Summary report, 26–27 September 2021

Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management (CPW) Wildlife Forum 2021

In the context of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF), the Third Wildlife Forum of the Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management (CPW) discussed how to move from theory towards further implementation of policies and actions in relation to sustainable wildlife management. During the Forum, delegates participated in four thematic sessions on: the contribution of wildlife to food security and livelihoods; zoonotic diseases and the One Health approach; global targets on wildlife trade, offtake, and hunting; and the management of human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs).

A synthesis session brought together key messages, including that:

  • landscapes are critical to provisioning food systems and current global food supply systems could not hope to meet global needs without the contributions made by wild foods;
  • simplistic calls to end wildlife use and trade will not address zoonotic disease emergence and may threaten biodiversity conservation;
  • decreasing meat consumption can create more space for wildlife;
  • data and narratives on zoonoses and wildlife trade are confusing and poorly analyzed;
  • the role of wildlife as a proximate and direct cause of human disease is overestimated;
  • relevant headline indicators across the post-2020 GBF must be drawn on to meet proposed target 5 on ensuring the harvesting, trade, and use of wild species is sustainable, legal, and safe for human health;
  • indicators in the GBF should reflect context specificities;
  • understanding drivers of unsustainable use is important;
  • HWC is a biodiversity and sustainable development challenge; and
  • conflict takes place between people over wildlife, as problems arise when different groups of people disagree as to what to do about wildlife. 

During the closing of the Forum, George Aman, President, International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) highlighted that the CPW seeks policies that are reasonable and science-based, and that sustainable wildlife management needs to embrace the three pillars of sustainable development. He concluded that the CPW represents a powerful set of minds and networks that together can make a difference for the sustainable use of wildlife.

Over 300 participants joined the Third Wildlife Forum, which took place from 26-27 September both in-person in Budapest, Hungary, and virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Forum convened in parallel to the “One with Nature” World of Hunting and Nature Exhibition, on the sidelines of the 67th General Assembly of the CIC, which took place from 25-29 September.

A Brief History of the CPW

The CPW is a voluntary partnership of 14 international organizations with substantive mandates and programmes to promote the sustainable use and conservation of wildlife resources. Established in March 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand, the CPW’s mission is to increase cooperation and coordination on sustainable wildlife management issues among its members and partners, where such collaboration adds value, to promote the sustainable management of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife in all biomes and geographic areas, contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as to human food security, livelihoods, and well-being.

The CPW has the following thematic priorities:

  • wildlife, food security, and livelihoods: provision of knowledge and support for members and countries to address wildmeat and other issues related to wildlife, food security, and sustainable livelihoods.
  • human-wildlife conflict: improved understanding of the direct and underlying causes of such conflicts in different regions of the world, and dissemination of successful response mechanisms.
  • illegal/unsustainable hunting: support for the development of strategies, policies, and management systems that contribute to legal and sustainable hunting, and appropriate efforts to combat poaching and other forms of illegal hunting.
  • zoonotic diseases and health related issues: joint efforts to reduce the risk of future pandemics originating from wild animals, and strengthening wildlife conservation.
  • partnership coordination and outreach: consolidation of the CPW, building understanding, and conveying common messages on issues of global relevance related to sustainable wildlife management.

First CPW Wildlife Forum: The First Wildlife Forum was held as a one-day special event during the 14th World Forestry Congress in Durban, South Africa, on 9 September 2015. Over 1000 participants from governments, international and non-governmental organizations, research and academic institutions, Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), and youth representatives attended the event. The Forum presented a unique opportunity to debate on various aspects of sustainable wildlife management, namely, addressing poverty alleviation and livelihood security issues, while safeguarding the world’s rich and diverse wildlife, through exchanges of information on experiences, best practices, and research.

