SBSTTA 28

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international certifier for products derived from responsible forest management, excludes genetically modified trees from certification. Accordingly, a member company is [not permitted][prohibited] to grow GM trees for commercial purposes, both in certified and non-certified areas. The question arose, whether this would also cover trees that were genetically modified through the use of CRISPR/Cas – a method often referred to as gene editing. After consulting widely, FSC took a decision on the basis of received responses, including received scientific information, and publishing the outcome of their deliberations on 17 July, stating:

“Yes, the definition of Genetically Modified Organism covers also organisms in which the genetic material has been altered using modern, CRISPR-based gene editing technologies. The definition’s element of “altered in a way that does not occur naturally” is understood to refer both to the resulting genome change as well as to the process to induce it, hence any genetic engineering technology falls within the scope of the GMO definition.”*

They further state that the decision was also “guided by the precautionary principle in alignment with FSC’s mission to promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests.”

* Forest Management Interpretations document, page 32 under the code INT-STD-01-001_19. https://connect.
fsc.org/document-centre/documents/resource/381

Biodiversity justice demands an end to blockades, occupation and war

Theiva Lingam, Friends of the Earth Malaysia - During the opening session of SBI 7 on 4 August 2026, Cuba drew attention to the serious difficulties in implementing the KMGBF, highlighting among others, how the long-standing economic, commercial and financial blockade restricts the country’s access to resources and international support. This intervention underscores the need to take seriously the specific circumstances and constraints faced by countries under such conditions when assessing progress and designing implementation support

Cali Fund MoU: Turning a benefit-sharing fund into a donor-controlled fund?

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network - Around 70 plus developing countries and civil society organisations are sceptical about the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) establishing the institutional arrangements for the Cali Fund established as part of the CBD’s Multilateral Mechanism for Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from the use of DSI. This is because the MoU turns the Cali Fund into a conventional donor-controlled trust fund.

The message in the Global Report is clear: despite some progress, we remain dangerously off track to achieve the goals and targets of the KMGBF. The provision of the means of implementation from developed to developing countries remains significantly below what is required for its full and effective implementation.

Parties must accelerate whole-of-government action, particularly on Targets 14 and 18, including through stronger fiscal, financial and regulatory policies to align public and private activities and fiscal and financial flows with the KMGBF, and eliminate harmful incentives in an equitable way.

Additionally, there is a collective failure to address the other “elephants in the room”. Unless the main structural drivers of biodiversity destruction and impediments to implementation - such as sovereign debt burdens, austerity policies and tax injustices - are addressed, transformative change will not be possible.

We also regret that there is no formal process or dialogues for the Global Review.

In the IPBES recommendation, we welcome stronger recognition that governments have a central role in establishing policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for business and finance. But the text still presents business action as separate from, rather than a product of, effective public policy and regulation. This must be corrected, or we will be unable to deliver the systemic reforms needed to stop biodiversity-destructive activities and align financial systems with biodiversity and human rights.

On synthetic biology, the rapid pace of developments in synthetic biology warrants urgent precautionary oversight and a clear-eyed separation of hype from reality.

We must evaluate how synthetic biology may either undermine, or contribute, to the Convention and KMGBF targets, through horizon-scanning, monitoring and assessment. We call on Parties to establish an AHTEG to develop the appropriate methodologies to do so. This must be complemented by a stocktake that can strengthen the work on synthetic biology, in accordance with Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention.

The Thematic Action Plan must support Parties with the capacity to conduct independent assessments, contributing to sovereign decision-making on appropriate and safe technologies, while not bearing the burden of liability and costs associated with adverse effects and technology failures.

Community-based Monitoring remains unmonitored in the GBF review: SBSTTA 28 and SBI 7 must formalize the informal

Kevin Lunzalu, Shoshin, African CSOs Biodiversity Alliance - The deliberations on the midterm review of progress of the implementation of the GBF at SBSTTA 28 and SBI 7, represents an opportune moment for a collective stocktake on how transparent, efficient, and just monitoring of community contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework can be attained.

SBSTTA 28 Closing statement

CBD Alliance - 1 August 2026