Daily report for 20 October 2025

The 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 27) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened on Monday, in Panama City, Panama. Delegates addressed organizational matters before initiating discussions on: the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF); matters related to the work programme of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); and biodiversity and climate change.

Opening

SBSTTA Chair Jean Bruno Mikissa (Gabon) opened the meeting, highlighting as a key focus the provision of scientific and technical advice to support the preparation of the global review of collective progress in GBF implementation.

Noting that 55 parties have submitted national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and 3,330 GBF-aligned national targets, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary, CBD, urged delegates to accelerate efforts to provide evidence-based guidance to ensure synergies in tackling biodiversity loss and climate change.

Juan Carlos Navarro, Minister of Environment, Panama, urged adopting policy-relevant and science-based decisions that are coupled with accessible funding and deliver concrete results for people and life on Earth.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of agenda and organization of work: Delegates adopted the provisional agenda (CBD/SBSTTA/27/1) and organization of work according to the annotated provisional agenda (CBD/SBSTTA/27/1/Add.1/Rev.1) and the scenario note (CBD/SBSTTA/27/1/Add.2).

Chile, for the LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN GROUP (GRULAC), supported by EGYPT, expressed concern over the limited funding available for participation at SBSTTA 27 for representatives of developing countries, noting it is a clear disadvantage in terms of negotiating capacities and requested that working modalities reflect these limitations.

Election of officers: Canada, for the WESTERN EUROPEAN AND OTHERS GROUP (WEOG), nominated Niklaus Wagner (Switzerland). Czechia, for CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, nominated Karen Khachatryan (Armenia), with further nominations pending. Ruliyana Susanti (Indonesia) was elected as rapporteur.

Planning, Monitoring, Reporting and Review: Global Review of Collective Progress in the Implementation of the GBF

The Secretariat introduced the relevant documents CBD/SBSTTA/27/2, INF/4/Rev.1, and INF/5.

Hesiquio Benítez (Mexico), Co-Chair of the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (AHSTAG) for the Preparation of the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the GBF, described the peer-review process to deliver the annotated outline for the global report. Many delegates said that the annotated outline can be the basis for further discussions.

Zimbabwe, for the AFRICAN GROUP, and SWEDEN, pointed to technical challenges with the CBD online reporting tool, and requested strengthening it to enable a balanced and inclusive review. CUBA and SUDAN pointed out connectivity issues to properly participate in online CBD activities.

CANADA, SWITZERLAND, DENMARK, SPAIN, GERMANY, SWEDEN, BELGIUM, and others proposed additional language in the draft recommendation to urge parties to update their NBSAPs. They further urged, with the UK, TOGO, SUDAN, NORWAY, and others, for timely submission of comprehensive national reports.

CANADA, DENMARK, SWEDEN, the NETHERLANDS, GERMANY, CHINA, and others urged aligning the annotated outline with agreed language and guidelines provided in CBD Decision 16/32. CHINA, GERMANY, and others stressed that the review should not reopen discussions on agreed language nor negotiation on new targets. The DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO and FIJI emphasized that the review should be an inclusive and gender-responsive process, which includes evidence from multiple sources.

JAPAN and others suggested that the annotated outline include an analysis of the extent to which global targets are addressed in national targets. FRANCE urged clearly indicating that the report will analyze collective implementation of GBF targets. SWITZERLAND, supported by DENMARK and HUNGARY, stressed that the analysis of collective progress should include a summary on the state of implementation of each GBF target based on headline and binary indicators.

JAPAN and NEW ZEALAND urged that the global report highlight effective measures and successes in addition to challenges. BRAZIL called for a detailed section on institutional, financial, and technological obstacles, as well as the effective integration of perspectives, knowledge, and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs). NEW ZEALAND, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, and DENMARK called for inclusion of a section addressing key messages and a summary for policymakers.

SPAIN called for including a concise summary of the state of biodiversity and drivers of biodiversity loss. MOROCCO suggested using qualitative as well as quantitative analyses, in particular to highlight developing countries’ successes, challenges, and needs. The UK supported an analysis of challenges for all parties and specific challenges for developing countries.

INDIA, URUGUAY, NORWAY, FINLAND, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and others stressed that national data, especially the seventh national reports, should be the primary sources of information. URUGUAY and SPAIN stressed that global databases are not substitutes for national data, cautioning against conclusions misaligned with national realities. SWEDEN, GHANA, and others urged including commitments and contributions of non-state actors, including IPLCs, women, and youth. FINLAND underscored that the primary objective of the review, in addition to assessing progress, is to drive action toward implementation gaps. TANZANIA indicated the need to strengthen sharing of information, best practices, and lessons learned. BRAZIL emphasized that the review must remain facilitative and non-punitive. NEW ZEALAND highlighted that the target-by-target analysis of global progress should take into account all relevant sources, with SWEDEN, MEXICO, COLOMBIA, INDIA, MOROCCO, and several other parties referencing also traditional knowledge.

ARGENTINA expressed concerns regarding inputs by non-state actors, with respect to data quality and reliability, data fragmentation and lack of coordination, and possible weakening of the biodiversity governance architecture. COLOMBIA noted that data in national reports should be verifiable and comparable. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION proposed adding a section on limitations, to note incomplete national information, and urged that any global data used be verifiable and pre-approved by parties. BANGLADESH and YEMEN underscored challenges in collecting national data, especially disaggregated data.