Second CPW Wildlife Forum: The Second Wildlife Forum took place on 21 November 2018 as a parallel event to the 14th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. It was organized by the CPW and the African Union Commission. Over 170 representatives of government, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, IPLCs, youth, practitioners, and businesses attended. Additionally, another 500 participants followed the event online. Discussions from the Forum informed the priorities for the post-2020 GBF and the thematic assessment of sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Report of the Third Wildlife Forum

Opening Plenary  

On Sunday, 26 September 2021, Roland Melisch, Director Strategic Partnerships, TRAFFIC and CPW Vice-Chair, opened the Third Wildlife Forum, which focused on supporting implementation of the GBF. Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary CBD, underscored the aim of the CPW as promoting the sustainable management of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife in all biomes and geographic areas, to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, food security, and improved livelihoods. She highlighted the Partnership’s many achievements and noted the opportunities of the GBF for this issue. Mrema further said that recovery from COVID-19 was an opportunity to promote sustainable wildlife management as integral to achieving the CBD’s 2050 Vision of “Living in Harmony with Nature.”

Zoltán Kovács, Hungarian Government Commissioner responsible for the “One with Nature” World of Hunting and Nature Exhibition, drew on the “One with Nature” exhibition theme, calling for all tools to be used to further the sustainable use of the natural environment. He called for role models and lessons learned that can be replicated across the globe. He explained the reforms made by Hungary to the national legal framework in which hunting is conducted and how the new regulatory system resulted in lessons that could be replicated elsewhere.

Session I: Landscapes as Food Provision Systems 

This session, moderated by Julia E. Fa, Professor of Biodiversity and Human Development, Manchester Metropolitan University, and Senior Associate, Center for International Forestry Research, highlighted: food security issues at the global level; what happens when a vital ecosystem service becomes depleted; and how food security within Indigenous Peoples’ lands can be made compatible with the conservation of these areas.

Neil Burgess, Chief Scientist, UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, and Principal Investigator, Global Challenges Research Fund Trade, Development, and the Environment Hub, shared perspectives from the post-2020 framework, highlighting that the currently proposed target 9 (Ensuring benefits, including nutrition, food security, medicines, and livelihoods for people especially for the most vulnerable through sustainable management of wild terrestrial, freshwater and marine species and protecting customary sustainable use by ILPCs) and related indicators for the post-2020 GBF do not meet the needs of sustainable use under the CBD. 

Hollie Booth, University of Oxford and Technical Advisor, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), highlighted examples where wildlife trade can be positive for nature and people, such as with bighorn sheep hunting and crocodile trade.

Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, illustrated how much of the world’s intact forests and biodiversity are located on indigenous lands. He underscored that no universal definition exists for Indigenous Peoples and said an underlying thread in the working definitions refers to people that have been dispossessed, excluded, or discriminated against within their own country in the past as well as in the present. He explained the pressures on Indigenous Peoples to leave their lands, noting that forced removals continue today, and said the consequences of leaving were also significant for the rest of society. He noted conservation itself was sometimes an issue with some still backing “fortress conservation” with no people on conserved lands.

Garnett said rights to land are important because they represent natural justice for those whose land rights have been removed without their consent. Such rights also decrease the power disparity between indigenous and settler societies. He called for active support for land management as increased food production efficiency on existing areas spares other land, for instance, and better income for Indigenous Peoples on their own lands reduces food insecurity and pressure to increase local food production.

During the moderated panel discussion, David Wilkie, Director of Conservation Measures, WCS, stressed that wildlife cannot solve food security needs, and only sustainable food production can. Burgess emphasized the unsustainability of providing wildlife meat globally. Dilys Roe, Principal Researcher and Team Leader (Biodiversity), International Institute for Environment and Development, and Chair, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC) Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi), underscored the need for a nuanced rather than a global approach in dealing with sustainable use and alternatives.

Shane Mahoney Vice-Chair, IUCN SULi, and Chief Executive Officer, Conservation Visions, emphasized issues of scales and diversity when determining the value and relevance of wild meat harvesting. On sustainable hunting, Wilkie underscored that traditional use of hunted and non-hunted areas enables communities to manage their prey populations more sustainably.

