TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Nov25/05)
21 November 2025
Third World Network

CBD: Parties bicker over IPBES’ transformative change and nexus assessments

London, 19 Nov (Lim Li Ching) – Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), at a subsidiary body meeting, could not agree on whether to “welcome” or “take note of” two recent thematic assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

This issue dominated, preventing a much more substantive discussion from occurring and leaving a heavily bracketed text – indicating disagreement – to be forwarded to the Conference of the Parties (COP).

[The CBD Parties were convening at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 27), from 24^th to 27^th October 2025, in Panama City. The seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) is scheduled to be held in October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.]

This is despite the Parties previously welcoming, in Decision 15/19 in 2022, the efforts of IPBES to undertake these assessments, as well as their important scientific contributions for the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).

IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body established by States to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development. As at April 2025, it has 150 Member States, all of whom, with the exception of the United States, are Parties to the CBD.

The two thematic assessments are of the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health (“nexus assessment”), and the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity (“transformative change assessment”). The summaries for policymakers of the two assessments were approved at the IPBES Plenary in December 2024, which also accepted their chapters.

SBSTTA had been requested by the CBD Parties in Decision 16/11 of 2024 to consider the IPBES outputs with regard to the relevance of their findings and implications for the work undertaken under the Convention, and for the development of recommendations to the COP.

While IPBES assessments and the summaries for policymakers are accepted and approved, respectively, by its Member States, the assessments are written by selected scientists and knowledge holders that have been nominated by Governments and relevant stakeholders.

The transformative change and nexus assessments come at a time when biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented pace and when urgent government action is needed to reverse this trend. Both assessments provide important scientific evidence, analyses and options for action that are valuable for CBD Parties.

These two assessments broadly resonated with many observers, which is not always the case with IPBES assessments, depending on the topic, scope and authors involved. One key shared insight is that most efforts to halt biodiversity loss to date have failed because they target symptoms rather than the systemic and structural issues driving ecological destruction.

The transformative change assessment points to the underlying causes of biodiversity destruction, namely disconnection from and domination over nature and people; concentration of power and wealth; and prioritization of short-term, individual and material gains. It provides principles to guide transformative change – namely, equity and justice, pluralism and inclusion, respectful and reciprocal human-nature relationships, and adaptive learning and action.

The nexus assessment reinforces that biodiversity loss, climate change, water scarcity, food insecurity, and health risks are interconnected crises that require coordinated, cross-sectoral action.

As such, the IPBES assessments collectively offer a pathway for effective ways to address biodiversity destruction and interconnected crises – by confronting the underlying structural constraints that cut across sectors and crises. At the same time, they clarify that upholding rights and equity is foundational to achieving sustainable and just outcomes.

When the agenda item was opened for discussion at SBSTTA 27, there was overwhelming support from the Parties for the assessments, including from the African Group. Many Parties welcomed the assessments and asked that the draft decision reflect in more detail the principles, strategies and actions of the transformative change assessment, and the response options of the nexus assessment.

Observers noted that the reasons why the assessments were broadly welcomed may differ among the Parties. Some may indeed support the profound implications of effecting transformative change by addressing the structural economic and political barriers to change.

Others, in their support, may have different ideas of how addressing the concentration of power and wealth, or ensuring equity and justice, for example, could be achieved in real terms.

Still others may support the suite of actions proposed by the assessments, which are broad and general and provide something for everyone, but may run the risk of being reformist rather than transformative.

Nonetheless, Parties also called for further elaboration to encourage policy uptake of the assessments’ approaches, with several developing country Parties highlighting the means of implementation by which to do so. Some Parties offered suggestions that could improve the translation of the technical assessments to national policies, for example through concise policy-relevant key messages or practical and actionable guidance.

Several Parties, under the discussions on the IPBES agenda item and other relevant agenda items, called for the assessments to be also highlighted and their findings integrated across other relevant agenda items that SBSSTA 27 was considering. These were the items on biodiversity and climate change, biodiversity and health, and biodiversity and agriculture.

