# Session Overview By the end of this session, you should be able to: · Describe how biodiversity and the concept of ecosystem services are engaged in global health · Explain, with examples, how human health is dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services · Critically evaluate global and national biodiversity policies, their connection and relevance for human health # 1. Introduction Despite the difficulty of fully understanding and mapping the connections between biodiversity and human health, there are increasing concerns regarding the current rates of biodiversity loss (e.g., IPBES 2020, IPCC, 2022,). Indeed, evidence suggests that rates of species extinction accelerated in the last century compared to previous periods in human history (See Figure 1 below – note the logarithmic scale), so much so that some scientists consider it the beginning of the sixth great extinction (Leadbeater, 2014; Lees and Pimm, 2015; Pimm et al, 2014). # 2. [[Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)]] Over twenty years later, on 29 December 1993 the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) first came into force as a multilateral treaty between 168 national signatories (i.e. an international agreement between multiple parties), which aimed to promote three key objectives: 1. The conservation of biological diversity` 2. The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity 3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources ==Countries who sign up to the CBD must create and implement national strategies and action plans to conserve and enhance their biodiversity==. They are also required ‘to undertake action to implement the thematic work programmes on ecosystems and a range of cross-cutting issues’ that have been developed to meet the objectives of the CBD (JNCC 2019). Countries must then submit national reports on the measures they have taken to implement the contents of the CBD and detail how effectively or not they have met their objectives. ## 2.1 Convention on Biological Diversity Institutional Bodies In common with other international agreements concerning environmental change (e.g., the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the Convention on Biological Diversity has developed several key bodies which inform its evolution and operation. Specific to the CBD, these include: · The Conference of the Parties (COP), which (in common with the governance structure of other UN Conventions) is the governing body of the Convention, and advances implementation of the Convention through the decisions it takes at its periodic meetings’ (CBD 2022a); · the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), which provides ‘timely advice relating to the implementation of the Convention’ (CBD 2022e); · the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), which is tasked with o (a) reviewing progress towards implementation, o (b) taking ‘strategic actions to enhance implementation’, o (c) ‘strengthening means of implementation’; and o (d) ‘operations of the convention and the Protocols’ (CDB 2022d); · Working Group on Article 8, which is focused on promoting measures ‘to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities relevant for the conservation of biological diversity’ (CBD 2021b); and · Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Protected Areas, tasked with advancing the case for and designation of protected areas (CBD 2012). ## 2.2 Significant provisions of the CBD Over the years, significant provisions have been introduced to strengthen the aims of the CBD. These include the [[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety]] which was adopted in 2000 and came into force in September 2003 (CBD 2022f), and aims to ‘ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs), resulting from modern biotechnology, that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health’ (JNCC 2019). In addition, the [[Nagoya Protocol]] on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted on 29 October 2010 at the 10th COP in Nagoya, Japan, and was ratified four years later in 12 October 2014 (CBD 2022g). This aims to ensure fair access and the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, which considers the appropriate transfer of technologies, while contributing to the conservation of biodiversity. In tandem with the introduction of the [[Nagoya Protocol]] in October 2010, a ‘Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020’ (CBD 2020c) along with the 20 ‘Aichi targets’ (CDB 2020a) were introduced. These targets aimed to help drive ‘effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems were resilient and continued to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication’ (CBD 2020c). The targets were effectively non-binding and enabled parties (e.g. national governments) ‘to set their own targets within this flexible framework, taking into account national needs and priorities’ (CBD 2020c); the non-binding nature of CBD targets continues to the present. In 19 December 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD 2022h) was adopted during COP15 to supersede the Aichi targets; after a decade of slow progress and failure to meet many of its’ provisions. Conceived to support the aims of the SDGs, the [[Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)]] introduced 23 targets (shown in Table 1) and are intended to lay out ‘an ambitious pathway to reach the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050’ (CBD 2022h). The framework explicitly ‘acknowledges the interlinkages between biodiversity and health and the three objectives of the Convention’ (CBD 2022h). Its 23 targets (see Table 1) are deemed to be more comprehensive, inclusive and SMART (i.e. specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound), but also more complex than the Aichi Targets. In its’ implementation, the GBF advocates for ‘consideration of the One Health Approach, among other holistic approaches…[that] aim to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, plants and ecosystems, recognizing the need for equitable access to tools and technologies including medicines, vaccines and other