Actions on sustainable food production and consumption for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Global level policy findings. This action is partly addressed by the SDGs (6, 2.b, 2.b.1), Aichi Target 3, and the CBD Zero Draft [D. 12 (c) 12] and its update [E. 12 (c) 17]. The removal, phase-out, or reform of harmful incentives are part of the Aichi Targets and SDG 6 but are insufficiently addressed in associated indicators, thus highlighting ambiguity in the concrete actions needed and a lack of accountability for action. Politically, incentives are often difficult to reform because of strong opposition from recipients and tight linkages with regional and international trade. Shifts in subsidies may have negative economic impacts on low income and poorly resourced producers if they are insufficiently thought out (58).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru. In Peru, development pathways based on agricultural expansion supported by credit policies can be harmful to biodiversity (59). These incentives are complex and deeply connected to national goals of economic growth and territorial control (60, 61) and international trade agreements, e.g., U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. While there are no official “subsidies” to agriculture, the 2001 Agrarian Promotion Law has allowed the payment of less income tax and a more flexible labor regime for the agricultural sector (which has been reflected in the growth of agribusiness). An extension of the Agrarian Promotion Law will also benefit the aquaculture and forestry sectors. There could be a hidden subsidy for nontraditional exporters (including agribusinesses), whereby returns of tariffs paid for importing inputs has been reduced from 4% before 2019 to 3%. Thus, both “official” and unofficial (or direct/indirect) subsidies must be considered.

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in the United Kingdom. With the United Kingdom (U.K.) leaving the EU, there may be shifts in political and trade barriers, as well as uncertainties for U.K. food production following its withdrawal from the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). While the CAP was created to ensure food security and economic viability for rural farming communities following World War Two, the subsidizing of food production has substantially affected natural habitats, while driving over-production of various commodities (62). Post-CAP U.K. policy states that there will be a move toward future generations of farmers supported in restoring natural habitats as part of an explicit proenvironmental agenda (63), but some environmental groups have expressed concern for potentially weaker regulations in relation to U.K. pesticide use (64, 65). Attention to these concerns is required by a range of actors to ensure accountability.

Implications for targets and indicators. Incentives harmful to biodiversity are often difficult to identify as effects on biodiversity may be indirect, diverse, and context specific (66), so we propose an initial step related to their clear identification (by 2025, parties identify incentives harmful to biodiversity). In many cases, this will require cooperation between states, and research is needed to compile data to support this indicator. Given the difficulties mentioned, we suggest that governments support this action by compiling a list of measures, with timelines, leading to the eventual removal, phase-out, or reform of incentives harmful to biodiversity by 2025. An optional target could be that by 2025, subsidies are redirected to support sustainable activities, e.g., subsidizing actions that reduce or hamper investments in fish exploitation assets once exploitation of a fishery exceeds its Maximum Economic Yield. Indicators might include the number of countries with policy plans for removal or reform of incentives harmful to biodiversity, percentage of harmful subsidies removed and/or redirected, and metrics for tracking progress toward attaining this target, such as sector-level government financial transfers to agriculture or the proportion of assessed fish stocks that are overfished.

