Summary report, 9–16 December 2024

11th Session of the IPBES Plenary and Stakeholder Day

Biodiversity—the diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems—is deteriorating worldwide at rates unprecedented in human history. Now more than ever, transformative change is necessary to address both the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and in doing so, ensure synergies with closely interlinked elements such as water, food, health, and the climate.

Established in 2012, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) plays a key role in bridging science and policy for informing action to combat biodiversity loss, including through the publication of assessment reports to inform decision making.

The 11th session of the IPBES Plenary (IPBES 11) launched two new key assessment reports, one on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food, and health (Nexus Assessment) and one on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, determinants of transformative change, and options for achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (Transformative Change Assessment).

Key messages of the Nexus Assessment include:

Global trends in a wide range of indirect drivers have intensified direct drivers of biodiversity loss and caused negative outcomes for biodiversity, water availability and quality, food security and nutrition, and health, and contributed to climate change;
Nexus-wide benefits with positive outcomes for people and nature are feasible in the future, but achieving the highest levels of positive outcomes across all nexus elements is challenging;
Synergistic response options are already available to actors in multiple sectors for sustainably managing biodiversity, water, food, health, and climate change;
Transforming current siloed modes of governance through more integrative, inclusive, equitable, accountable, coordinated, and adaptive approaches enables successful implementation of response options; and
Gaps in finance to meet biodiversity needs are USD 0.3–1 trillion per year, and additional investment needs to meet the Sustainable Development Goals most directly related to water, food, health and climate change are at least USD 4 trillion per year.

Key Messages of the Transformative Change Assessment include:

Transformative change for a just and sustainable world is urgent and necessary to address the global interconnected crises related to biodiversity loss, nature’s decline and the projected collapse of key ecosystem functions;
Equity and justice, pluralism and inclusion, respectful and reciprocal human-nature relationships, and adaptive learning and action guide the process of deliberate transformative change;
Weaving together insights from diverse approaches and knowledge systems enhances strategies and actions for transformative change;
Shifting dominant societal views and values to recognize and prioritize human-nature interconnectedness is a powerful strategy for transformative change; and
Transformative change is system-wide, therefore, to achieve it requires a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach that engages all actors and sectors in visioning and contributing collaboratively to transformative change.

Delegates also approved a scoping report for a second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services, agreeing that the assessment will contain five chapters on: setting the scene, different knowledge systems and the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, status and trends, future pathways, and options for action. The assessment is expected to hold its first author meeting in the third quarter of 2025, and to finalize draft chapters and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) to be presented to IPBES-15 in the third or fourth quarter of 2028.

Delegates further adopted work plans for the objectives: building capacity, strengthening the knowledge foundations, and policy support tools and methodologies of the rolling work programme up to 2030. They also accepted the UK’s offer to host IPBES 12, tentatively scheduled for January 2026.

IPBES 11 was considered to be an unprecedentedly challenging meeting, with difficult and protracted negotiations on the Nexus Assessment in particular. With various Member States expressing their concerns that the process had suffered from a “loss of trust,” delegates urged each other to learn lessons from IPBES 11 so that future sessions can avoid similar dynamics in the future.

IPBES 11 convened from 10-16 December 2024, in Windhoek, Namibia. On 9 December, Stakeholder Day brought together scientists, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and representatives of civil society organizations to discuss issues on the IPBES 11 agenda. In total, 896 delegates registered for the meeting, which allowed for both in-person and virtual participation.

A Brief History of IPBES

IPBES is an independent, intergovernmental body established in 2012 to provide evidence-based and policy-relevant information to decision makers regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems, and the benefits they provide to people. The Platform’s work is divided into four functions:

developing assessments on specific themes or methodological issues at global and regional scales;
providing policy support through the development of tools and methodologies, and facilitating their use;
building the capacity and knowledge of members; and
ensuring impact through an effective communication and outreach strategy.

The Platform’s main governing body is the IPBES Plenary composed of Member State representatives. Non-Member States, UN organizations, non-governmental organizations, and other organizations and stakeholders can attend as observers. The work of the Plenary is supported by the Bureau overseeing the Platform’s administrative functions, and the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) overseeing the Platform’s scientific and technical functions. To date, the Platform has 147 Member States.

Stakeholder Days have been organized prior to every session of the IPBES Plenary to provide a forum for stakeholder engagement. These events bring together stakeholders from scientific organizations, Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), and civil society to receive updates about the work and intersessional activities of IPBES, exchange views regarding the issues on the agenda, and coordinate stakeholder statements and positions on specific issues.

Key Turning Points

IPBES was established as a result of a consultative process initiated in response to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the first state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the conditions and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, which was conducted from 2001 to 2005. In January 2005, the Paris Conference on Biodiversity, Science, and Governance proposed to initiate consultations to assess the need, scope, and possible form of an international mechanism of scientific expertise on biodiversity as part of the follow-up process to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

IMoSEB Process: Supported by the Government of France, the consultative process on an International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) was conducted through an International Steering Committee and a series of regional consultations from 2005 to 2007. At its final meeting in November 2007, the Steering Committee invited donors and governments to provide support for the further consideration of the establishment of a science-policy interface. It also invited the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and others to convene a meeting to consider establishing such an interface.

Following this invitation, stakeholders also agreed that the follow-up to the IMoSEB process and the MA follow-up process initiated under UNEP in 2007 should merge. A joint meeting took place in March 2008 to develop a common approach. During the same year, the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) welcomed the decision of the UNEP Executive Director to convene an Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on an IPBES and requested the CBD Ad Hoc Working Group on Review of Implementation to consider the meeting’s outcomes. From 2008 to 2010, the establishment of a science-policy interface was further discussed in a series of Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Multi-Stakeholder Meetings.

Plenary for an IPBES: The modalities and institutional arrangements of IPBES were negotiated at two sessions of an intergovernmental “Plenary for an IPBES,” established as an interim body. At the first session (October 2011, Nairobi, Kenya), delegates considered the platform’s functions and operating principles, work programme, and legal issues relating to its establishment and operationalization. At the second session (April 2012, Panama City, Panama), delegates considered the functions and structures of bodies that might be established under the platform, rules of procedure, and the platform’s work programme. Delegates selected Bonn, Germany, as the physical location of the IPBES Secretariat and adopted a resolution formally establishing IPBES.