health products related to biodiversity’ (CBD 2022h). Other significant provisions include a strong emphasis on ‘fostering the full and effective contributions of women, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities’, including ensuring their ‘rights…traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity, innovations, worldviews, values and practices…are respected, and documented and preserved with their free, prior and informed consent’. Furthermore, it recognises ‘diverse value systems and concepts’ held towards nature, and that implementation ‘should be based on scientific evidence and traditional knowledge and practices’ (CBD 2022h). Countries adopting GBF must set national targets to be appraised at the COP16, scheduled to be held in Turkey in 2024. ## 2.3 State of progress While the ratification of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has been lauded as a significant step forward for global biodiversity policymaking (Nature Conservancy, 2022), how to achieve its wide-ranging provisions remains in question. Currently, as of 2023, none of the [[Aichi Biodiversity Targets]] have been achieved. While countries report that on average more than a third (34%) of their national targets towards biodiversity are on course to be met, > Fewer than a quarter (23%) of the targets are well aligned with the Aichi Targets and only about a tenth of all national targets are both similar to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and on track to be met. (SCBD 2020) # 3. Mainstreaming biodiversity and human health linkages The CBD and other conservation focused policies (e.g., regulations of protected and invasive species) are a few of the policy instruments that are increasingly central to developing public and global health policies, which take seriously human health’s interdependence with biodiversity. ## 3.1 Ecosystem services Central to the development of CBD policies, has been the [[Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)]] group headed by the WHO, which developed the ecosystems services framework in their attempt to ‘establish a scientific basis and discourse for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contributions to meeting human needs’ (Corvalan et al, 2005). Ecosystem refers to a whole system, including the community of organisms and all the physical factors that make up their environment (Tansley, 1935). Thus, ecosystem services are defined as the human benefits that can be derived from ecosystems, whether direct or indirect: e.g., directly, in the form of foods and medicines; and indirectly, through nutrient cycles and plant and animal decomposition. The MEA organised ecosystems services into four categories (see Figure 2), which together provide a framework to understand and divide up the role of ecosystems for human well-being and survival. The four categories of services are (Corvalan et al, 2005, p. 14): - Supporting services: these are services required for the production of all other ecosystem service. For example, nutrient cycling (e.g. nitrogen fixing plants) and soil formation - Regulating services: services that derive from the regulation of ecosystems. E.g. climate and flood regulation, water purification and disease regulation - Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems, such as: food, water, medicines, clothing, wood and other materials - Cultural services: non-material benefits from ecosystems. For example, cultural heritage, spiritual and religious sites, and recreational and green spaces. Here, it’s important to note that not only does the MEA reflect a western economic framing of relations between humans and biodiversity (or nature), but that indigenous and other marginalised peoples have long before the MEA and CBD recognised that plants, animals, and other living and non-living organisms (e.g. mountains and earth) are intrinsic to human health. In 2021, following the end of the Decade of Biodiversity, the CBD’s conference of parties (COP) set up a working group to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework. As part of this process, they drafted a [[Global Action Plan (GAP) for Biodiversity and Health]] (CBD 2021a), which is ‘aimed at catalysing the mainstreaming of biodiversity and health linkages and accelerate efforts towards a biodiversity-inclusive [[One Health]] transition’, and thus contributes to achieving the UN’s 2050 Biodiversity Vision of living in harmony with nature. # 4. Pandemics: biodiversity and natural ecosystem destruction A recent example of proposed policy solutions that seeks to link health and biodiversity, can be found in the [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)](https://www.ipbes.net/about) published workshop report On Biodiversity and Pandemics (IPBES 2020). The report highlights how much of the global policy emphasis has focused on pandemic ‘preparedness’ (i.e., disease surveillance, vaccines, track and trace and containment) rather than prevention and mitigation of emerging infectious diseases and pandemics in the first place. In other words, a focus on preparedness does not attend to the ‘drivers’ of pandemics, many of which have been known for some time. Thus, the IPBES report (2020) attempted to move beyond this and (following the workshop) explore: 1) how pandemics emerge from the microbial diversity found in nature; 2) the role of land-use change and climate change in driving pandemics; 3) the role of wildlife trade in driving pandemics; 4) learning from nature to better control pandemics; and 5) preventing pandemics based on a "One Health" approach (IPBES 2020). The report highlights how ==disruptions to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity can contribute to the spread of zoonotic infections== (diseases in humans that have known animal origins and can be transmitted from them to humans) and potential pandemics, and how more concerted attention towards them can form the basis for pandemic prevention. Examples of known zoonosis, where changes in local ecosystems have contributed to increasing frequencies and intensities of outbreaks in humans, include: Ebola (primates are recognised as their primary animal