Global level policy findings. The SDGs and the CBD recommend integrating biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, and poverty reduction strategies and accounts [SDG 15.9, Aichi Target 2, CBD Zero Draft E. 12. (c) 13], indicating some alignment on policy language. However, details on how these should be integrated, beyond strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments, are lacking. Governmental policies and market transactions typically do not reflect the full value of nature’s contributions to people (67). An important barrier to effective implementation of natural capital accounting is the current lack of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary competences to support integration of knowledge systems from indigenous and local people into scientific analysis and policy-making (68). Currently, nonmonetary values that are not amenable to economic methods including other worldviews and associated values are rarely considered, including those associated with individual and shared sociocultural values, those underpinned by indigenous local knowledge, as well as other biophysical and health-related values (68).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru. Considering the potential for natural capital accounting in Peru, implementation is still in its infancy. Peru’s National Strategy for Biological Diversity for 2021 Action Plan 2014–2018 states that “by 2018 two ecosystem services should have been valued, ensuring ecosystem integrity and respect for the indigenous peoples involved” (69). The World Bank–led “Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services” global partnership piloted a project from 2009 to 2013 in the Department of San Martin, Peru, which argued that for natural capital accounting to be fully used, it needs to be integrated into national information systems and continuously measured (70).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has made a commitment to natural capital accounting and set up a working group, to develop a methodology to drive biodiversity benefits and climate mitigation (71). It has been argued that the actual measurement of natural capital is difficult because of the lack of a baseline, and substantial progress toward the targets has been lacking (72). However, an example of positive progress is seen in Scotland, which has developed a progressive Natural Capital Asset Index, which does not include monetary values but is composed in a way that reflects the relative contribution of natural habitats to human well-being (73). Work on natural capital accounting, up to now, may not take into account that food production and consumption at one location sometimes lead to impacts on the environment and people at distant locations (74).

Implications for targets and indicators. Because of various technical and other drawbacks, natural capital accounting may not be ready for mainstream use. Rather, we propose that alternative forms of valuation are further developed (Table 3). As a target, we propose that by 2025, a system of natural capital accounting is developed, which includes economic, cultural, social, intrinsic, and intergenerational values of biodiversity. Indicators could include the number of countries that have developed natural capital accounting systems in their National Development Plans, which take into account the explicit role of nature into poverty reduction strategies and other key development plans, by including economic, cultural, social, intrinsic, and intergenerational values of biodiversity. Progress could also be tracked by measuring the frequency of use of valuation tools that assess the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits.

Global level policy findings. Focusing on productivity and efficiency, the SDGs contain targets on food waste at the retail and consumer levels, as well as aiming to reduce food losses along production and supply chains (44). Food waste was not mentioned in the Aichi Targets or CBD Zero Draft documents, but proposed targets refer to reducing productivity gaps [E. 12. (b) 9] and ensuring that production practices and supply chains are sustainable [E. 12. (c) 14]. Food waste and loss are context dependent and linked with development pathways. Rapid urbanization and globalization mean that food supply chains require adequate roads, transportation, and marketing infrastructure (75). Addressing food waste is currently challenging because of shifts toward items with short shelf life (75).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru. In Latin American and the Caribbean, food loss at the retail stage is estimated at 220 million metric tons (76). In Peru, an estimated 2.5 million people suffer from hunger, with 33% of the food produced going to waste (77). In 2019, Peru passed a law (Law No. 30988), sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture, to design and implement strategies to improve the efficiency of the food supply chain, from primary production to human consumption (78).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s Courtauld Commitment requires food supply chain companies to cut food waste by 20% by 2025 (79), and the 25 Year Environment Plan calls for a 20% cut in food waste per capita by 2025, requiring a further 30% cut to meet the SDG target of halving per capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030 (63). However, relatively low food prices in the United Kingdom and retailers encouraging overspending may contribute to food waste. Furthermore, using food waste to produce commercially sold fuel gas may discourage food waste reduction (80).

Implications for targets and indicators. We propose that the post-2020 biodiversity framework endorses the SDG target on global food waste (12.3), which would strengthen its implementation. This is likely to require changes in objectives and behavior of businesses and consumers, as well as new progressive laws and regulations. The CBD could therefore include a target that aligns with the SDG target 12.3, which states that “by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” (44). A potential indicator could include the number of countries reporting a National Food Loss Index, and the Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard could be used to support in measuring progress (81).