Antalya Consensus: The first two sessions of the IPBES Plenary (January 2013, Bonn, Germany, and December 2013, Antalya, Turkey) focused on developing the Platform’s structure and processes. IPBES 2 adopted the Antalya Consensus, which included decisions on the development of a work programme for 2014-2018. Delegates also adopted a conceptual framework considering different knowledge systems, and rules and procedures for the Platform on, inter alia, the preparation of the Platform’s assessments and other deliverables.

First Work Programme: The first IPBES work programme (2014-2018) was adopted at the Platform’s third Plenary session (January 2015, Bonn, Germany) together with the stakeholder engagement strategy, a communication and outreach strategy, and the Platform’s rules of procedure. With these decisions, IPBES became fully operational and able to initiate its first assessments.

The following assessments were produced during the first work programme:

Thematic Assessment on Pollinators, Pollination, and Food Production (IPBES 4, February 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia);
Methodological Assessment on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 4);
Regional Assessments of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the Americas, and Europe and Central Asia (IPBES-6, March 2018, Medellín, Colombia);
Thematic Assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES 6); and
Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 7, May 2019, Paris, France).

Other outputs produced by the Platform during the first work programme included:

the IPBES Capacity-building Rolling Plan;
a Guide to the Production of Assessments;
a Catalogue of Policy Support Tools and Methodologies, Experts, and Partners; and
a Communication and Outreach Strategy.

Rolling Work Programme up to 2030: The IPBES Rolling Work Programme up to 2030 was adopted at the Platform’s seventh Plenary session (May 2019, Paris, France). It includes new assessments on: the nexus between biodiversity and water, food, and health; the determinants of transformative change; the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity; and a technical report on biodiversity and climate change intended to be prepared jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Recent Meetings

IPBES 7: At its seventh session (29 April-4 May 2019, Paris, France), IPBES approved the SPM and accepted the chapters of the Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the first intergovernmental global assessment of this kind and the first comprehensive assessment since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was released in 2005. IPBES-7 further adopted the IPBES rolling work programme up to 2030.

IPBES 8: At its eighth session (14-24 June 2021, virtual), IPBES approved the scoping reports for thematic assessments of: the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health (nexus assessment); and the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, determinants of transformative change, and options for achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (transformative change assessment).

IPBES 9: At its ninth session (3-9 July 2022, Bonn, Germany), IPBES approved the SPM and accepted the chapters of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species (sustainable use assessment), and the methodological assessment of the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (values assessment). It also approved the scoping report for a methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (business and biodiversity assessment).

IPBES 10: At its tenth session (28 August – 2 September 2023, Bonn, Germany), IPBES approved the SPM and accepted the chapters of the thematic assessment of invasive alien species and their control. IPBES 10 further approved the scoping process for a second global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services; the undertaking of a fast-track methodological assessment on biodiversity, inclusive spatial planning, and ecological connectivity; and the undertaking of a fast-track methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

IPBES 11 Report

IPBES Chair David Obura opened the 11th session of the IPBES Plenary on Tuesday, 10 December. It was preceded by the IPBES Stakeholder Day on Monday, 9 December, which provided an opportunity for non-governmental stakeholders to present their activities to support IPBES and discuss their engagement in the Platform.

Anne Larigauderie, IPBES Executive Secretary, emphasized the value and impact of IPBES’ work, including recent recognition by receiving the 2024 Blue Planet Prize, and highlighted the significance of the Nexus and Transformative Change Assessments, stressing that they together address the most critical issues that the world needs to solve.

Speaking on behalf of IPBES’ four UN partners, Antonio De Sousa Abreu, UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), stressed that IPBES assessments have been instrumental for a whole-of-society approach in building a comprehensive knowledge base for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). He highlighted the partners’ contributions to IPBES’ work and emphasized that the upcoming assessments will serve as a navigational map toward living in harmony with nature.

Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary, CBD, described the important intersections between the work of IPBES and the CBD in providing a robust knowledge base on biodiversity. Upon highlighting positive outcomes from the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties of the CBD (COP16), held in Cali, Colombia, she urged delegates at IPBES 11 to roll up their sleeves to fill the remaining gap between “the policies the world needs and the policies it currently gets.”

Pohamba Penomwenyo Shifeta, Minister of Environment, Forestry and Tourism, Namibia, underscored Namibia’s unwavering commitment to environmental stewardship, including by enshrining environmental protection in its national constitution and its thriving network of community-managed conservancies. He stressed the importance of including local communities in conservation strategies, including by halting the detrimental effects of poaching and encouraging the environmental and socio-economic benefits associated with “conservation hunting,” erstwhile known as trophy hunting.

IPBES Chair Obura outlined priorities for IPBES 11, in particular approving: the SPM for the Nexus and Transformative Change Assessments, and the scoping report for the second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Participants offered regional and stakeholder statements.

Organizational Matters

Adoption of the agenda and organization of work: On Tuesday, 10 December, IPBES Chair Obura introduced the provisional agenda (IPBES/11/1 and IPBES/11/1/Add.1) and provided an overview of the organization of work, including the establishment of two Working Groups (WGs) to continue discussing substantive issues and a contact group to focus on financial and budgetary issues. WG 1 was co-chaired by Douglas Beard (Western European and Others Group, WEOG) and Bishwa Nagh Oli (Asia-Pacific). WG 2 was co-chaired by Eeva Primmer (WEOG), Hesiquio Benítez Díaz (Latin American and Caribbean Group, GRULAC), and Sebsebe Demissew Woodmatas (African Group).

BRAZIL underscored a disproportionate burden on small delegations, reserving the right to reopen in plenary any document negotiated in a WG that they cannot participate in. Delegates adopted the agenda and organization of work.

Election of officers: Delegates elected Hesiquio Benítez Díaz (Mexico) as Bureau member to fill a vacant seat for GRULAC. Delegates further elected Paulina Stowhas Salinas (Chile) and Ruleo Camacho (Antigua and Barbuda) as alternate Bureau members.

Status of membership: Delegates welcomed four new IPBES members, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Seychelles, and Somalia, bringing the total to 147.

Admission of observers: IPBES Members welcomed 15 new observers as recommended by the Bureau (IPBES/11/2 and 11/INF/3) and decided to continue using the interim procedure for observers’ admission for IPBES 12.

Credentials: On Monday, 16 December, Maria Socorro Manguiat, IPBES Legal Adviser, reported that 97 IPBES members had registered to participate at IPBES 11, with 73 of them submitting valid credentials. Delegates approved the report.

Nexus Assessment

On Tuesday, 10 December, Chair Obura introduced the relevant documents (IPBES/11/5, 11/INF/1, and 11/INF/5). Members agreed to assign consideration of the assessment to WG 1 and to use the Chair’s note (IPBES/11/Other/1) and the draft decision, as contained in IPBES/11/1/Add.2, as a basis for their deliberations.

