CBD: No implementation without equity, say developing countries

Biodiversity. Adonis blue (Polyommatus bellargus) female 2, Charles J. Sharp. Creative Commons.

Rome, 23 February (Lim Li Ching) – As Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) near the halfway mark in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), it appears that the ambition that fueled its adoption in 2022 has not been matched by the commensurate means of implementation.

Parties met at the Sixth Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI6) in Rome, Italy, from 16th to 19th February 2026.

A common thread was weaved across almost all agenda items, as developing countries echoed calls for the provision of adequate, predictable, timely and accessible financial resources, in order for them to implement their commitments.

As biodiversity is largely in developing countries, the burden of implementation falls heavily on them. They will also be held accountable for these actions through the monitoring framework of the KMGBF and the mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review.

The Convention recognizes this, and operationalizes the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities in its Article 20, by placing legally-binding obligations on developed country Parties to provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet their obligations for implementation.

The Seventeenth Conference of the Parties (COP17), to be held in Yerevan, Armenia in October 2026, will be an important moment, as Parties will conduct the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the KMGBF. The national reports are the primary source of information for both the global review and the global report, with the global report a primary input for the global review.

National biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), national targets and the seventh national reports are essential to ensure the accuracy, completeness and policy relevance of the global report and to enable an inclusive assessment of collective progress across all regions.

While many Parties have submitted national targets as a stand-alone submission, a lesser number have submitted revised and updated NBSAPs to align them with the KMGBF. The deadline for doing so was at COP16 held in 2024, and at the time of writing, this figure stood at 146 (national targets) and 75 (NBSAPS). There are 196 Parties to the CBD.

At the start of the SB16 meeting, only one Party (the European Union) had submitted its seventh national report. By the end of the meeting, this became four Parties (the EU, Uganda, Lesotho and Switzerland). The deadline for submission is 28 February 2026, which cannot be moved, in order to provide enough time for the Secretariat to analyze the information in preparation of the global report.

During the discussions under the agenda item of planning, monitoring, reporting and review, many developing countries described the realities and challenges they have faced in preparing and submitting their NBSAPs and seventh national reports. These included financial and technical constraints, as well as delays in the disbursement and receipt of funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and/or its implementing agencies.

These concerns were reflected in the discussions on the agenda items on resource mobilization. While that agenda item was confined to considering three draft studies – on the relationship between debt sustainability and implementation of the Convention, the implementation of safeguards in biodiversity financing mechanisms, and on the relationship between biodiversity and climate finance – commissioned by the Secretariat (see forthcoming article), there were still calls by developing countries for increased provision of resources and consideration of the institutional structure by which this is delivered.

These issues, the subject of a delicate and difficult compromise finally brokered at the resumed COP16 in February 2025, were not on the SBI6 agenda on resource mobilization and will instead be taken up at SBI7 in October.  Nonetheless, the developing countries made their views loud and clear.

In the discussions on the financial mechanism, the financial resource constraints and the challenges with the GEF, particularly in accessing funding, were also consistently raised. Developing countries pointed to the need for direct access, as they faced difficulties in accessing funds in a timely manner through the GEF’s implementing agencies.

All these matters are deeply linked to the discussion that will occur at SBI7 under the resource mobilization agenda item. Additionally, the ability of indigenous peoples and local communities to directly access funds was another common call, particularly given their roles as custodians of biodiversity.

Other agenda items, including on the midterm review of the implementation of the Gender Plan of Action 2023–2030, and on capacity-building and development and technical and scientific cooperation, faced the same dilemma. How to implement these adequately if there is no provision of financial resources?

At a practical level, the lack of funding for delegates, resulting in only one delegate each from developing countries being funded was also a cause for concern. Many developing country delegations were stretched and could not keep pace with the various Contact Groups and informal meetings held during SBI6.

There were also challenges for developing countries in using the pilot modalities for early submissions of statements, which has been recently introduced and applied across all substantive agenda items.

[Parties and observers registered for SBI6 were invited to submit written statements in advance, on a voluntary and informal basis, by means of a designated online portal or by email. The modalities are meant to facilitate effective preparation and communication, and to reduce the amount of time spent on the first reading of the agenda items. However, this was challenging for some developing Parties, especially in terms of early preparation, regional coordination opportunities and stable internet access.]

All roads therefore lead back to the question of equity in the implementation of the Convention and the KMGBF. If financial resources are not provided to developing country Parties by developed country Parties, then the lofty goals and targets of the KMGBF will remain on paper.

As such, while SBI6 was seen as a stepping stone to an “implementation” COP, with the theme of “taking action for nature”, the road ahead to SBI7 and COP17 will remain difficult. - TWN