Discussions in the Contact Group on Resource Mobilization yesterday evening pivoted around the issue of “broadening the contributor base” to provide biodiversity finance, specifically in relation to sovereign contributors.
Sharp divergences emerged over a joint proposal made by Canada on behalf of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, that Parties classified as “high-income” under the World Bank country income classification should be used to review and amend the list of Developed Country Parties and Other Parties that Voluntarily Assume the Obligations of Developed Country Parties, with the exclusion of Small Island Developing States.
Eighty-three developing countries, including the 54 countries of the African Group, firmly rejected this proposal. In a statement made by Brazil on their behalf, they pointed to the absurdity of using an income metric as a proxy for development, which is multidimensional in nature. Moreover, the provision in Article 20(2) clearly states that the process is voluntary. As such, the developing countries rejected the proposed automatic trigger based on the high-income classification, especially as it could redefine legal obligations under the Convention.
The developed countries claimed that their proposal was not intended to dilute or diminish their obligations as developed countries Parties. But they called for a review and amendment of the list as “it is currently necessary and overdue as it has been 20 years, economic realities have shifted, and we need to increase the sources of biodiversity finance”.
In fact, recent empirical evidence shows that the conventional narrative that poorer countries are “catching up” with richer countries is wrong. The opposite is occurring: the absolute income gap between advanced economies and the emerging and developing economies has actually increased since 1960, by 170–270% depending on the currency comparison used.*
Further, Article 20 is clear: there are common but differentiated responsibilities, with obligations on developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development clearly states that this is “in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command”.
Additionally, as developed countries bear historical and continuing responsibility for global ecological breakdown, there is actually an ecological debt owed to developing countries and the Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and youth who steward biodiversity.
As such, instead of looking to expand the donor base on the basis of flawed and arguably Convention-contravening logic, developed countries should repay the colonial and ecological debt they owe to developing countries and their peoples. And they must fulfil their obligations under the Convention and Target 19(a) of the KMGBF to provide the financial resources to developing countries. This is a moral and legal imperative.
*Hickel, J., & Sullivan, D. (2026). The myth of catch-up development: trends in core–periphery inequality from 1960 to 2023. New Political Economy, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2026.2659076