WG 1 addressed the Nexus Assessment on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Negotiations on the SPM of the Nexus Assessment were challenging with delegates offering amendments to the text according to national priorities. The most contentious themes included discussions around: sustainable consumption, in particular around meat; armed conflicts leading to biodiversity loss; and language around repurposing subsidies and its trade implications. Further, the inclusion of climate change within the title of the Assessment also sparked heated debates. Some delegates emphasized that climate change is the only nexus element missing from the title, while others insisted on retaining the title as was agreed in the scoping report for the assessment.

Following a suggestion by WG 1 Co-Chair Beard, delegates first focused on the SPM’s background messages before moving to the key messages. Lengthy, sentence-by-sentence negotiations on the background messages allowed agreed language to be used on the key messages. Still, deliberations were difficult with delegates working into the night throughout the week and doubling the originally allocated negotiating time in an effort to reach consensus.

Informal discussions under Friends of the Chair groups were also needed to reach consensus, including on: the assessment’s title, in particular whether to refer to climate change given that it was the only nexus element not included; whether to refer to the complex and interconnected character of “crises,” such as biodiversity loss, water availability and quality, and food insecurity, health risks, and climate change; and the content and format of tables and figures included in the SPM.

Delegates devoted a considerable amount of time to discussing:

the risk of extinction of reef-building coral species;
nexus scenario archetypes prioritizing one nexus element over the others;
references to GBF Target 3 (conserve 30% of land, water, and seas);
“protection” versus “conservation”;
pollution as a key driver of degradation of biodiversity, water quality, and human health, and relevant response options;
the reduction and regulation of single-use plastics;
response options that address nexus interactions;
sustainable consumption patterns;
transboundary water cooperation;
specific actors’ capacities to improve nexus governance; and
approaches and synergies and trade-offs among response options.

Other issues that featured divergent views included:

food production, food trade, and their link with land use changes in exporting countries, land expansion for agriculture, and unsustainable agricultural practices;
how to refer to countries’ different levels of income and development, including whether to refer to subsets of developing countries;
climate actions that have nexus-wide benefits as well as possible unintended consequences of climate adaptation and potential implications on nexus elements of delayed climate change mitigation;
references to sustainable and ecological intensification as well as sustainable bioeconomy;
additional economic and financial resources required to implement response options;
rising global food demand, particularly from affluent societies, driving increases in agricultural production; and
economic impacts of biodiversity loss disproportionately affecting low-income developing countries.

On Monday, 16 December, in plenary, IPBES Chair Obura introduced the SPM as forwarded by WG 1 (IPBES/11/L.2). He thanked all experts involved for their work; explained the relevant rules of engagement; and provided an overview of the negotiations. He appealed to delegates not to reopen the text following the lengthy negotiations in the WG. Delegates approved the SPM and accepted its individual chapters with no further comments.

IPBES Chair Obura congratulated all participants for their hard work and dedication, and reminded them of the media embargo. He emphasized that this is one of the most significant IPBES’ reports offering tangible solutions to interrelated challenges. He added that the negotiations were tough but amplified the authors’ work. He concluded noting that stepping away from co-chairing the Nexus Assessment to act as IPBES Chair was “the hardest professional decision” he needed to take, underscoring the reward to be in a position to project and disseminate the report’s important findings.

IPBES Executive Secretary Larigauderie highlighted the invaluable contribution of IPBES’ experts, thanking them for their hard work in this “long, difficult, challenging, but also rewarding journey.” In particular, she thanked Assessment Co-Chairs Pamela McElwee (US) and Paula Harrison (UK) for their hard work and commitment, noting that the Nexus Assessment was the first assessment to be co-chaired by two women.

Co-Chair McElwee expressed her gratitude to the entire “nexus family,” including those absent, for accompanying Nexus Assessment co-authors in this “incredible process.” On a personal note, she devoted the Assessment to youth and future generations, through her nine-year-old daughter, expressing her hope that they “can build a more just and sustainable world.”

Co-Chair Harrison emphasized that the Assessment would not be possible without the large and diverse team that covered all disciplines and expertise required. She noted that “we learned a lot from each other,” bringing together a fragmented knowledge basis. She underscored that the most important part comes after the Assessment’s adoption, stressing the need to “make the most of this SPM and the underlying chapters to have the impact they deserve and help us all move toward nexus approaches.”

Astrid Schomaker, CBD Executive Secretary, congratulated IPBES on the successful adoption of the SPM of the Nexus Assessment, highlighting the need for synergistic approaches to achieve the GBF and outlining ways the report would be disseminated through the CBD process.

Final Outcome: In decision IPBES-11/1 (contained in IPBES/11/L.3), the Plenary approves the SPM of the Nexus Assessment and accepts the individual chapters of the Assessment, including their executive summaries. The SPM of the Nexus Assessment is annexed to the decision (IPBES/11/L.2), and the draft Assessment chapters are available through a link provided in document IPBES/11/INF/1.

The SPM is structured along four sections and contains 12 key messages, 27 background messages, 13 figures, two boxes, and five appendices. As stressed by Co-Chair Harrison “the Nexus Assessment is among the most ambitious work ever undertaken by the IPBES community, offering an unprecedented range of response options to move decisions and actions beyond single issue silos.”

Section A addresses past and current nexus interactions and contains the following key messages:

Biodiversity is essential to our very existence and is declining in all regions of the world and at all spatial scales;
Global trends in a wide range of indirect drivers have intensified direct drivers of biodiversity loss and have caused negative outcomes for biodiversity, water availability and quality, food security and nutrition, and health, and contributed to climate change; and
Societal, economic, and policy decisions that prioritize short-term benefits and financial returns for a small number of people, while ignoring negative impacts on biodiversity and other nexus elements, lead to unequal human well-being outcomes.

Section B addresses future nexus interactions and contains the following key messages:

Scenarios that prioritize objectives for a single element of the nexus without regard to other elements result in trade-offs across the nexus;
Nexus-wide benefits with positive outcomes for people and nature are feasible in the future, but achieving the highest levels of positive outcomes across all nexus elements is challenging; and
Scenarios focused on synergies among biodiversity, water, food, human health, and climate change have more beneficial outcomes for global policy goals than siloed policy approaches.