Global level policy findings. Sustainability standards and certification promote sustainable production practices from a distance (82). However, their use is not explicitly mentioned in the SDGs, Aichi Targets, or CBD Zero Drafts. Despite some progress in developing and tightening private voluntary sustainability standards (83, 84), there is only limited evidence for the potential for standards to support in bending the curve on biodiversity loss (85). Standards for sustainable agriculture contain limited biodiversity guidelines (86). Although Marine Stewardship Council–certified seafood has been found to be three to five times less likely to be subject to harmful fishing than uncertified seafood (87), certification requirements have found to be too lenient and ambiguous (88). We suggest that the biodiversity aspects of standards are strengthened. Currently, sustainability standards focus on a small number of agricultural commodities, and a small proportion of total farmland is covered by certification schemes (89). Although sustainability standards are designed to incentivize sustainable production practices through demand for certified products, there are concerns that certified production may outweigh market demand (89, 90).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru. Peru is one of the top five standard compliant cocoa producers (90) and accounts for 25% of certified seafood production (91). Peruvian cocoa is mostly exported to Europe (92), so consistent demand for sustainable products could provide a market driver for more sustainable production. In a context of “land grabbing” (93), the effects of standards in preventing biodiversity loss may be severely limited unless broader complex structural conditions are addressed. Allocations of land rights, high labor and input costs, persistence of pests, and unstable cocoa yields in the context of climate change are issues faced by many farmers that cannot be addressed adequately by certification and standards (94).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, national supermarkets have an important role in food spending (77% of all main shopping trips) (95) and can make strong demands of their suppliers on sustainability through the use of standards (96). Use of these standards by regulators, public procurement policies, and import and export taxes to support sustainable trade could support fairer contracts and more sustainable and biodiversity-friendly practices across global value chains (96).

Implications for targets and indicators. Given the need to strengthen biodiversity requirements in sustainability certification, we suggest that by 2025, No Net Loss is incorporated into standards as a minimum and that long-term management and monitoring is implemented for conservation areas (e.g., with “High Conservation Value,” as used in certification standards). Standards should include recognition and autonomous rights of indigenous people and local communities. Because of the risks of standards creating exclusions and large-scale bias, they should also incorporate agrobiodiversity and multifunctionality. Producing and consuming countries can also provide more support for the uptake of standards, with producing countries requiring minimum sustainability standard for export and consuming countries requiring sustainability certification for import of high-biodiversity risk commodities. Governments’ public procurement plans should also incorporate sustainability requirements. Research into the effectiveness of integrated landscape approaches in supporting biodiversity and sustainable development goals, and the role of sustainability certification in these, is an important frontier for research. Potential indicators could include the number of companies using SMART biodiversity indicators and the percentage of ISEAL Alliance (International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance) members (sustainability standards) with stronger biodiversity requirements, including “No Net Loss” as a minimum and management and monitoring of High Conservation Value areas. Biodiversity Impact Indicators for Commodity Production could also support in strengthening the impacts of standards.

Global level policy findings. Life Cycle Assessment is the most widely used method to assess environmental impacts of agricultural products over their full life cycles (97), from planting and fertilization to consumer packaging and waste, and can be used to support environmental policies (98). SDG 8.4 states a target to “Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with developed countries taking the lead,” but this process of decoupling remains elusive. SDG 12 states the need to achieve environmentally sound management of chemical and wastes in air, soil, and water throughout the life cycle of production-consumption (12.4), but Life Cycle Assessment is not explicitly mentioned as a possible tool to support achieving this. Although the Aichi Targets and Draft Zero documents do not mention Life Cycle Assessment, related targets include requirements for sustainable production and consumption plans (Aichi Target 4), supporting the productivity, sustainability, and resilience of biodiversity in agricultural and other managed ecosystems [E. 12. (b) 9], ensuring sustainable production practices and supply chains [E. 12. (c) 14] and sustainable consumption [E. 12. (c) 15] (45). There are complexities in capturing all impacts in current Life Cycle Assessment methodologies, including what constitutes a product’s “biodiversity footprint” (99, 100) and how much of an adjacent or indirectly connected area is affected. These methodologies often lack the spatial resolution and predictive ecological information to reveal key impacts on climate, water, and biodiversity (101), and current methodologies tend to favor high-input intensive agricultural systems and misrepresent less intensive or smaller-scale agroecological systems (97). In sum, while Life Cycle Assessment and the “life cycle” point of view are pertinent to reforms of the CBD, they have certain drawbacks that should be addressed if they are to become part of global policy efforts to protect biodiversity.

