TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Nov25/04)
20 November 2025
Third World Network

CBD: Scientific advisory body passes on tough decisions to COP 17

Hobart, 20 Nov (Lim Li Lin) – The scientific, technical and technological body of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) met in Panama City in October to move forward work on a number of important issues. Key among them was an agreement on the parameters of the global report that is intended to shed light on Parties’ collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).

However, there were stark disagreements on many of the issues on the agenda of the 27^th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 27), including on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Nexus and Transformative Change Assessments, climate change and biodiversity, the strategic review and analysis of the programmes of work of the CBD, and risk assessment and risk management of living modified organisms.

Many unresolved issues were simply left in square brackets, to be resolved at the 17^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP 17) which will be held in Armenia in October 2026. The amount of bracketed text was somewhat unprecedented for a subsidiary body to pass on to the COP, and many delegates expressed their frustration and disappointment at the lack of progress.

Global report, global review

The KMGBF, which was finally adopted in 2022 after many delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is a new framework for strategic implementation of the CBD for the period 2021-2030. It follows on from the CBD’s Strategic Plan and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011-2020). The lack of clear monitoring of implementation is often cited as one of the main failings of the Aichi Targets.

Hence, a key aspect of monitoring the implementation of the KMGBF is its procedures for planning, monitoring, reporting and review (PMRR). These were adopted alongside the KMGBF, and include a global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Framework. Two global reviews will be conducted, at COP 17 in 2026 and COP 19 in 2030.

The other elements of PMRR are national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), including national targets; national reports; global analysis of information in NBSAPs, including national targets; voluntary peer reviews of countries; further development and testing of an open-ended forum for voluntary country reviews; and information on non-State actor commitments.

Prior to the KMGBF, Parties were only obliged to submit a national report every few years on measures taken to implement the CBD provisions and their effectiveness in meeting the CBD’s objectives. The gap between the 6^th (2018) and 7^th (2026) national reports is eight years however. Parties are also obliged to develop and implement an NBSAP and to revise and update it. With the adoption of the KMGBF, Parties are required to update their NBSAPs, and develop national targets in line with them.

The global reviews are viewed as the key global-level process for facilitating implementation of the KMGBF, mirroring the global stocktake in the UN climate change process. Given power imbalances and North-South inequities, developing countries have been careful to circumscribe the process in order to advance on matters important to them, while avoiding unfair demands being placed on them. It is meant to be a “Party-driven process conducted in a comprehensive, facilitative, efficient, inclusive and transparent manner…”.

The global reviews explicitly include reviewing collective progress in the provision of the means of implementation (finance, capacity building and technology transfer). The provision of financial resources by developed to developing countries is an obligation under the CBD, and is a key demand of developing countries. The failure by developed countries to meet this obligation adequately is one of the key obstacles that limits developing countries’ implementation of the CBD.

The outcomes of the global reviews may be taken into account by Parties in the future revision and implementation of their NBSAPs with a view to improving actions and efforts. These include the provision of the means of implementation to developing countries.

The global reviews may also result in further COP decisions that make recommendations for achieving the goals and targets of the KMGBF by identifying and addressing challenges, including on the means of implementation, in collective progress in implementation of the Framework.

At COP 16, Parties decided that in addition to national reports, the global review would also primarily be based on a global report on collective progress in the implementation of the Framework. The global review will also draw on relevant recommendations of the subsidiary bodies and working groups, the outcomes of technical and regional dialogues, and the global analysis of information in NBSAPs.

An Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (AHSTAG) for the Preparation of the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the KMGBF was established, with terms of reference, along with a timeline for the process of the global review, which includes the work on the global report.

There are 12 sources of information which the global report should draw on, some of which overlap with the global review. They include analysis of the usage of the indicators, the Global and Local Biodiversity Outlook reports, outcomes of the IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change processes, scientific and technical assessments and peer-reviewed literature, reports on means of implementation, including progress reports on the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, information on commitments by non-State actors, information from other relevant multilateral environmental agreements, organisations and processes, and relevant traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technology of indigenous peoples and local communities that are given with their free, prior and informed consent.

A draft annotated outline of the global report by the AHSTAG was negotiated and approved by SBSTTA 27 so that the drafting of the global report can begin, in order for it to be available for the global review in October 2026 at COP 17.

The global report will comprise three parts: Part I – Introduction and status of, and trends in, biodiversity; Part II – Collective progress in the implementation of the KMGBF; and Part III – Conclusions and key messages.

In Part I, it is re-emphasised that “the global report will be undertaken in a facilitative, non-intrusive and non-punitive manner, respecting national sovereignty and avoiding placing an undue burden on Parties, in particular developing countries, with no focus on individual Parties and respecting their policy space…”.

Similar language has also been agreed for the global review, and the PMRR mechanisms as a whole. This is a particular concern for developing countries, as they hold most of the world’s biodiversity, yet many of them lack the means and capacity to take measures to adequately protect biodiversity.

Part II, which is the main substance of the report, will include sections on: a) Summary of the status of NBSAPs, national targets and national report submissions; b) Collective progress towards the implementation of the targets of the KMGBF; c) Collective progress towards the goals of the KMGBF; d) Review of the provision of means of implementation consistent with the KMGBF; and e) Contributions of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, international organisations and processes towards the implementation of the KMGBF.