Section C identifies response options that address nexus interactions and contains the following key messages:

Synergistic response options are already available to actors in multiple sectors for sustainably managing biodiversity, water, food, health, and climate change;
Response options can facilitate or impede each other, leading to potential synergies and trade-offs among them; and
Response options designed to benefit multiple nexus elements support multiple goals and targets across global policy frameworks, strengthening synergies and alignment among them.

Section D addresses governing the nexus for achieving just and sustainable futures and contains the following key messages:

Transforming current siloed modes of governance through more integrative, inclusive, equitable, accountable, coordinated and adaptive approaches enables successful implementation of response options;
Gaps in finance to meet biodiversity needs are USD 0.3–1 trillion per year, and additional investment required to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) most directly related to water, food, health and climate change is at least USD 4 trillion per year; and
Nexus governance approaches, decision-making and capacity strengthening can be enhanced through a series of deliberative steps and actions, informed by diverse evidence.

Transformative Change Assessment

On Tuesday, 10 December, Chair Obura introduced the relevant documents (IPBES/11/6, 11/INF/2, and 11/INF/6). Members agreed to assign consideration of the assessment to WG 2 and agreed to use the relevant Chair’s note (IPBES/11/Other/2) and the draft decision, as contained in document IPBES/11/1/Add.2, as a basis for their deliberations.

This item was addressed by WG 2 on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Following a suggestion by WG 2 Co-Chair Eeva Primmer (WEOG), discussions first focused on the SPM’s key messages before addressing background ones. Deliberations, despite often dealing with complex issues, were efficient and productive, and allowed a timely conclusion of the negotiations. Delegates held heated discussions on, among other issues: dominant relations between nature and people with particular emphasis on “nature” vis-à-vis “the rights of nature and Mother Earth”; the role of capitalism as an underlying driver of nature’s decline and biodiversity loss; the scientific evidence on biodiversity offsets; and including reference to targeted and just downscaling of consumption and production.

Informal discussions under Friends of the Chair groups were also needed to reach consensus, including on references to Mother Earth and the content and format of tables and figures included in the SPM.

Delegates discussed various topics, including:

IPLCs and their unique connection with nature and/or Mother Earth;
encompassing diverse knowledge systems to enhance strategies and actions for transformative change;
shifting societal views and values to recognize and prioritize human-nature interconnectedness, including the use of “ethics of care”;
unquestioned habits and social norms around consumption and growth that prevent transformative change by disrupting human-nature relationships;
links between biodiversity and habitat protection and crop productivity;
the roles of relevant agents in enabling transformational change;
key strategies with substantial potential to advance deliberate transformative change for global sustainability; and
the role of values in supporting transformative change visions.

Discussions further focused on:

systemic challenges that pose barriers to transformative change, including persistent relations of domination over nature and people, and unsustainable consumption and production patterns;
“power dynamics,” “power inequalities,” or “structures,” within the international monetary and financial systems influencing biodiversity and climate finance;
transforming dominant economic and financial paradigms;
inequities between those who gain from and those who bear the costs of change;
references to “capitalism,” “materialism,” “globalization,” and “neoliberalism”; and
positive shared visions that recognize socio-ecological interdependencies.

On Monday, 16 December, in plenary, Chair Obura noted the SPM had been agreed by WG 2 the previous day and recalled the rules of engagement for participating in the WGs that had been outlined earlier in the week. Appealing to delegates not to re-open the text agreed by the WG, he invited delegates to proceed with the relevant decision.

BRAZIL stated that, as a one-person delegation, they were unable to participate in all WGs and reminded delegates that, during the opening plenary, they had reserved the right to reopen the document. Chair Obura requested the presentation of these general comments to plenary. BRAZIL suggested, among other things:

replacing “corporate due diligence and trade agreements” with “sustainability standards on a context specific basis,” in reference to government efforts to amplify civil society initiatives for transformative change;
replacing language on “repurposing resources” with “shifting towards more sustainable business models,” in relation to text on eliminating, phasing out, reforming, or redirecting economic incentives harmful to biodiversity;
deleting a paragraph on the role of mitigating ecologically unequal exchange between producer and consumer countries, regulating global supply chains to reduce their reliance on ecologically harmful extractive processes, and recommending policy instruments that impose declining caps on resource use or support not-for-profit models; and
qualifying that downscaling production and consumption “is supported by only two or three published articles,” arguing it may risk being understood as endorsing specific trade measures, which is a “red line” for his delegation.

BRAZIL further expressed concerns, but also flexibility, over the use of the concept “nature positive,” and a preference to remove text noting that “telecouplings over distance, including through trade,” may create economic incentives that obscure environmental impacts.

LUXEMBOURG, supported by EGYPT, stressed that as one-person delegations “we never complain about this.” He underscored that members must trust the voice of science, stating that “red lines do not come from us, they come from science.” EGYPT proposed that BRAZIL’s comments be added to the final report of the meeting, instead of changing the SPM’s text.

In response, BRAZIL noted that it is not his intention to question the Assessment and the hard work accomplished by the WG, but emphasized that he is exercising his right as a member in line with the rules of procedure that decisions be taken by consensus. Chair Obura proposed establishing a Friends of the Chair group with BRAZIL, Co-Chairs of the Assessment, coordinating lead authors of the affected sections, and any interested members to take place in parallel with the plenary. The NETHERLANDS, supported by GABON, BELGIUM, and FRANCE, lamented that “we are going to open a pandora’s box” given that the text in question involves also “red lines” for other delegations and expressed concern about the future of IPBES proceedings.

URUGUAY, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, CHILE, MEXICO, and the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (DRC) supported establishing a Friends of the Chair group, with the RUSSIAN FEDERATION and DRC highlighting the importance of seeking consensus on matters of substance, and other delegates, noting that BRAZIL had reserved its right to reopen text in plenary if their comments had not been considered in the proceedings of the WG.

Discussions continued in a Friends of the Chair group behind closed doors. Luthando Dziba, MEP Member, reported back from deliberations in the Friends of the Chair group, stating that the group had reached an amicable agreement to make four changes to the text of the SPM as follows:

replacing the “repurposing” of subsidies with “eliminating, phasing out, or reforming” subsidies to economic sectors driving nature decline;
modifying text on a background message referring to efforts to conserve, restore, and sustainably use nature being under-resourced to read “eliminating, phasing out, or reforming economic incentives harmful to biodiversity can significantly reduce pressures on nature and could allow redirecting these resources to conserve, restore, and sustainably use biodiversity”;
modifying a sentence in a paragraph on ecologically harmful subsidies in global supply chains, adding that regulating entire supply chains to reduce their reliance on ecologically harmful extractive processes and practices can be supported by positive incentives by for example adjusting taxes, subsidies, payments for ecosystem services permits, standards or regulations “when designed in an equitable and inclusive manner”; and
adding “the importance of a just and sustainable transition for all and the need to protect livelihoods” after text on revising procedures for multilateral collaboration and designing coherent and consistent policies linked by trade.