Session II: Zoonotic Diseases and the One Health Approach

This session, moderated by Anastasiya Timoshyna, Senior Programme Coordinator – Sustainable Trade, TRAFFIC, showcased and provided the opportunity to exchange information on practical implementation of the CPW Guiding Principles for reducing zoonotic diseases risk. It also addressed how to secure broader commitment to cross-sectoral collaboration to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases in the future, including through the wider One Health agenda.

Richard Kock, Royal Veterinary College, UK, and IUCN SSC Wildlife Health Specialist Group, addressed wildlife management in the context of wildlife trade, highlighting the IUCN SSC situation analysis and noting that while wildlife in situ is rarely a source of disease, anthropogenic components are largely a factor. Underscoring that narratives “build agendas” for human and health agencies and NGOs, he noted the risk of infectious disease from wildlife is negligible. He stressed the risk of zoonosis from wildlife trade is very limited and that it is domestic animals and industrialized agriculture that have “crushed nature.”

Kristina Rodina, Forestry Officer, Wildlife and Protected Areas, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), and CPW Secretary, introduced the four CPW Guiding Principles, which include: recognition of the use of wildlife by IPLCs in policy responses; maintenance and restoration of healthy and resilient ecosystems to reduce risks of zoonotic spillovers; recognition that persecuting wild animals suspected of transmitting disease will not address the cause of the emergence and spread of diseases; and regulating and monitoring the harvest and trade and use of wildlife to ensure it is legal and sustainable.

Tiggy Grillo, Scientific Officer Wildlife Health Programme, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and National Coordinator, Wildlife Health Australia, presented the guidelines for disease risk management in wildlife trade supply chains and markets, noting complementarity with the CPW Guiding Principles. She described the actions OIE is taking for wildlife health, including the integration of wildlife health issues in its 7th Strategic Plan, the 88th World Assembly of OIE Delegates, and the Ad Hoc Group on reducing the risk of disease spillover events in markets selling wildlife and along the wildlife supply chain. She expanded on the two objectives of the Wildlife Health Framework, namely that OIE Members improve: their ability to manage the risk of pathogen emergences in wildlife and transmission at the human-animal-ecosystem interface, whilst taking into account the protection of wildlife; and surveillance systems, early detection, notification, and management of wildlife disease. She noted the structure and content of the guidelines should: be tangible, pragmatic, flexible and practical; provide background context; and utilize guidelines and tools already available and current best practices.

Hadrien Vanthomme, Forests and Societies Unit, French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), Montpellier, France, and Marie-Marie Olive Researcher, Animals, Health, Territories, Risks, Ecosystems Unit, CIRAD, University Montpellier, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, presented on Implementing One Health strategies in Central Africa to reduce zoonotic risk under the Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme. He noted that threats aggravating zoonotic disease pandemics include biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, the dependance on wild meat and poor practices, consumption preferences such as increasing urban demand, and the absence of public health services. He drew attention to a white paper on reducing future wildlife-borne spillover of disease to humans. He described three commonalities between the Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme and the CPW Guiding Principles, namely management of zoonotic risks, community rights and cultural identity, and protection of natural resources.

Torsten Mörner, Head Wildlife Diseases and Game Meat, CIC, presented on the CPW Guiding Principles and what they mean in practice for hunters. He noted, for instance, how hunters contribute to maintaining and restoring healthy and resilient ecosystems to reduce risk of zoonosis as they are the ones that kill wild animals suspected of transmitting diseases. He highlighted the importance of wildlife meat, including in countries like Sweden where it accounts for 4% of all consumed meat. Underscoring the importance of communication, he called for hunters to be involved in all CPW Guiding Principles pertaining to the transmission of the zoonoses.

Bernard Vallat, former Director of OIE, discussed the importance of the One Health approach and the risk of spread of zoonoses across Europe, noting it has been mitigated thanks to collaboration with hunters and hunter organizations. He illustrated the approach with an example from France where clear responsibilities are given to hunters in order to identify potential diseases and implement mitigation measures. He called for the sharing of best practices regarding the successful role of hunters in benefitting society with regards to wildlife management. 