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru. Life cycle assessments of the fishing industry usually focus on main fishing activities. Nevertheless, a study of 136 vessels of the Peruvian industrial anchoveta (anchovy) fleet found that significant environmental impacts stem from other parts of the industry, in particular, construction of the fleet (∼11%) and its maintenance (∼23%) (102). This leads to an underestimation of life cycle impacts. Peru has recently opened a Centre for Life Cycle Analysis as part of the Life Cycle Initiative, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (103), which presents an opportunity to improve understanding of biodiversity impacts associated with products’ life cycles in Peru.

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in the United Kingdom. Apart from the uncertainties of Life Cycle Assessment methodologies noted above, additional uncertainties arise from telecoupled impacts. For example, assessments of cattle production systems take into account on-farm management data but may not consider the impacts occurring at the source of cattle feed (104). This is important in the United Kingdom given its focus on meat production and consumption and its embedded biodiversity footprint. Temporal variations in environmental impacts have been observed, for example, in Life Cycle Assessment studies examining lettuce and raspberries consumed in the United Kingdom, because of differences in yields related to variable weather conditions (105, 106).

Implications for targets and indicators. We propose that consumers be given greater access to information about life cycle impacts and ecological footprints of the products that they purchase (e.g., by 2025). This would help consumers to better understand the impacts of products on biodiversity, while mainstreaming biodiversity concerns of food consumers. Associated indicators could include the ecological footprint across the life cycle of product and the availability of information about life cycle impacts for a particular product. An important challenge for the implementation of Life Cycle Assessment is to address transparency of agricultural products and fisheries in opaque supply chains. There are also important questions related to responsibility for data collection and who monitors, evaluates, and audits, as this could pose burdens for data collection needs and management. Given the problems associated with current methodologies, the development of standardized protocols by 2025 would be beneficial, with data aggregated and monitored at municipal/national levels. As current methodologies misrepresent less intensive or smaller-scale agroecological systems, the development of Life Cycle Assessment reporting should include multiple stakeholders, e.g., small-scale farmers and informal markets, to address the challenge of exclusion of certain actors and development pathways.

Global level policy findings. While the SDGs clearly seek to address issues of nutrition, “sustainable diets” are not mentioned. The Aichi Targets 6 and 7 mentioned the goals of sustainable agriculture and fishing but did not explicitly mention diets. The CBD Draft Zero documents state that “People everywhere take measurable steps towards sustainable consumption and lifestyles, taking into account individual and national cultural and socioeconomic conditions, achieving by 2030 just and sustainable consumption levels.” This emphasizes the importance of food security and inequality in distribution and access (107) and acknowledges that diets are embedded in cultural, social, and ecological contexts and that food and eating practices are specific to people and places (108). However, the flexible language proposed shows a lack of clarity on who is responsible to take these “measurable steps,” and precisely how.

Taking the example of animal product consumption, it is understood that shifting toward more sustainable and varied diets that include fewer animal products could support people (particularly in the global North) in reducing their high environmental footprints (109). However, there are numerous political and economic barriers to doing so. These include the powerful meat and dairy industries (110, 111), subsidies supporting unsustainable production and consumption (112), and a lack of uptake of the issue by environmental groups (112, 113). Technically, there are complexities in measuring sustainable diets, and there are uncertainties related to “rebound effects” in markets and consumer behaviors (114). Culturally, alternative protein sources may be deemed “too radical” for mainstream consumption (115).