Chair Obura thanked the Friends of the Chair group for having reached an agreement. Members approved the SPM as orally amended. In response to these amendments, BRAZIL stated that “nothing in the SPM” modifies legal obligations under existing trade regimes, especially under the World Trade Organization and requested that his statement be recorded in the report of the meeting.

Assessment Co-Chair Arun Agrawal shared that to “overcome our professional commitments and agree on an SPM document is a living testimony of transformative change.” Co-Chair Lucas Garibaldi noted transformative change “is not just about what we do, but how we do it, through equity, justice and respect for diverse knowledge systems.” Co-Chair Karen O’Brien mentioned that she appreciated the dedication, enthusiasm, and care in working with the expert team.

The DRC and GUATEMALA congratulated everyone for their hard work, with the DRC urging upholding consensus as a core principle of IPBES and GUATEMALA lauding IPBES Chair Obura’s ability to maintain harmony in critical situations during the week.

The EU expressed his concern over the integrity of the IPBES process, observing “a loss of trust” during the approval process. He pointed to the different steps of the review and approval process, where governments’ concerns should be addressed, urged learning from this experience and taking steps to “prevent such a situation” in the future, and requested his statement be reflected in the meeting’s report.

CHINA said the Friends of the Chair group had played a “key role” in resolving the difficulties that occurred and welcomed the valuable insights offered by the report.

The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IIFBES) stressed that “all life on Mother Earth is threatened” with change happening everywhere. He pointed to the models provided by IPLCs for “healing our Mother,” urged weaving IPLCs’ worldviews and values into science and said that IPBES must continue to consistently apply and improve use of the IPBES Conceptual Framework.

SWITZERLAND said the accomplishments of IPBES 11 exemplify the “unity of IPBES,” highlighted the importance of the multiple stages of the report’s preparation, urging delegates to make use of these before plenary sessions, and said we “must get back to respecting the authors.”

African Wildlife Foundation, on behalf of the Open-ended Network of IPBES Stakeholders, called for everyone to communicate the messages from the approved reports. They urged increased recognition of human rights-based approaches, gender equality, and the essential role of women and IPLCs, and called for meaningful youth engagement in IPBES’ work.

Astrid Schomaker, CBD Executive Secretary, highlighted the importance of the Transformative Change Assessment for the CBD, noting “now we know how to make change possible,” and said that work on taking up the messages starts “for all of us today.”

Chair Obura reminded delegates of the media embargo.

Final Outcome: In its decision, the Plenary approves the SPM of the Transformative Change Assessment and accepts the underlying chapters, including their executive summaries. As stressed by Co-Chair Agrawal, the Transformative Change Assessment is about fundamental system-wide reorganization across technology, economy, and society through better understanding of the obstacles and options, for that will bring about a more just and sustainable world.

The SPM features a short preamble defining transformative change, key messages and background messages across three thematic sections, containing 12 figures, one table, and nine boxes showcasing examples and case studies. The SPM also contains two appendices, defining degrees of confidence, and providing practical guidance for realizing the transformative potential of policies, projects and other initiatives in any sector to address biodiversity and nature’s decline.

Section A, on the urgency of transformative change, contains the following key messages:

The consequences of delaying action on transformative change;
The fundamental system-wide shifts in views, structures and practices required for a just and sustainable world;
Four principles responsive to addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss;
Transformative change can be enhanced by weaving insights from diverse knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK);
Barriers that impede or prevent transformative change; and
The quality and direction of change influences the possibility of addressing underlying causes of biodiversity loss.

Section B, on strategies and actions for transformative change, contains the following key messages:

Key strategies and associated actions have complementary and synergistic effects to advance transformative change;
Conservation for sustainable stewardship, notably by IPLCs, can be transformative when it is inclusive, well-resourced, and when the rights of Indigenous Peoples are recognized;
Transformative change is needed in sectors, including agriculture and livestock, fisheries, forestry, infrastructure, mining and fossil fuels, that heavily contribute to biodiversity loss;
Transformative change requires transforming dominant economic and financial paradigms;
Inclusive, accountable, and adaptive governance systems are pivotal for transformative change; and
Shifting dominant societal views and values that prioritize human-nature interconnectedness is a powerful strategy for transformative change.

Section C, on enabling transformative change with roles for all, contains the following key messages:

Shared positive visions are important to recognize socio-ecological interdependencies, the agency of non-human life, and an ethics of care;
Transformative change is system-wide and therefore requires a whole-of-society and whole-of government approach;
Governments are powerful enablers of transformative change when they foster policy coherence, enact and enforce stronger regulations to benefit nature and nature’s contributions to people in policies and plans across different sectors;
Protecting civil society initiatives and environmental defenders that have faced violence and rights violations is important for supporting transformative change; and
Well-designed policies and business and private sector initiatives aimed at transformative change provide economic incentives that influence socio-economic development and consumption practices.

Scoping Report for a Second Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

On Tuesday, 10 December, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/11/7 and 11/INF/7). Members agreed to assign consideration of this item to WG 1 and use the relevant Chair’s informal note (IPBES/11/Other/3) and the draft decision, as contained in IPBES/11/1/Add.2, as a basis for their deliberations.

WG 1 addressed the scoping report on Wednesday, Sunday, and Monday. Discussions focused on the assessment’s scope, rationale, structure, and chapters’ content. Delegates engaged in lengthy deliberations on, among other issues: the assessment’s global vis-à-vis regional dimension; how to reflect the various international agreements, goals, and frameworks that the assessment could support; which stakeholders to include to represent a diverse set of interest; stronger focus on oceans; follow-up on knowledge gaps identified in the first Global Assessment; and including different knowledge systems and worldviews.

On Monday, Paul Leadley, IPBES Expert, introduced three main themes for chapter one, comprising: the use of the IPBES conceptual framework and associated terminology, classifications, and typologies; the evolving context of international policy on biodiversity; and a roadmap, laying out the narrative of the assessment.

