a commentary by Meenal Tatpati, Lawyer and Researcher
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) promises a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to halting biodiversity loss. Yet, as preparations advance for the first Global Report, discussions since the resumed session of COP 16 in Rome, to SBSTTA 27 and right up to the webinar by the SCBD in early February this year which aimed at introducing the Online Reporting Tool for submission of commitments from actors other than National governments have revealed growing tensions around whether their commitments are going to be recognised.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) promises a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to halting biodiversity loss. Yet, as preparations advance for the first Global Report, discussions since the resumed session of COP 16 in Rome, to SBSTTA 27 and right up to the webinar by the SCBD in early February this year which aimed at introducing the Online Reporting Tool for submission of commitments from actors other than National governments have revealed growing tensions around whether their commitments are going to be recognised.
Decision 16/32 has enabled submissions by actors other than national Governments but required that all commitments be made available to national focal points for review. If no objection is raised within four weeks, the commitment is published; however, if a focal point objects even after publication the commitment may be withdrawn at any time. This effectively places the visibility and legitimacy of non-State action under continuous State discretion.
However, the same decision also states that:
- Communicating commitments for actors other than national governments should be ‘as simple as possible’ and;
- The proposed template must allow for some flexibility, recognising the diverse circumstances of actors.
The L document on the Global Review from SBSTTA 27 to be taken to COP 17 places commitments by actors other than national Governments squarely on the table. However, plenary and contact group discussions both during the resumed session of COP 16 at Rome, as well as intercessionals reflected deep unease among some Parties. Several emphasized that national data, particularly seventh national reports, should remain the primary source of information. Others cautioned against over-reliance on global databases, and raised concerns about the quality, reliability, and fragmentation of non-State data.
The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) has been tasked with collecting information on commitments by actors other than national Governments, including disaggregated data on contributions from Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), women, and youth, in line with decision 16/32, through the Online Reporting Tool. At the webinar, it was revealed that the following documentation modalities have been inserted to ‘validate’ submissions including:
(i) authorization letters from organizations on whose behalf commitments are made, nominating the person responsible for adding the data to the ORT
(ii) reporting to be done by organisations accredited to the CBD and if not accredited, a document demonstrating the ‘legal status of the entity’ needs to be uploaded
The SCBD will ‘validate’ the information and return the submissions in case it feels that all the documents for validity have not been provided.
Here is the catch: While large international conservation NGOs, business actors, and well-resourced organizations may have the institutional capacity to navigate these procedures, many smaller actors do not. Indigenous Peoples’ institutions, women’s collectives, youth initiatives, and community-based organizations often operate through informal or customary governance systems. Many lack formal legal registration, dedicated staff, or access to national reporting processes, and in some contexts, national systems do not permit meaningful public participation at all. Introducing credential or legal-status requirements risks excluding precisely those actors whose contributions are most deeply embedded in on-the-ground conservation and stewardship. Case in point: Out of the 4 submissions currently uploaded on the stakeholder commitment section (as this article goes to print), 3 are submitted by businesses and one is a large global north network of farmers, producers and forest farm owners.
This is particularly true in case of women’s networks consisting of leaders belonging to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, collectives, organisations and smaller initiatives from around the world that are actively contributing to biodiversity conservation and protection, this requirement poses a significant barrier to recognition and undermines the objective of accurately reflecting the diversity of commitments being made. Much of women’s biodiversity work takes place though informal, community-based collectives and initiatives that may not be registered as legal entities. The absence of formal legal status, does not and should not diminish the scale, depth or impact of their contributions toward achieving the goals and targets of the KM-GBF. The introduction of a bureaucratic ‘legal-status’ requirement by the SCBD despite the clear mandate provided to them in Decision 16/2 and the inbuilt requirement of running the submissions through National Focal Points risks rendering the work invisible and creates an additional hurdle for participation in the CBD processes. It is particularly concerning given that the KM-GBF, for the first time, includes an explicit target on gender equality, which calls for the meaningful recognition and inclusion of women’s diverse roles and contributions in biodiversity governance and action.
Given that the reporting timeline so that these commitments can be included in the Global Report is very tight it is imperative that mechanisms ensure actors other than national Governments are able to contribute meaningfully and safely to this report as well as other reporting outputs. This includes operationalizing and funding the informal multi-stakeholder technical dialogue (envisaged under the L document to be taken to COP 17) in a manner that genuinely empowers women, youth, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities, and environmental defenders to participate and provide inputs to the global review , rather than treating participation as a procedural formality.
If whole-of-society implementation is to be real, reporting structures must move beyond rhetoric. This requires making reporting flexible and accessible within countries and globally; safeguarding the autonomy and rights of rightsholders; integrating gender and equity meaningfully; ensuring protection for environmental defenders; and creating systems of multi-actor accountability rather than top-down control even within a Party-led process.
The first Global Report on KM-GBF implementation is a critical moment. Whether it reinforces existing power hierarchies or genuinely reflects collective action will depend on how seriously these concerns are addressed and on whose commitments are ultimately allowed to count.