
-
-
April 13, 2021 at 1:37 pm #7144Keymaster
Krishna Prasad Pandey questioned
Protecting biodiversity in protected areas in small developing countries is challenging due to lack of land for economic development. How can such countries reconcile development and conservation in the long run?
-
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Session 1 – Breakout group 2’ is closed to new replies.