Delegates discussed a suggestion to specify that classifications and typologies presented in the report will “draw from authoritative approaches,” which some deemed too prescriptive. A delegate cautioned losing sight of national monitoring approaches when focusing on the global level. A lengthy discussion took place on a provision noting that the assessment will consider a variety of perspectives, “including those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, of marginalized groups and of people of different genders, livelihoods, classes of income, ages and ethnicities.” One delegate suggested replacing “people of different genders” with “women,” opining this would not change the meaning of the sentence, which was questioned by others. Delegates agreed to shorten the provision to state that “the assessment will consider a variety of perspectives, including those of IPLCs.”

Delegates agreed to accommodate a request to delete reference to “the emergence of new agreements” in the context of an evolving policy landscape and to “authoritative approaches.”

On the outline for chapter two, IPBES Experts Stephen Polasky and Leadley introduced a revised paragraph outlining the chapter’s role, to inform the other chapters on “how to weave together diverse worldviews, including ILK systems.” Several delegates called for strengthening wording on necessary support for the livelihoods of IPLCs.

A lengthy debate ensued over reference to “Mother Earth” in the context of assessing the “reciprocal relationships between Mother Earth and people,” with some warning reference to “Mother Earth” narrows the focus of analysis since not all IPLCs recognize this concept and would hence fall out of scope. A delegate opposed a proposal to state “nature, inclusive of Mother Earth” saying the eco-centric concept of “Mother Earth” cannot be subsumed under the anthropocentric concept of “nature.” Delegates agreed to previously agreed language stating “nature, including Mother Earth and systems of life.”

Delegates also called for highlighting the impacts of global drivers affecting IPLCs in relation to biodiversity and their lands, with an observer emphasizing the impacts of climate change. Several other suggested amendments were accepted, including to examine the response of IPLC knowledge systems to changing “economic” and “cultural” conditions.

On chapter three discussing status and trends, IPBES Expert Polasky provided an overview of its content.

Delegates discussed the balance between the global and regional levels, eventually agreeing that the chapter will focus primarily on the global level, but will also present regional status and trends. Following suggestions, they further agreed that the chapter will contribute to assessing trends relevant to progress against globally agreed goals, particularly the GBF and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where possible, avoiding potential duplication of work undertaken by other processes. Delegates further agreed adding a footnote to clarify that reference to the GBF refers to its goals, targets, and means of implementation.

Members decided to delete a sentence emphasizing that this section will provide a synthesis of these themes at the global and regional levels across terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine ecosystems, noting it is repetitive.

Members then turned their attention to sub-chapters of chapter three. On good quality of life, they deleted reference to “social and environmental justice,” retaining a more general reference to “justice.” On direct and indirect drivers, delegates discussed whether to refer to “direct” or “unsustainable” exploitation, retaining the former. They also agreed that the chapter will assess the impact of direct and indirect drivers of nature and nature’s contributions to people, including in relation to territories of IPLCs.

Members also agreed that the chapter should discuss how changes in indirect drivers are related to changes in direct drivers and how they have evolved since the first Global Assessment. Delegates decided to include issues around “other indirect drivers, including those arising from interactions over distances,” as well as around trade distortions and subsidies in a table to be provided to the assessment’s team, without including them in the scoping report.

On a subchapter on nature, delegates agreed on the inclusion of “conservation, sustainable use and management” of nature in addition to its protection and conservation. They also agreed to remove reference to “on regional and global scales” in providing evidence on the status and trends of nature and including “extinction risk” in the description of indicators that measure aspects related to nature.

On nature’s contributions to people, one delegate, supported by another, suggested removing reference to nature’s negative contributions to people, given the contradictory message it sends regarding well-being. In response, IPBES Expert Leadley underscored that nature’s contributions to people can be both positive and negative. Delegates agreed on text stating that the subchapter “will provide evidence regarding the status of and trends in regulating material and non-material nature’s contributions to people from terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystems.”

Following a short break, delegates continued discussions on chapter four. IPBES Expert Leadley introduced the chapter outline, comprising headings on setting the stage for future pathways, urgency of action, and transformative pathways, and explained amendments to the text.

After lengthy discussions, delegates agreed that the chapter “will consider a variety of future pathways and highlight actions needed as well as challenges and opportunities in light of transformative pathways towards globally agreed goals,” removing reference to the “urgency and magnitude” of actions and strengthening the focus on challenges and opportunities of transformative pathways.

On setting the stage for future pathways, delegates agreed that the Nature Futures Framework should include a footnote referring to the Framework as a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth.

On the urgency of action, one delegate suggested removing reference to “crises” and the need to reference the scale of biodiversity loss. After a lengthy debate, delegates decided to keep the existing title of the subchapter on “urgency” rather than the importance of “timely action.” Delegates agreed on text stating that the chapter will focus on the insights that scenarios and models provide on the pace of action needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

On transformative pathways, one delegate, supported by another, suggested removing reference to nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches and noted the need to not “prioritize one specific solution or approach at the expense of others.” On a discussion regarding the expansion of what “from a nexus perspective” refers to, Chair Obura clarified that the word “nexus” is inclusive of many perspectives and so listing specific elements will generate exclusions.

On chapter five addressing options for action, delegates agreed to a streamlined description, noting the chapter will consider such options, by all actors at all levels, advancing relevant multilateral environmental processes. They further agreed on the timescale up to 2050, considering longer timescales as appropriate as well as that implications for IPLCs and their territorial and resource rights will also be considered in the analysis.

On learning from past action, delegates’ views diverged on the scope of analyzing the impact of policies on different groups of people, with some opposing too narrow a focus on specific policies and rejecting a list containing examples such as agroecological approaches, pollinators, and soil biodiversity policies. Delegates agreed to focus on “biodiversity-related policies and mainstreaming into sectors.”

On building on successful examples, delegates accepted an addition by one delegate to include options stemming from “eco-centric worldviews that can be applied at regional and global scales.”

A lengthy debate ensued over how the report will identify options for actions relating to financing, with divergent views on the scope of evaluating the effectiveness of various types of financial instruments. Some delegates supported inclusion of a compilation of examples of “elimination, phase-out or reform of harmful subsidies,” while others suggested examples of “aligning financial flows with biodiversity.” Delegates agreed to streamline the text by not specifying any examples and stating “examples of successful experiences.”

On the timetable for the second global assessment, one delegate requested confirmation that the MEP will request nominations, by governments and other stakeholders, of experts to produce the assessment by the end of the year and that the selection of co-chairs, coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors have “due regard to equitable geographical representation.” This text was added, with another delegate requesting that “gender balance” also be included. Delegates then reviewed and agreed on remaining bracketed text, upon which the scoping report for the second global assessment was approved.