Seafood, however, is a widely accepted alternative to meat and is rich in protein and micronutrients such as fatty acids. Replacing today’s overfishing with sustainable fishing might meet an additional demand of 20 million metric tons annually (116). However, it is recognized that a future sustainable seafood demand must be supplemented by mariculture of organisms at lower trophic levels to maximize efficiency, both as direct food and feed ingredients (116–118). One of the options to increase food availability (without increasing fishing pressure) is to reorient fisheries from feed production to direct human consumption (116). It has been estimated that—depending on policy reforms, technological innovation, and the extent of future shifts in demand—edible food from the sea could be increased by 21 million to 44 million metric tons by 2050, a 36 to 74% increase compared to current yields (117). Environment-friendly and sustainable mariculture of unfed organisms has the potential to release pressure on agricultural land, fresh water, fertilizers, and capture fisheries (116, 118, 119).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru. Considering this intervention in the context of Peru, the average protein intake is 20% lower than the U.S. Department of Agriculture–recommended diet (120). Although it may be perplexing to campaign for reduced or limited meat consumption in this context, there could be a strong opportunity for Peru to develop dietary guidelines that address both health and environmental sustainability, thus promoting a more diverse diet with a higher proportion of fruits and vegetables, as well as locally produced food such as quinoa, corn, and potatoes that could contribute to conserving genetic diversity. There remains, however, an important issue that dietary choices are limited in many places, so food options are based on availability rather than preference. Peru’s vast production and export of fishmeal mean that these valuable proteins and essential oils are used as feed worldwide rather than as domestic food. One of the options to increase food availability (without increasing fishing pressure) is to redirect fisheries from feed production (about 20 × 10⁶ metric tons year⁻¹) to direct human consumption (116). There is considerable potential for some of the Amazon freshwater species to contribute to aquaculture, as is seen in Amazonian Peru (121).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in the United Kingdom. Personal and cultural connections with food and issues of food justice and access make actions to influence demand challenging. Tighter restrictions on advertising of unsustainable production of products or overconsumption (particularly of discretionary foods), as well as labeling and awareness campaigns, could support changes in diets (122).

Implications for targets and indicators. Reductions in animal products should be context specific, and scenarios for shifts in diets should take into account trade-offs between sustainability indicators (66). We propose that by 2025, member states develop dietary guidelines that address health and environmental sustainability, promoting a more diverse and nutritionally balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, meat, and seafood. More sustainable diets could be promoted by transforming “reduction” fisheries (i.e., fisheries, often on lower trophic levels, that process their catch into fish meal or fish oil) into fisheries that directly provide food for human consumption by 2025. By 2025, incentives could be developed for increased mariculture of edible sea plants and filter feeders. Addressing child hunger and malnutrition, it is proposed that by 2025, schools provide sustainable and varied meals to children up to the age of 12, following national dietary guidelines. Possible indicators could include the number of countries with dietary guidelines that address both health and sustainability, per capita meat consumption, per capita seafood consumption, and ratio of harvest from reduction fisheries versus total fisheries, as well as national plans for cultivation of maricultured sea plants and filter feeders. There are opportunities to align reporting of progress in meeting these targets and reporting of SDG indicators 12.1.1 (Number of countries with sustainable consumption and production national action plans or sustainable consumption and production mainstreamed as a priority or a target into national policies) and 12.1.2 (Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale).

