Highlights and images for 27 May 2024

As the fourth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation entered its last stretch, with the final gavel on Wednesday in sight, delegates started discussions on the conference room papers (CRPs), which include the draft recommendations to the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The day was devoted to the financial mechanism and review of implementation, including progress in the preparation of revised or updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and the establishment of national targets in alignment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Want to dig deeper into today's talks? Read the full Earth Negotiations Bulletin daily report.

On the CRP on review of implementation, discussions covered the preamble before ultimately parking further considerations, following little agreement. Delegates expressed diverging opinions on whether to include specific references to the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People and the NBSAP Accelerator Partnership.

A lengthy discussion took place on a paragraph recognizing with concern the challenges that many parties face in revising or updating their NBSAPs, including needed financial support. Many parties urged reflecting that some “have not received or have been denied financial support.” With no agreement in sight, despite suggestions for compromise language, the provision was shelved for later discussion.

Further disagreement arose on a paragraph stressing with concern that the provision of means of implementation to developing country parties since adopting the GBF has not been commensurate with the challenges faced by those countries, and that the level of funding made available to the GBF Fund is not sufficient for GBF implementation. Some preferred addressing the provision under the financial mechanism, strongly opposed by others who stressed the links between the provision of implementation means, the revision or updating of NBSAPs, and relevant obligations under the CBD.

On the CRP on the financial mechanism, regarding a provision addressing the role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in operating as the CBD financial mechanism on an interim and ongoing basis, some opposed “ongoing,” and language remained bracketed. Similar was the fate of suggestions clarifying that there are steps yet to be taken for the GBF Fund to become fully operational, with delegates holding diverging views.

Delegates could not agree on a provision noting with concern the lack of project proposals on Cartagena Protocol implementation and the limited number on Nagoya Protocol implementation, which remained bracketed.

Provisions noting with concern the lack of funds made available to the GBF Fund and the exclusion of a number of eligible parties from access to GEF support were also bracketed.

Disagreement also arose on the draft recommendation section pertaining to the GBF Fund, including on whether to include the numerical value of current contributions.

Delegates did find common ground on less controversial suggestions for amendments. Chair Reddy noted that all controversial provisions would be bracketed.

Many delegates expressed concern on the way forward, stressing that not all agenda items under SBI 4 can be considered at this pace. Chair Reddy stressed that the Bureau will be deliberating on these concerns early on Tuesday morning prior to plenary.

In the evening, the contact group on resource mobilization continued its work, with many expressing concerns on the way forward, before deciding to focus their consideration on a limited number of contentious issues.