Final Outcome: In decision IPBES-11/1 (contained in IPBES/11/L.3), the Plenary approves the undertaking of a second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services as outlined in the scoping report set out in IPBES/11/L.5.

The scoping report contains three sections on: scope and rationale, geographical coverage, temporal coverage and methodological approach; chapter outline; and timetable. An appendix contains statements on recognizing and working with ILK in the assessment.

The overall objective of the assessment is to assess relevant knowledge that has become available since the publication of the first global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services and assess progress towards achieving the goals of sustainability and living in harmony with nature. It will cover both regional and global dimensions, prioritize the period 2011-2020 as the reference period for monitoring and reporting progress, and consider future pathways up to 2100 with a focus on the period 2030-2050.

The assessment will:

apply the IPBES conceptual framework;
draw on scientific literature, ILK, and grey literature, in different languages;
focus on new evidence that has emerged since the publication of the first global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, building on other recently completed IPBES assessment reports; identify key gaps in relevant knowledge and data and establish priorities among these gaps; and
be conducted by an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary team of experts with experience in the conduct of regional and global analyses relating to nature, representing a diverse range of backgrounds, disciplines and knowledge systems, including ILK systems, and have regional and gender balance.

The assessment will contain the following five chapters:

Setting the scene (Chapter 1) will comprise sections on: how the assessment applies the IPBES conceptual framework; how the global context relating to biodiversity has changed since the first global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services; and the structure of the assessment in terms of chapters.
Different knowledge systems and the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Chapter 2) will inform other chapters on how to weave together diverse worldviews, including ILK systems.
Status and trends (Chapter 3) will comprise sections on: status of and trends relating to the main elements of the IPBES conceptual framework; the status of and trends for a good quality of life; indicators that measure direct and indirect drivers in terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystems; indicators that measure aspects related to nature; and evidence regarding the status of and trends in regulating, material and non-material nature’s contributions to people from terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystems.
Future pathways (Chapter 4) will consider a variety of future pathways and highlight the actions needed as well as the challenges and opportunities in light of the transformative pathways needed to meet globally agreed goals.
Options for action (Chapter 5) will comprise sections on: learning from past action; building on successful examples; a portfolio of options for action; and financing.

The assessment is expected to hold its first author meeting in the third quarter of 2025, and to finalize draft chapters and the SPM to be presented to IPBES 15 in the third or fourth quarter of 2028.

Report of the Executive Secretary on Progress in the Implementation of the Rolling Work Programme up to 2030

IPBES Executive Secretary Larigauderie presented the report and the relevant documents (IPBES/11/3, 11/INF.4, 11/INF.8, 11/INF.9, 11/INF.11, 11/INF.19, and 11/INF.20). She highlighted, among other things, that, in addition to the Nexus and Transformative Change Assessments, four more reports are under production:

the methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (business and biodiversity assessment), scheduled to be considered at IPBES 12;
the methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (monitoring assessment) to be addressed at IPBES 13;
a methodological assessment of integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and ecological connectivity (spatial planning and connectivity assessment), to be considered at IPBES 14; and
the second global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services, to be addressed at IPBES 15.

Executive Secretary Larigauderie further drew attention to workplans for various objectives of the rolling work programme up to 2030; outlined steps toward improving the Platform’s effectiveness, including the internal and external dimensions of the periodic review of IPBES’ effectiveness; and discussed the implementation of the conflict of interest policy.

Robert Spaull, IPBES Head of Communication, presented metrics for traditional and social media, further highlighting the IPBES podcast, Nature Insight. He underscored strengthened engagement of stakeholders, including Stakeholder Day and support to self-organized networks of IPBES’ stakeholders.

Stephen Polasky, Co-Chair of the business and biodiversity assessment, provided insights on the assessment focusing on its background, scope, and expert team. He further outlined the assessment’s structure and the content of its six chapters, progress to date, external review process, and timeline for the assessment’s conclusion.

Tanara Renard Truong Van Nga, Technical Support Unit of the Monitoring Assessment, presented a progress report on the monitoring assessment, discussing its scope and providing updates on the formation of its expert team. She outlined the assessment’s structure; provided details on the first author meeting and the first ILK dialogue workshop; and presented the assessment’s timeline toward its conclusion and discussion at IPBES 13.

EGYPT noted the need for feedback on how countries benefit from IPBES Assessments and suggested appointing Executive Secretary Larigauderie as an honorary ambassador, following her retirement, to disseminate the findings of IPBES assessments.

JAPAN welcomed the progress report, highlighting the invaluable support provided by the IPBES Technical Support Units and the IPBES fellowship programme.

HUNGARY and MALAWI welcomed the report. COLOMBIA noted the need to think carefully about the approach to discussions, underscoring that a perceived “tipping point” had been passed in terms of how SPM discussions had taken place at the meeting.

The Plenary welcomed the report of the Executive Secretary.

Engagement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

On Tuesday, 10 December, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/11/8 and IPBES/11/INF/10). Members agreed to assign consideration of this item to WG 2 and to use the relevant Chair’s note (IPBES/11/Other/4) as a basis for their deliberations.

In WG 2 on Wednesday and Sunday, members discussed, among other things, aligning timelines between the two bodies and the IPBES Executive Secretary representing the platform at upcoming IPCC sessions and presenting the outcomes of IPBES 11.

Final Outcome: In its decision (IPBES/11/L.3), the Plenary, among other things:

welcomes the compilation of further suggestions from IPBES members for thematic or methodological issues related to biodiversity and climate change that would benefit from collaboration between the IPCC and IPBES;
requests the Executive Secretary to make this compilation available, for their information, to: the experts undertaking new assessments, including the second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services; the IPCC; the panel undertaking the external part of the mid-term review under the rolling work programme up to 2030; and the Plenary at a future session, when matters related to engagement with the IPCC are being considered;
invites the national focal points of the Platform to strengthen engagement with their IPCC counterparts to jointly consider potential means of increasing scientific cooperation and information-sharing and improving understanding of relevant processes, procedures, and workplans, and invites the Secretariat, in close cooperation with members of the Bureau, to explore ways to facilitate engagement between the national focal points of IPBES and of the IPCC at various levels, including at the regional level;
urges members of IPBES, and invites members of the IPCC and their experts, relevant stakeholders, scientific bodies, and research organizations, to participate in relevant activities of IPBES and the IPCC, including in external review processes, as appropriate; and
decides to organize an IPBES workshop on biodiversity and climate change, making use of recent IPBES assessments and the above-mentioned compilation in support of the second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and invites the IPCC to suggest to the MEP a list of relevant IPCC experts to participate in this workshop, and to consider co-sponsoring the workshop.