Global level policy findings. We suggest that the preceding six targets, in the context of a number of enabling conditions, will support mainstreaming biodiversity in food systems (Fig. 1). A key barrier to the adoption of biodiversity policies has been their lack of integration in mainstream economic sectors, especially the food system. Consequently, over the past decade, biodiversity mainstreaming has become a key facet of the global conservation and sustainable development agendas. Such mainstreaming requires the inclusion of biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies, and practices of key public and private actors that affect or rely on biodiversity, so that biodiversity is conserved and sustainably used, both locally and globally (10). The SDGs, Aichi Targets, and proposed post-2020 targets mention integrating biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, and poverty reduction strategies and accounts [SDG 15.9, Aichi Target 2, and CBD updated Zero Draft E 12. (c) 13]. However, most CBD member states have not adopted National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans as policies integrating all relevant economic sectors (123).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru and the United Kingdom. The Peruvian Government’s strategy to address deforestation and climate change has a high potential for delivering beneficial outcomes for biodiversity (124). Despite this potential, specific biodiversity targets are not incorporated into sector strategies, national development planning, impact assessment evaluations, or budgets. As a result, biodiversity policies are disconnected from sectoral policies (125). Progress in relation to the actions discussed would have important benefits to mainstreaming efforts. In combination with strengthened governance (discussed next), and enabling conditions by diverse agents of change, these actions could support transformative change in relation to food production and consumption.

Global level policy findings. It was apparent from our analysis that strengthening governance for sustainable food production and consumption is needed, both within and beyond the scope of the CBD (Fig. 1). Within the CBD, substantial efforts are needed to agree to SMART international and national targets to support implementation, create a system of robust and transparent reporting, and improve accountability and enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, CBD governance should ensure inclusive processes involving multiple stakeholders. Beyond the scope of the CBD, the effective implementation of sustainable food production and consumption actions will require wider enabling conditions and the action of diverse agents of change (Table 4, discussed in the following section).

Barriers and opportunities for implementation in Peru and the United Kingdom. Although National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans constitute the primary means of implementation of the CBD and are intended to trigger the creation of concrete policy instruments, their ambition and alignment with the 2010–2020 strategic plan have been often lacking (126, 127). In Peru, the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans have lacked alignment with the Aichi targets, and implementation has been slow (128). In the United Kingdom, each administration has implemented National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, some with national targets, but there has been a lack of genuine political commitment to biodiversity policies at the national level.

Implications for strengthening governance within the CBD. Although slow implementation is partly a result of the lack of measurable indicators, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans have been criticized for being “mere declarations of intention” rather than firm commitments to action (129), lacking accountability and compliance (130, 131). Furthermore, there are no sanctions if member states fail to fulfill their obligations (132), the dispute mechanism has never been used, and there is no compliance committee.

In the absence of official CBD feedback on individual state progress, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have taken the lead to review and report on member state progress (131). The CBD’s Global Biodiversity Outlooks report on overall status and biodiversity trends based on national reports, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), and other sources. The Subsidiary Body on Implementation, which started in 2016, could have a more active role in evaluating implementation. It could also propose innovative means of compliance, for example, through financial or trade sanctions (such as through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species under which countries risk trade sanctions if found in serious noncompliance) or “naming and shaming” to increase global ambition (such as in the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change where individual countries have made voluntary pledges, allowing for comparison and review of each member state’s performance).

The fact that countries agreed to a compliance committee as part of the Paris Climate Agreement (133) shows that this may be within reach of the CBD. Furthermore, countries could agree to less harsh, but more innovative means of promoting compliance. For example, increased transparency in relation to state progress could take the form of a “naming but not shaming” approach that supports member states struggling to reach their goals. For example, the NBSAP voluntary peer review mechanisms could become compulsory (131). Currently, the pilot voluntary peer review mechanism is being piloted in Ethiopia and India (134, 135). The voluntary nature contrasts with the compulsory United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Measurement, Reporting and Verification system and the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council. To make progress on CBD compliance, we suggest that the post-2020 biodiversity framework further develops a voluntary peer review mechanism and adopts a compulsory review mechanism linked to a formal review of individual member state performance. Thereby, countries most needing support to implement CBD obligations can be targeted for peer review and exchange of best practices as well as financial and capacity building support (131).

There is evidence that inclusive multistakeholder processes at all levels of CBD governance can help achieve mainstreaming of biodiversity policies (136) within government and business. At the national level, it is important to consider the concerns of all relevant actors and to support NBSAP implementation when internalizing international legal obligations into national policy, thus reducing ambiguity and ensuring accountability.