James Compton, United States Agency for International Development Wildlife Trafficking, Response, Assessment and Priority Setting Project Manager, TRAFFIC, discussed how to manage disease risk in wildlife trade, including through supply chain management case studies and drawing on lessons for adaptation. He noted parallels and opportunities to connect to the Critical Control Points approach, widely used in food systems for livestock animals, which could be expanded to the legal wildlife trade. 

During the ensuing discussion, speakers addressed questions from the audience, including on the CPW Guiding Principles and knowledge regarding how to manage wildlife populations and avoid diseases. 

Session III: Wildlife Harvesting, Use and Trade – Hitting the Target?

On Monday September 27, in a session moderated by Dilys Roe, participants reconvened to discuss the proposed GBF target 5. They debated whether this target is realistic, how it can be measured, and where, how and at what scale it may have already been achieved.

Francis Ogwal, Co-Chair for the CBD’s Open Ended Working Group for a Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, discussed the proposed monitoring framework and status of review, as well as targets and headline indicators relevant to wildlife harvesting, use, and trade.

Anastasiya Timoshyna reviewed the results of a workshop on sustainable harvest and trade of wildlife beyond 2020, including proposed datasets and indicators, as well as regulatory and non-regulatory measures. She also highlighted the: challenge of tackling the narrative of consumer demand and sustainable consumption; benefits and costs of sustainable wildlife management; and disconnect between the narratives on sustainable wildlife management and sustainable consumption. Commenting on target 5, she noted its inclusiveness and ambition, which will require significant resources. In concluding, she stressed the importance of targets that explicitly refer to use and trade and that can be applied at the national and local levels. She highlighted key recommendations from TRAFFIC, including that:

  • headline and component indicators for proposed targets 5 and 9 in the current draft of the monitoring framework are not sufficient to measure progress on this target;
  • clear monitoring of the tools developed specifically for the verification of the sustainable production of non-wood products, such as the FairWild Standard, should be included for target 10 on ensuring all areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, particularly through the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
  • the contribution of legal and sustainable trade in wildlife (across various taxa) to halt biodiversity loss should be included in targets 14 (on integrating biodiversity values into policies) and 15 (on businesses reporting on their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity and progressively reducing negative impacts by at least half and increasing positive impacts; and
  • focus only on waste and overconsumption of food and ‘materials’ in target 16 (on ensuring people are encouraged to reduce by at least half the waste and overconsumption of food) is concerning and may not adequately reflect the need for reducing unsustainable consumption of many forms of wildlife resources.

Maurizio Farhan Ferrari, Senior Policy Adviser on Environmental Governance, Forest Peoples Programme, spoke of the role of CSU in the harvest, use, and trade of wildlife. In describing how CSU is connected to sustainable livelihoods, he noted that indigenous territories are regulated commons, not open access areas, where collective ownership and use brings a collective responsibility. He drew attention to spiritual beliefs and cosmological views that guide the care of a territory, and to unwritten customary rules and laws that ensure the prevention of over use. He noted that security over lands, territories, and resources is very important, yet many IPLCs lack secure tenure rights. He then proposed additional wording in the proposed GBF indicators pertaining to CSU, for instance, on target 5, adding “and respecting customary law and customary sustainable use” and adding CSU to the glossary. He questioned who decides the definitions of “legal”, “sustainable,” and “safe for human health.” In closing, he called for: a better understanding and appreciation of CSU and customary law by parties and organizations; equitable participation; capacity building to address this issue at all levels; and inclusion of CSU indicators.

Clara Nobbe, Head, Terrestrial Species Team, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Secretariat, presented a report on the impacts of taking, trade, and consumption of terrestrial migratory species for wild meat. She explained that a surprising finding of the report was that a main threat for migratory species is direct take, not habitat loss as might have been expected. She noted that: wild meat consumption, in particular, has a big impact on wildlife; domestic use is a greater concern than international trade; a variety of drivers exist for the taking of wild meat species; increased urban use is putting escalating pressure on species; and legislation and enforcement of protections for CMS terrestrial mammal species vary across their range.