Part III will contain a summary of the main conclusions of the report, including its key messages that will be presented in a way that may be read independently of the full report. It will contain a synthesis of collective progress towards the implementation of the KMGBF’s goals and targets, including how such progress relates to the 2030 mission and the 2050 vision.

It will also provide an overview of how the considerations in Section C of the KMGBF have been addressed across the actions taken to date. Section C contains important recognition of rights such as the contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, the human-rights-based approach and the right to development. It also includes recognition of other underlying principles and approaches such as the principles of the Rio Declaration, gender equality and intergenerational equity.

In terms of moving forward, Part III will also contain a summary of challenges, gaps and opportunities in implementation, and a synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps and opportunities in the implementation of the goals of the KMGBF, with a view to making collective progress in the implementation of the Framework.

The global report will be made available for peer review and review by the SBSTTA and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) which will meet in July and August of 2026, before its submission to COP 17, where the global review will take place. This was the only agenda item to have been entirely agreed as the document did not contain a draft recommendation for COP 17, only a recommendation by SBSTTA 27 itself for intersessional work before the COP.

CBD work programmes

SBSTTA 27 considered the results and recommendations of a strategic review and analysis of the programmes of work under the CBD in the context of the KMGBF to facilitate its implementation, conducted by a team of consultants commissioned by the Secretariat. This work was conducted in response to COP 15 and 16 decisions that requested the Secretariat to conduct this strategic review and analysis, and to prepare draft updates of the programmes of work on the basis of the analysis.

The thematic programmes of work under the CBD which correspond to some of the major biomes on the planet are: agricultural biodiversity, dry and sub-humid lands biodiversity, forest biodiversity, inland waters biodiversity, island biodiversity, marine and coastal biodiversity, and mountain biodiversity.

Additionally, there are cross-cutting issues which are key matters of relevance to all thematic areas. They correspond to the CBD’s substantive issues and provide bridges and links between the thematic programmes. There are 28 cross-cutting issues listed on the website of the CBD. Protected areas is a cross-cutting issue that cuts across the work in the thematic areas.  At COP 7, a programme of work on protected areas was adopted.

The report produced by the consultants was the subject of disagreement. A number of developing country Parties expressed their dissatisfaction with the scope, methodology and conclusions and recommendations of the report. They did not want any reference to the documents containing the consultants’ report in the SBSTTA recommendation, nor for them to be the basis of work to review and potentially update the CBD’s programmes of work.

The COP decisions had mandated a strategic review and analysis of the “programmes of work” of the CBD. The SBSTTA Bureau “clarified that a strategic analysis and review of the CBD’s set of programmes of work as a whole needs to be completed before entering into a process of updating individual programmes of work”.

According to the consultants’ report, the Bureau clarified that the study’s scope should focus on an overall review of the programmes of work and include all the work areas of “cross-cutting issues”. The consultants’ report further defines “work area”, which, according to them, includes “programmes of work”, “cross-cutting issues” and “major groups”.

The major groups listed on the CBD website are business, local authorities, parliamentarians, universities and the scientific community, children and youth, and non-governmental organisations. It is unclear why “major groups” is included as a “work area”, and the only major group included in the consultants’ report is business, with “business engagement” included as a “work area”. No other engagement with any other major group is specified as a “work area”.

In addition, a number of cross-cutting issues have not been included or receive inconsistent treatment in the various iterations of the consultants’ documents. These include “identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments” and “new and emerging issues”. Some new work areas have been added, including synthetic biology and some aspects of the KMGBF such as PMRR, for which there are existing work and processes.

A number of developing country Parties insisted that the mandate for the work in the COP 15 and 16 decisions was to review and potentially update the programmes of work, and insisted on deleting “other areas of work” and “cross-cutting issues” from the SBSTTA recommendation and the draft COP decision.

In the end, “other areas of work” and “cross-cutting issues” were removed from the SBSTTA recommendation. In addition, the work by the consultants is merely noted, and the documents containing the consultants’ report are not referenced.

Based on their analysis of the “work areas” and the peer review process, the consultants concluded that the work areas could be categorised into three broad groups, with the following recommendations:

1)      Work areas which make a direct and comprehensive contribution to the KMGBF, requiring minimal adjustments, which should be maintained close to their current form and regularly reviewed and updated.

2)      Work areas which contribute to the implementation of the KMGBF, but their alignment with the Framework could be strengthened, whose scope could be reviewed to merge various areas of work.

3)      Work areas with opportunities for efficiency gains. Ongoing investment in these areas could be limited, and their implementation could be led by partner organisations and Parties, and their achievements could continue to be recorded on the clearing-house mechanisms, as information sources.

These recommendations are reflected in the draft COP 17 decision in four options: 1) maintained close to their current form and regularly updated, 2) would benefit from being updated to better align them with the KMGBF, 3) would benefit from being integrated, and 4) to be led by partner organisations and Parties.

The draft COP 17 decision remains bracketed in its entirety, along with square brackets around “other areas of work” and “cross-cutting issues”, and the listing of all the work areas in each option. All this will now have to be negotiated at COP 17, making for a very heavy agenda, alongside the other contentious issues that could not be resolved at SBSTTA 27.

Even for the issues that were not as contentious, the recommendations adopted at SBSTTA 27 still contain a fair number of square brackets. SBSTTA 27 also adopted recommendations on biodiversity and health, biodiversity and agriculture, invasive alien species, areas of potential further work in the context of the KMGBF, and strategic review of and update to the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity in the context of the KMGBF.