By Kazi Amdadul Hoque
28 October, 2026
Reviewing Targets and Protocols
COP17 Armenia conducted the first global
review of the collective implementation progress of the Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). The KMGBF sets out 23 global biodiversity targets which are to be completed by 2030 in
line with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access
and Benefit Sharing (ABS). Targets 2 and 3, i.e. restoring 30% of all degraded
ecosystems and conserving and effectively managing 30% of land, waters, and
seas, respectively, took precedence in the KMGBF discussions. There has also
been significant discourse on how KMGBF can be financed, how actors and
stakeholders responsible for it can be accountable, and how its credibility can
be ensured.
Strengthening biosafety by monitoring
living modified organisms (LMO), reduction of invasive alien species,
compliance and accountability, monitoring and evaluation, and ensuring gender
equality and a gender-responsive approach for biodiversity action were also discussed.
There was little difference in technical opinion on biodiversity protection, but
there is hesitation in resource mobilisation and funding implementation.
These conversations generated three critical
questions:
Who will finance restoration and
conservation, and if so, how much should be allocated? How can we ensure
continued implementation and accountability of the funding and action? How can
global decisions be transferred to national and local levels measurably? The commitment to address these grand questions is there, but the scale,
strength, and pace of the decisions are not enough. One reason is the slow
implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP)
adopted by countries around the world. Another reason is the current economic
and geopolitical trend. Their connection to biodiversity damage is not talked
about enough.
The current global biodiversity funding gap
stands at 700 billion USD. The GEF-9 Replenishment
was announced, where new countries pledged to close to 4.4 billion USD. This barely
scratches the surface of the gap. The CALI
Fund, adopted at COP16 Cali, Colombia, garnered a lot of attention. It was
initially created to collect private-sector contributions from industries that
rely on genetic data in nature, for example, big pharma, biotech companies,
cosmetics giants, etc. However, voluntary contributions have been meagre. No
major corporation contributed to the CALI Fund. Participants mainly talked
about ensuring fair and equitable commercialisation and benefit-sharing of genetic
data.
The polarity of financing perspectives is a
recurring challenge that raised questions. Developing countries seek
international finance to do the work. Developed countries, on the other hand, urged
diversification of funding sources. But how can we generate financial
mechanisms that ensure direct access to local communities? How can we combine
grants, loans, and other financial instruments to develop these mechanisms? How
can we achieve more transparency in these processes?
Biodiversity Protection and the Rights
of Nature and People
Target 18 of the KMGBF, which is reducing
incentives and subsidies harmful to biodiversity by at least 500 billion USD (for
example, phasing out pesticides) and introducing positive incentives without
affecting biodiversity, was up for debate and requires strong political will. This
also applies to biodiversity-protected areas. There are calls to ensure improved
and practical ecosystem development, biodiversity protection coordinated with
livelihoods, community rights, and equitable governance.
One way is to acknowledge the legal rights
of nature. Advocates explained how ecosystems and species have legal rights
just like humans. This puts nature as a living entity at equal legal footing
with humans, not as their property, such as Panama's Rights of Nature Law
adopted in 2023. Corporations harming these rights would be violating the law. Such
perspectives and laws can better support conservation and biodiversity
protection, but inclusive implementation with women, youth, and indigenous
communities is important here.
Aligning Actions Around the Rio
Conventions
Integrating climate action and biodiversity
action without duplicating mandates is fundamental if we are to address all
three Rio Conventions – climate change,
desertification, and biodiversity. There was no
structured discourse on Rio synergy in the conference.
Friendship's integrated climate adaptation
solutions using mangroves was well-appreciated as it meets all three Rio
Convention objectives. Mangroves are adept at carbon sequestration, which meets
climate change goals. Restoring mangroves also restores biodiversity and local
livelihoods, which meets CBD goals. Mangroves
also protect land from erosion and degradation, which combats desertification. Since
biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, carbon storage and
sequestration, erosion control, disaster reduction, and sustainable livelihoods
overlap between all three Rio Conventions, they should be addressed together.
There were talks about carbon trading and
how local communities can participate and benefit from carbon trading
marketplaces. If their ownership, stake, and decision-making remain, they can
manage natural resources best without overexploitation. It will allow countries
to maintain the carbon credit trade and reduce emissions sustainably. For
Bangladesh to make use of this market, mangrove restoration and wetland
conservation are great areas to start.
A Promising but Uncertain COP
The use of technology and AI in developing
biodiversity information systems was met with optimism. Armenia and Colombia
jointly committed to finance endangered species conservation through private
sector engagement. There is hope to achieve all 23
targets by 2030, but things still do not look too good.
From a Global South perspective, we raised
concerns about how biodiversity conservation should complement livelihoods,
respect community experiences, and engage people of faith. We must consider the
Rio synergies, and we must ensure multi-stakeholder governance and multilateral
cooperation. We urged governments and experts to create a structured method to
measure impact on ecosystem recovery, species conservation status, livelihood
resilience outcomes, and equitable benefit sharing. Science should be able to
influence policymaking and economics and create tripartite solutions. We have
committed to nature, to the world, and to the people with the KMGBF. Without
its implementation, we are failing ourselves.
Will the global review lead to stronger,
measurable action before 2030? Will biodiversity finance and governance
genuinely empower local communities? COP17 must move beyond reaffirming the
ambition of Montreal. The world does not need another declaration of concern
about biodiversity loss. While we saw great progress in technical aspects, the
success of that progress truly depends on political consensus. If governments
together can adopt these technical perspectives and put them into proper
funding pathways, policy and practice, there is hope for the future of
biodiversity.