Nobbe underscored that taking animals for wild meat consumption is closely linked to the risk of transmitting zoonotic diseases. She highlighted key findings from the report, including that: 98% of the terrestrial migratory species are threatened by hunting (when excluding bat species); although defining why a species is hunted is difficult, hunting for meat played a large part in their threatened status; wild meat hunting is mainly for domestic rather than international use; unregulated wild meat trade significantly increases the risk of future zoonotic diseases; hunting legislation in many countries needs review and revision; and laws are often not enforced.

Karen Gaynor, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Secretariat, briefly discussed the sustainability of international trade and the contribution of CITES to the proposed headline indicator for target 5.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers debated whether the current proposed headline indicator to make progress on target 5 is sufficient. Timoshyna noted that as currently formulated, “Proportion of wildlife that is harvested legally and sustainably,” is insufficient. Farhan Ferrari suggested the headline indicator for proposed target 21 on participation in decision-making IPLCs could be relevant to target 5. On the issue of trade safety for human health, Timoshyna quoted the four CPW Guiding Principles, specifically the means to reduce risk through regulatory and non-regulatory measures. Nobbe stressed the need for internationally-agreed standards.

Session IV: Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework –  Monitoring of the Target

Participants attended a session, moderated by Alexandra Zimmermann, Chair of the IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) Task Force, which looked at approaches to measure the success of a target on HWC and challenges faced through discussions with parties already conducting such activities to identify lessons learned. 

Kristina Rodina discussed the CPW and HWCs. She noted the causes of HWCs are varied and not necessarily country-specific, so organizations within the CPW are trying to tailor solutions to the different realities. She provided examples to manage, prevent, or reduce the conflict, for instance from Kenya and Sri Lanka where pilot insurance schemes for small-scale farmers have been set up. She noted  FAO facilitates cross-sectoral dialogues, provides technical assistance, and has field projects in a variety of countries. She also highlighted the IUCN SSC HWC Task Force that fosters the links between policy, science, and communities. She said FAO and IUCN are doing a pilot study to collect case studies from different countries, and feed into preparations for the GBF. 

Basile van Havre, Co-Chair, CBD’s Open Ended Working Group for a Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, noted the core of the discussion is how to consider HWC given competing worldviews exist about the relationship between humans and wildlife. He emphasized many goals and targets are related to ecosystems and species and to the way nature meets peoples’ needs. He highlighted the importance of keeping the concept of HWC well-integrated in the GBF. He stressed the importance of: addressing HWC as an integral part of wildlife management, conservation, and recovery; and tracking and documenting impacts and the effectiveness of measures.

Alexandra Zimmermann discussed the difficulties in measuring HWC, noting it is a global challenge for biodiversity and development, and that different countries struggle with it in different ways. She highlighted the need to measure HWC so it becomes tangible and to look at the issue holistically to show progress. She explained the conflict is actually among people about wildlife, noting that problems arise when different groups of people disagree about what to do with wildlife. She underscored the challenges of measuring HWC, noting direct interaction between wildlife and people is quantifiable, while the interaction between people and people, which is where the conflict is, is very intangible. She defined the three main challenges in measuring HWC as scale, complexity, and uniqueness. She concluded with four elements to think about for indicators, measurements, and monitoring of HWC and coexistence: focus on qualitative measures; measures that incentivize real conflict resolution; participatory, collaborative processes, and co-learning; and link to action, good practices, and best advice.

Rogerio Cunha de Paula, National Research Center for Carnivores Conservation, CENAP/ICMBio, Brazil, IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group and IUCN SSC Canid Specialist Group, highlighted techniques to measure success of approaches in managing HWC, including through his work with maned wolves and jaguars. He highlighted the monitoring plans, including goals and indicators, developed for the two species. Cunha de Paula explained that the main challenges are related to the complexity of each case and the difficulty in transferring lessons learned to other cases.

Thea Carroll, Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) Programme Coordinator, CITES Secretariat, described the MIKE Programme, and its successes and challenges, including: a lack of participation and commitment by range States to provide data; site level capacity; and biases related to data quality.