Egypt asked for a pathway and process so that the findings of the assessments could be taken up in the work of the CBD and KMGBF, including consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI). Others, such as South Africa, Switzerland, the UK and Iceland, similarly made calls for better integration of the assessments into the programmes of work of the CBD and/or implementation of the KMGBF.  

However, Argentina, Brazil and the Russian Federation proposed that the draft decision only “takes note of” the relevant IPBES documents. Argentina pointed out that at the time of publication of the SBSTTA agenda item document, only the summary for policymakers of the nexus assessment was available. As such, it could not welcome the assessment.

Furthermore, in Argentina’s view, the assessments were unbalanced, too policy-prescriptive and risked distorting the function of the SBSTTA to provide scientific advice. Argentina called for the deletion of several operative paragraphs in the draft decision, which would effectively gut it of any substantive recommendations in relation to the promotion and implementation of approaches in line with the findings of the assessments.

Brazil cautioned against language that could legitimize unilateral trade-related measures, and called for the draft decision to respect national circumstances and be consistent with the CBD’s scope. Its statement noted the concern that as the transformative change assessment cuts across economic, social and governance dimensions, some of its recommendations implicate policy domains and institutional processes outside the CBD’s remit.

The Russian Federation noted the uneven presentation of materials, examples and analysis across different parts of the world. It called for IPBES to further diversify the composition of authors, experts and co-chairs of the assessments.

The SBSTTA Chair (Jean Bruno Mikissa from Gabon) indicated that a conference room paper (CRP) would be prepared, reflecting the views of the Parties.

When the CRP was considered at the plenary on 22 October, however, discussions became more fractious. Argentina, Brazil and the Russian Federation, now joined by India, continued to oppose any welcoming of the assessments, and proposed that they only be taken note of. Argentina further proposed the deletion of sub-bullets that elaborated on the potential actions that Parties and other actors could take in order to promote and implement approaches in line with the assessments.

After prolonged back-and-forth on these issues, the SBSTTA Chair convened a small group of interested Parties to try to come to agreement on the relevant paragraphs (paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5). The small group comprised Argentina, Brazil, Czechia, the European Union, Malawi, the Russian Federation, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

In the meantime, paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of the draft decision were approved with amendments. Paragraph 3 encouraged coordination and cooperation across relevant multilateral environmental agreements, international organizations and stakeholders working on biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 dealt with the forthcoming second IPBES global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Respectively, they welcomed the approval of its undertaking and future consideration by the IPBES Plenary in 2028, and encouraged Parties, other Governments and other stakeholders to engage in its preparation.

However, when the CRP came up for consideration again in the evening of the last day of the meeting, the Chair reported that the small group was unable to reach consensus. While the verbs involved in the contentious paragraphs may pivot around “welcomes” or “takes note of”, some of the concerns behind these, as raised by Argentina, Brazil and the Russian Federation, are valid considerations. It however appears that these concerns could not be sufficiently addressed.

Given the late hour and the fact that the remaining paragraphs of the draft decision had not even been considered yet by the plenary, the Chair proposed that those paragraphs that were still contested and/or that had not been considered be bracketed. This means that only three of the 10 paragraphs of the draft decision are clean text.

Because of the lack of time, the approved CRP document was immediately submitted as an L-doc (final document) for adoption. This procedure was applied to this and several other agenda items, whereby CRPs were converted immediately to L-docs, with bracketed text just reflecting what was in the CRPs. (In usual practice, Parties would have had the chance to review the L-docs and make further amendments if necessary.)

As such, when COP 17 meets in 2026, it will have quite a task ahead to resolve the disagreements. Regrettably, the opportunity for CBD Parties to really confront and elaborate on actions within their remit to address the underlying causes of biodiversity destruction was missed. Also missed was the chance to discuss any valid concerns and address them in future IPBES assessments. +