host), Lyme disease (animal host includes deer in the UK) and COVID-19 (bats are believed to one of their primary reservoirs). ## Activity 3 One preventive infectious disease policy from your country that considers the roles that biodiversity have in the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. Refer to the ecosystem services framework and relevant CBD, SDG or other global policies to support your answer and if possible, discuss any challenges that policy makers are likely to face. ### Feedback Vaccines, lockdowns, and infectious disease prevention and control measures (hand washing and masks). More systemic and long-term infectious disease outbreaks include: increasing conservation of biodiverse areas; climate change mitigation; reducing deforestation; limits and bans on wildlife trade; and other measures that disrupt and decrease biodiversity loss. Implementation of such measures can pose considerable challenges, which depend on where and with whom they are put into practice. Challenges may include cross border coordination to prevent deforestation and wildlife trade, particularly where ecosystems are not limited to one country (such as the Atlantic Forest in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay). Even if there is the political will for such a transnational project, there may be a lack of funding to successfully implement and monitor it. Furthermore, often those involved in logging or wildlife trade are people who are marginalised and have limited economic means, so such measures to conserve biodiversity as part of preventative pandemic policy can end up hurting poorer sectors of society. This will be addressed further in the next section. # 5. Challenges and limitations of current ecosystem services approaches to health and biodiversity The same ecosystem (e.g., rainforest) or aspect of it (e.g., specific species of trees) can provide multiple ecosystem services to different groups (e.g. ecologists, logging companies, urban supermarket consumers and indigenous peoples). This can lead to conflicts of interests (like the antibiotic example mentioned earlier) which spawn from the different services they draw from the ecosystem in question – or a specific aspect of it – and the differing ways the different groups (and species) value the ‘same’ services, (Stephens 2012). > [!NOTE] Activity 4 > Select a specific example of an ecosystem or aspect of it (if possible, from your own country and/or work) that generates tensions due to different services it provides. Post a description of it to the Moodle discussion forum, and discuss the different groups involved, the ecosystems services they use, the ways the groups value the services and the power dynamics between these groups. If you have a link or an article for your example, post it or a summary of it to the Moodle forum. > > **Feedback** > With increasing recognition of rapid rates of biodiversity loss and ecosystem fragmentation, researchers, policy and decision-makers are stressing the need to quantify and value the benefits of nature for humans (Pearce and Puroshothaman, 1992; TEEB, 2011; UNEP-WCMC and IEEP, 2013). The [[ecosystem services framework]] has gradually gained favour, particularly because of its amenability to economic valuation (Ernstson and Sörlin, 2013 ). This is in part an attempt to take into account services that were previously excluded from economic calculations and treated as externalities in global markets (e.g., carbon sequestration by forests and pollination by insects and birds) (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), including their abundance and estimated importance for humans. Critiques of [[ecosystem services framework]]: capitalization of nature (e.g. Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Muridan and Rival, 2013). A stand of tree might mean different thing for different people. Hence, capitalization of this tree through economic valuation is ignorant of its practical value for many population or individuals. Ernston and Sorlin (2013) discussed this as if they have been conceptualized from "an imaginative non-place devoid of history and politics." There are many example, such as Mekong River, which could be a source of hydropower, food, drinking and cooking water, habitat for various flora and fauna, research interests, and have recreational and spiritual values. > At the heart of these examples and the critiques of the ecosystem services framework, are who and how do people decide on what ‘ecosystem services’ are valuable or not, as well as the danger of assigning economic values to ecosystem services. The risk of the latter being that ecosystem services are then incorporated to markets as novel means for more economic gains, which can lead to their utilisation in ways contrary to biodiversity conservation (e.g. private provision of potable water or planting and logging of monocrop Eucalyptus or pine forests) Ultimately, the use of the ecosystem’s services framework requires great care to ensure that its implementation in any setting takes into account issues of ethnicity, culture, gender and socioeconomic factors, as well as the particularities of biodiversity and climate for the region. Thus, ==the future of human health is dependent on not only addressing global socioeconomic and health inequalities, but also ensuring the directions of human development are grounded in sustainable relationships with ecosystem services.