Simon Pooley, Lambert Lecturer, Birkbeck University of London, UK, and IUCN SSC HWC Task Force member, highlighted human-crocodile interactions and world wide data on conflict, including methodology developed to report incidents and means to integrate data with local context for policy purposes.

Diogo Veríssimo, Head of Impact and Measurement, On the Edge Conservation, and IUCN SSC HWC Task Force member, drew attention to the impacts of increased global internet connectivity and digitalization, noting that people’s interaction with wildlife and their perception of it is changing. He said monitoring techniques developed in the commercial realm could be replicated in the field of conservation to garner information and maximize funding. He drew attention to conservation culturomics, a form of computational lexicology that studies human behavior and cultural trends through the quantitative analysis of digitized texts, images, videos, and sound. He said it is a new field that looks at human-nature interactions as they are manifested in the digital realm.  

The subsequent moderated discussion addressed how to: break down HWC, geographically for instance; avoid the unintentional impacts of a target, such as culling to resolve HWC; and measure the proportion of reported versus unreported HWC. Participants also discussed data biases linked to access to internet connectivity. In closing, Zimmermann remarked on the complexity of HWC monitoring, and the need for many parties to be involved with this. She advocated for highly participatory processes using a co-learning approach where organizations, governments, and communities all work together.

Synthesis Session: Connectivity in Thought and Practice – Linking the Dots for Sustainable Wildlife Management

This session, moderated by Shane Mahoney, reviewed the headline messages from the four thematic sessions, highlighting connections between people and wildlife in relation to the sustainable management of wildlife.

Julia E. Fa shared key messages from the session on landscapes as food provision systems, including that: landscapes are critical to food provisioning systems; there are many unsustainable uses of species; simplistic calls to end use will not address zoonotic disease emergence and will endanger biodiversity conservation; use of wildlife, whether sustainable or not, is location specific and policy responses must reflect that; a more complex food production approach must be considered; whether wildlife plays a role as a provider of food is debatable and greater analysis is required; and decreasing meat consumption can create more space for wildlife.

Anastasiya Timoshyna summarized the main points from the session on zoonotic diseases, including that: data and the narrative on zoonoses and trade are confusing and poorly analyzed; the role of wildlife as a driver of disease is overestimated; and collaboration is needed across multiple sectors.

Dilys Roe presented the take home messages from the session on wildlife harvesting, use and trade, including: the need to draw on relevant headline indicators across the GBF to meet target 5; the need to include a definition of CSU in the framework glossary; that “legal” and “sustainable” can be contested terms; that indicators should reflect context specificities; and that understanding drivers of unsustainable use is important.

Alexandra Zimmermann imparted conclusions from the session on HWC, including that: HWC is a biodiversity and sustainable development challenge; conflict is between people over wildlife; the level of complexity of HWC is constantly changing; and HWC must be looked at in a co-designing way.

In the following discussion, Mahoney stressed that consumption of wild meat can be a sustainable mechanism, given the incentives that derive from access to it. Timoshyna highlighted the engagement of youth and IPLCs in sustainable use.

Closing Plenary

David Cooper, CBD Deputy Executive Secretary, and CPW Chair commended the rich discussions held over the past two days and noted they had revolved around “the good, the bad and the ugly”: the importance of sustainable use; the problems of unsustainable use; and the threats of the unsafe use of wildlife as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the difficulties of HWC. He noted that the pandemic had put wildlife management under close scrutiny and cautioned against undermining CSU and sustainable use in view of their contribution to the food security and livelihoods of billions of people and to maintaining biodiverse-rich landscapes. He called for sustainable use to be considered in the broader context of consumption patterns and land use.

George Aman, CIC President thanked all participants, mentioning Zoltán Kovács in particular. He noted the current global situation had reminded everyone of our vulnerability and that the discussions over the past two days were, therefore, more important than ever. He stressed it was time to “build back better,” the CPW seeks reasonable, scienc-based policies, and sustainable wildlife management must embrace the three pillars of sustainable development. He concluded that the CPW represents a powerful set of minds and networks that together can make a difference for the sustainable use of wildlife.

The Third Widlife Forum closed at 16.50 CET.

Further information

Tags