The AFRICAN GROUP called for robust financial resource analysis. SWITZERLAND opined that a summary of provision of means of implementation should be based on all relevant information and financial flows, with FRANCE and DENMARK calling for the summary to address national reporting against Targets 18 (harmful incentives), 19 (mobilize USD 200 billion annually for biodiversity from all sources) and 20 (financial resources). BRAZIL underscored that subsidies should not be conflated with other financial obligations under the Convention and suggested, with EGYPT, including an analysis of potential implementation costs per target. JORDAN, CUBA, and others stressed the need to consider the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Several parties, including SUDAN, LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and DJIBOUTI, stressed the importance of analyses of gaps in finance, science and technology transfer, and capacity building. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA noted the review should take into account whether financial and technical support has been provided to parties in a timely manner, and emphasized the value of participatory processes in defining national biodiversity targets and strategies. GUATEMALA stressed that developing countries’ delays meeting the deadlines “do not reflect a lack of commitment but rather structural limitations” that require support. TÜRKIYE and others drew attention to national efforts toward GBF implementation.

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL noted that certain elements, including possible pathways and actions to overcome challenges and support GBF implementation, seem to fall outside AHSTAG’s mandate.

The INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS FORUM ON BIODIVERSITY urged integration of the data collection and monitoring systems of IPLCs in national and global reporting processes. CBD WOMEN’S CAUCUS, the GLOBAL YOUTH BIODIVERSITY NETWORK, and the INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE proposed enabling IPLCs, women, and youth to contribute information to the global review, including through a multi-stakeholder informal technical dialogue, and by transmission of their contributions to the AHSTAG.

Chair Mikissa established a contact group for further discussion. The group met in the evening to discuss the main concerns expressed by delegates and identify ways forward.

Matters related to the Work Programme of IPBES

Luthando Dziba, IPBES Executive Secretary, reaffirmed IPBES’ commitment to supporting the CBD and other biodiversity-related conventions by strengthening the science–policy interface, making scientific findings more accessible to policymakers.

The Secretariat introduced the relevant documents CBD/SBSTTA/27/3, Add.1, Add.2, and Add.3. Many delegates welcomed the work of IPBES, including the thematic assessments and summary for policymakers of the Nexus and Transformative Change Assessments. Many praised IPBES for integrating multiple scientific disciplines and Indigenous and local knowledges, stressing the importance of effectively communicating findings across scales and stakeholders.

Malawi for the AFRICAN GROUP, CANADA, DENMARK, COLOMBIA, INDONESIA, and others, called for enhanced collaboration among the CBD, IPBES, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and drew attention to synergies among climate, biodiversity, health, agriculture, and other areas.

Several parties underscored the need to bridge the science-policy divide. CANADA and ICELAND called for adding concrete actions in the draft recommendation, while SWITZERLAND proposed compiling parties’ and stakeholders’ views and experiences in applying nexus and transformative change principles when implementing the GBF. The AFRICAN GROUP called for stronger representation of African experts. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION urged diversifying authors and experts. MALAYSIA called for activities on data and knowledge management to be guided by principles of access and benefit-sharing.

The AFRICAN GROUP, SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, GHANA, EGYPT, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, JAPAN, NORWAY, and MOROCCO called for simple, clear, and implementable recommendations to facilitate uptake in national policy contexts.

DENMARK, SWEDEN, SPAIN, the NETHERLANDS, GERMANY, NEW ZEALAND, CZECHIA, and others supported the draft recommendation with amendments to reinforce the value of IPBES outputs. CAMEROON called for the draft recommendation to welcome the two upcoming methodological assessments that IPBES is undertaking, on monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people and on integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and ecological connectivity.

GUATEMALA and SURINAME stressed that transformative change requires finance, technical assistance, and capacity-building for developing countries. DENMARK, the UK, GERMANY, and others called for integrating IPBES deliverables in the regional and subregional support centers to implement the GBF. 

ARGENTINA cautioned that the growing scientific and technical role of IPBES in relation to the CBD is “distorting the function of SBSTTA.”

Observers called for the inclusion of references to Indigenous people, local communities, women, and youth, as well as to right-holders in the draft recommendation. 

SBSTTA Chair Mikissa noted a conference room paper will be prepared for further consideration.

Biodiversity and Climate Change

 The Secretariat introduced the relevant documents CBD/SBSTTA/27/4, INF/8, and INF/11. South Africa, for the AFRICAN GROUP, requested the Secretariat to invite parties to review the “Expanded Supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction,” noting that many African countries could not properly participate in the online consultation due to technical difficulties. EGYPT welcomed the supplement voluntary guidelines and further cooperation with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

DENMARK welcomed the multilevel roadmap outlining a phased approach for enhancing policy coherence and cooperation across the Rio Conventions.

In the Corridors

Convening at challenging times with multiple pressures on multilateral institutions and science, opening interventions at the 27th session of SBSTTA highlighted the importance of reviewing GBF implementation and the crucial role of robust scientific evidence to that end. By mid-morning, delegates had already gotten into the nitty-gritty of the work to provide a solid basis for measuring ongoing progress toward GBF implementation. While many commended the ongoing work, several made proposals to strengthen the review process and address its limitations.

A delegate for instance lamented that the annotated outline that would provide the basis for the global review only gathers information about the “what,” that is, the state of GBF implementation, and not the “why” or the “so what,” that is, a deeper understanding of the barriers to implementation and the actions needed to address them. In a similar vein, many delegates highlighted the challenges faced by developing countries, indicating that delays in submitting national reports or NBSAPs do not reflect “a lack of commitment,” but rather “a structural limitation,” with insufficient finance being a recurring concern.