== # 6. Summary This session has introduced biodiversity, ecosystem services and how they relate to human health and relevant global policies to address their protection. It has shown the different ways – both direct and indirect – that biodiversity via ecosystem services connects with human health, as well some of the limitations of the ecosystem services framework. It also introduced the concept of One Health, as an emerging ‘holistic’ approach currently promoted by scientists, policymakers (including the UNEP and WHO) and corporations to address biodiversity and human health together. In addition, this session also highlighted the CBD and its associated policy proposals (e.g., GAP framework for biodiversity and health, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework) as potential international mechanisms, which, in combination with the ecosystem services framework, One Health and other proposed holistic approaches (e.g. Planetary Health, ecohealth etc.) can provide a means to develop polices and targets that jointly address the sustainable use of biodiversity and improvements in human health. Thirty years on since the first CBD was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, no meaningful progress has been made in slowing global biodiversity loss – indeed biodiversity loss accelerated during the last decade (IPBES, 2019). On the other hand, progress has taken place in formulating policy, improving data availability and quality, and fundamentally raising awareness of the issue (WWF 2021). The signing of the [[Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework]] in 2022 has been described as a ‘historic result for nature’ (Nature Conservancy, 2022), with the goal ‘to protect at least 30% of terrestrial and marine areas, while also recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories’, by the target date of 2030 a keystone pledge. The framework adopts a rights-based approach to conserving protected areas and natural resources, and includes a set of 23 targets to be achieved by 2030 which supersede the previous Aichi Targets. Repeated provisions are made to ensuring that the rights of marginalised groups, particularly indigenous, local peoples and women are respected, and that they are integrally engaged in the conservation and use of biodiversity and genetic resources (CBD, 2022). Furthermore, strong linkages are emphasised between ecosystems and human health, and in embracing holistic frameworks such as the One Health approach, which aspires to ‘mainstream biodiversity and health linkages into national policies, strategies, programmes and accounts’ (CBD 2021a). This will almost certainly aid global health policy in taking ecosystem degradation and species extinction more seriously – not only for the health of present and future human generations, but also for all life on earth. However, ==the ambition of the Kunming-Montreal framework has been criticised as being insufficient== to match its aims to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. It has also been criticised for lacking ‘a numerical target to reduce the unsustainable footprint of production and consumption’ (Abulu and Ghosh 2022). Many continue to challenge the CBD’s apparent hesitancy to address these factors which are central to driving biodiversity loss and other ecological calamities (Firth 2022). Furthermore, strong corporate lobbying was cited as central to weakening aspects of the framework, including ‘the removal of biotechnology monitoring, insufficient accountability around harmful business practices and the inclusion of biodiversity offsets’ in the text (Abulu and Ghosh 2022). Ultimately, national governments must support and implement global – and national – policies to address health inequities as inseparable from conserving biodiversity and the ecosystem services, while corporations must work harder to report and address their biodiversity impacts and respect the land and natural resource rights of indigenous and local peoples. ## Personal Reflection Indonesia has ratified the [[Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)]] into national law in 1994, started with biodiversity management action plan in 1993 with the focus on conservation. When Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2003-2020 was issued, it became part of the national development planning, particularly related to the management of biodiversity in Indonesia. Efforts to manage and conserve biodiversity in Indonesia consists of three aspects: conservation, utilization, and benefit-sharing, in accordance with [[Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)]]. In 2010, COP 10 CBD became a milestone in the management of biodiversity by generating three global agreements, i.e. the [[Aichi Targets]] (global target to reduce the loss rate of biodiversity), the [[Nagoya Protocol]] (the agreement to regulate access and to share proits from the utilization of genetic resources) and Resource Mobilization as an important support for the achievement of global targets. COP 15 agreed on [[Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework]], replacing [[Aichi Targets]]. Indonesia then renewed its national strategy and action plan. Indonesia has a dedicated web-based mechanism to manage and report progress towards the implementation of the National and Aichi Targets, and as a medium for exchanging information on the management of Indonesia's biodiversity, namely Indonesian Biodiversity Clearing House (Balai Kliring Keamanan Hayati) Specifically related to marine biodiversity and global fishery resources, in 2003 Indonesia adopted the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) as a follow-up to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In line with this, Indonesia has designated 11 Marine Fisheries Management Areas (WPPNRI) in its marine waters and 14 Inland Fisheries Management Areas (WPPNRI-PD) in its inland waters. In 2023, concerning biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, Indonesia also signed the **Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement)**, which is a derivative agreement of UNCLOS. # 7. References ## 7.1 [[Essential readings]] Page 7-13, CBD, 2021a. ‘Biodiversity and Health. CBD/SBSTTA/24/9’. Subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice, Convention of Biological Diversity. Accessed 22 August 2022. ## 7.2 [[Recommended reading]] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services. 2020. ‘Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317. [Read pages 1-17 (preamble, executive summary and introduction), 33-39 (control), 40-52 (Conclusion).] · Ernstson, Henrik, and Sverker Sörlin. "Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature." Ecological Economics 86 (2013): 274-284. Accessed 15 September 2019. · Stephens, Carolyn. (2012). Biodiversity and global health—hubris, humility and the unknown. Environ. Res. Lett. 7:011008