CBD

While a major focus of the nego tiations at CBD COP 16.2 will focus on resource mobilization and the financial mechanism, there are other important decisions that need to be taken as well. Notably, the decisions on the Monitoring framework for the KMGBF (L.26) and on planning, monitoring, reporting and review, including the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (PMRR, L: 33) s till are pending adoption.

Friedrich Wulf, ProNatura, Switzerland

These decisions are vital and necessary in order to have a meaningful discussions at the next COP in 2026. This will be the moment where we will take stock and see how we are advancing towards achieving the targets of the KMGBF, where we are doing well and where more efforts are needed. In order to do this well, we not only need to have updated NBSAPs that reflect the KMGBF, we also need to have national reports based on a uniform monitoring system and an agreed and standardized review procedure.

The decision on monitoring (L.26) still contains a number of brackets, including for headline indicator 7.2 on pesticide risk, which currently names two proposed indicators ([Pesticide environment concentration] [and/or] [aggregated total applied toxicity]). No other headline indicator has two options. Only the ‘aggregated total applied toxicity’ methodology meets the criteria for headline indicators agreed at COP15, so this should be the indicator that is adopted. ‘Pesticide environment concentration’ should be deleted as it has no methodology and is an unusable indicator. I would also support measuring the Global environmental impacts of consumption, a component indicator in brackets, if there is a good method of measuring it.

By contrast, L. 33 on PMRR is a clean text and while we deplore that elements such as the voluntary country by country peer review have not received sufficient support and are therefore not included in the decision, having an agreement on how the reporting and review will be done is essen;al. Important elements also include an agreed methodology with standardized templates for the seventh and eighth national reports, standards in the communication of commitments by non-state actors, Terms of reference for the AHTEG for the Preparation of the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the KMGBF and an indicative timeline of the global review on collective progress in the implementation of the KMGBF.

There seems to be a widespread perception that the adoption of these two documents depends on agreement regarding finance – these are regarded as a package. So we very much hope par ties find agreement on resource mobilization as well, in order to improve implementation and have reports we can be happy about.

Lim Li Ching, Third World Network

The resumed COP16 will largely focus on resource mobilization, discussions which were suspended in Cali, due to lack of quorum. The most contentious issue was about the establishment (or otherwise) of a dedicated global biodiversity fund.

Many developing countries called for a dedicated biodiversity fund, under the authority of the COP, in accordance with Article 21. The GEF is the interim financial mechanism, but there are issues that make it inequitable and difficult for developing countries and rights holders to access funds.

Criteria fundamental to the design of a dedicated instrument are:

1. Equity and common but differentiated responsibilities: While it has been agreed that any new instrument would mobilize resources from all sources, the basic obligations in Article 20 (developed country Parties provide financial resources to developing country Parties) remain.

2. Consistency with the objectives, principles and provisions of the Convention and its Protocols: This also means the channelling of financial resources to meet all three objectives of the Convention in a balanced manner.

3. Consistency with the KMGBF: In particular, consistency with the KMGBF’s human rights-based, gender-equality and gender-responsive approach. In practice, this means that projects/programmes must do no harm to rights holders.

4. Under the authority of, and accountable to, the COP: CBD Parties to determine the policies, strategies, priorities, eligibility criteria, etc. and provide policy oversight and guidance. The trustee should also be accountable to and comply with decisions of the governing body.

5. Governance arrangements that are equitable and representative: There needs to be equitable and geographically representa;ve membership on the governing body, while ensuring that particular groups, such as SIDS and LDCs, are equitably represented. There must also be full, effective and equitable participation of indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth.

6. New, additional, predictable, adequate, and timely financing: In accordance with Article 20, financial resources provided to developing countries must be “new”, i.e. must not have been previously pledged or allocated, and “additional”, i.e. not double counted towards ODA or other commitments. The fund should not be voluntary in nature.

7. Eligibility of all developing country Parties to receive funds: Any attempt to formally narrow the category of countries eligible for financing, or to create new eligibility categories between developing countries, runs counter to the Convention.

8. No further burden on developing countries: There should be no burden-shifting from developed to developing countries. Funding should be on a grant or concessional basis, with grants being the preferred mode. Financial resources provided should be non-debt creating.

9. Easily accessible, including direct access modalities: Simple, easy accessibility and streamlined modalities
would improve efficiency and effectiveness. Direct access, whereby funds are channelled directly to national recipients, rather than mediated through other entities, is important. Indigenous peoples, local communi;es, women and youth should also be able to access and receive funds directly.

10. Fair and direct allocation of resources: Guiding principles are cooperation and facilitation, not competition. A percentage allocation of resources should be disbursed to indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth.12. Robust safeguards, grievance and redress mechanisms: implementation of human rights, environmental and social safeguards, and grievance and redress mechanisms, will help prevent, mitigate and remedy harms.

11. Earmarked provision of financial resources for collective action, Mother-Earth centric actions, and
non-market-based approaches: These elements of Target 19(f) are critically important to protecting biodiversity, yet amounts directed to these efforts are still low.

12. Robust safeguards, grievance and redress mechanisms: implementation of human rights, environmental and social safeguards, and grievance and redress mechanisms, will help prevent, mitigate and remedy harms.

Equally important would be an intersessional process to further discussions on the criteria, modalities and operationalization of funding arrangements. Whether COP16 successfully concludes is dependent on Parties agreeing on these issues.

Key criteria for a dedicated instrument on biodiversity finance

Lim Li Ching, Third World Network - The resumed COP16 will largely focus on resource mobilization, discussions which were suspended in Cali, due to lack of quorum. The most contentious issue was about the establishment (or otherwise) of a dedicated global biodiversity fund.
Many developing countries called for a dedicated biodiversity fund, under the authority of the COP, in accordance with Ar;cle 21. The GEF is the interim financial mechanism, but there are issues that make it inequitable and difficult for developing countries and rights holders to access funds.
Criteria fundamental to the design of a dedicated instrument are...

PMRR is vital to advance – so let’s adopt the draft decisions

Friedrich Wulf, ProNatura, Switzerland - These decisions are vital and necessary in order to have a meaningful discussions at the next COP in 2026. This will be the moment where we will take stock and see how we are advancing towards achieving the targets of the KMGBF, where we are doing well and where more efforts are needed. In order to do this well, we not only need to have updated NBSAPs that reflect the KMGBF, we also need to have national reports based on a uniform monitoring system and an agreed and standardized review procedure. ...

Direct access to funding the custodians and stewards of biodiversity should be a priority

Heitor Dellasta, Global Youth Biodiversity Network - Limited progress in establishing new financial instruments and reforming the current financial mechanism remains a significant barrier to effectively implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. These discussions must go beyond mobilizing financial resources and focus on improving efficiency and equity in resource allocation while ensuring a more balanced and representative governance structure. ...

Financial drivers of biodiversity loss must be addressed for biodiversity finance to be effective

Nele Marien, Friends of the Earth International - Biodiversity destruction and human rights violations are deeply linked to corporate operations in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, mining, energy, and infrastructure. Banks and financial institutions fund these industries, making them key enablers of environmental and social harm—while also profiting significantly from them. ...