Building Capacity, Strengthening Knowledge Foundations and Supporting Policy

On Tuesday, 10 December, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/11/9 and IPBES/11/INF/13-18. Members agreed to assign consideration of this item to WG 2 and to use the relevant Chair’s note (IPBES/11/Other/5) as a basis for their deliberations.

In WG 2 on Wednesday and Thursday. Delegates considered workplans for objectives 2 (building capacity), 3 (strengthening the knowledge foundations), and 4 (policy support tools and methodologies) of the rolling work programme up to 2030.

Final Outcome: In decision IPBES-11/1 (contained in IPBES/11/L.3), the Plenary addressed the workplans for the implementation of objectives 2, 3, and 4 of the work programme of the Platform up to 2030.

Regarding building capacity, the Plenary welcomes the progress made by the task force on capacity building in the implementation of objectives 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of the work programme of the Platform up to 2030 and approves the workplan on capacity building, as set out in an annex (IPBES/11/L.6) to the decision. The workplan includes activities for:

implementation of the fellowship programme;
implementation of the training and familiarization programme for IPBES experts and others involved in the science-policy interface;
organization of online dialogues;
supporting the uptake of approved assessment findings and other deliverables;
convening an eighth meeting of the capacity-building forum; and
facilitating sharing of knowledge and best practices among existing national and (sub)regional science-policy platforms, those interested in establishing a new platform, and organizations and institutions that could support such efforts.

Regarding strengthening the knowledge foundations, the Plenary welcomes progress made by the task force on data and knowledge management in the implementation of the component of objective 3(a) on data and knowledge management, in particular the revision of the data and knowledge management policy of the Platform (version 2.1); the Bureau and the MEP in guiding the implementation of the component of objective 3(a) on knowledge generation catalysis; and the task force on ILK in the implementation of objective 3(b) on enhanced recognition of and work with ILK systems.

The Plenary further approved workplans on:

data and knowledge management (IPBES/11/L.7), which includes activities for: the maintenance of the data and knowledge management policy and the further development of the long-term vision for data and knowledge management; the provision of support to assessment authors on aspects relating to the data and knowledge management policy and the management, handling and delivery of IPBES products; and engagement with other entities, initiatives and service providers on data and knowledge relevant to IPBES;
knowledge generation catalysis (IPBES/11/L.8), which includes activities to support assessment experts in the identification of knowledge gaps, and to enhance communication and outreach to catalyze the generation of new knowledge; and
enhanced recognition of and work with ILK systems (IPBES/11/L.9), which includes activities for the implementation of the approach to recognizing and working with ILK in IPBES and strengthening the implementation of the participatory mechanism.

Regarding supporting policy, the Plenary welcomes the progress made by: the Bureau and the MEP in guiding the implementation of objective 4(a) on advanced work on policy instruments, policy support tools and methodologies, in particular the development of a concept note on strengthening the policy support function of the Platform; and the task force on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the implementation of objective 4(b) on advanced work on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. The Plenary further approved the workplans on:

policy instruments, policy support tools and methodologies (IPBES/11/L.10), including activities for ensuring that IPBES assessment reports and other products are policy relevant, and supporting the use by decision makers in all relevant sectors of completed IPBES assessment reports and other IPBES products; and
scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (IPBES/11/L.11), including activities to provide support on scenarios and models for IPBES assessments; and to promote dialogue between IPBES and the community of practice on scenarios and models.

Plenary also approved indicators for ensuring the effective implementation of the workplans for objectives 2, 3 and 4 of the IPBES rolling work programme up to 2030 (IPBES/11/L.12).

Improving the Effectiveness of the Platform

On Tuesday, 10 December, IPBES Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/11/10, 11/INF/21, and 11/INF/22) and assigned consideration to WG 1.

On Monday, 16 December, WG 2 heard a presentation from Douglas Beard, IPBES Bureau, on the internal review process on the effectiveness of IPBES that had taken place over the past year through a survey and desktop assessment, as well as focus group discussions involving 128 participants and 23 written submissions. He noted the external review process would take place in 2025 with a report provided at IPBES 12, and highlighted the members of the external review panel selected so far.

Several delegations mentioned the importance of receiving feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, including governments and youth. One delegate suggested lessons learned from meeting conduct and application of rules of procedure be made available to the external review panel.

Final Outcome: In decision IPBES-11/1 (contained in IPBES/11/L.3), the Plenary: welcomes the report by the Bureau and the MEP on the internal review under the rolling work programme up to 2030 contained in IPBES/11/INF/22; and invites the review panel to take the findings of the internal part of the review into account when conducting the external part of the review.

Institutional Arrangements

On Monday, 16 December, Maximilien Guèze, UNESCO, presented a number of highlights of actions that the four UN IPBES Partners had undertaken, including support of uptake of IPBES assessments and hosting of databases and data reporting tools (IPBES 11/INF.23).

The Plenary took note of the report.

Financial and Budgetary Arrangements for the Platform

On Tuesday, 10 December, IPBES Executive Secretary Larigauderie presented the relevant documents (IPBES/11/4 and IPBES/11/INF/12) and together with Chair Obura made introductory remarks.

The NETHERLANDS and BELGIUM pledged an additional EUR 900,000 and EUR 66,000, respectively, for 2024. JAPAN committed to contribute USD 189,814 to the trust fund for 2025. Discussions continued in a contact group co-chaired by Erik Grigoryan (Eastern Europe).

On Monday, 16 December, Co-Chair Grigoryan reported that the contact group met five times to discuss, among other things: the trust fund; income and expenses up to 2027; and funding for the participation of IPLCs in the full range of IPBES activities. He announced an additional contribution of EUR 50,000 by the UK for 2024. He noted that the draft decision reflects the contact group’s work and submitted it to the Plenary for further discussion and adoption. The Plenary approved the decision.

Final Outcome: In its decision (IPBES/11/L.14), the Plenary welcomes the fundraising efforts undertaken by the Secretariat and requests it to:

urge governments, including regional economic integration organizations, in a position to do so to support the work of the Platform by making pledges and contributions to the trust fund of the Platform, as well as in-kind contributions;
requests the Secretariat and the Bureau to explore additional opportunities, and make further efforts, to actively communicate the importance of the work of the Platform and its benefits to potential donors, in particular to non-contributing members of the Platform, through the UN system-wide network and locations and other means, as appropriate;
requests the Secretariat to report on expenditures for 2024 to the Plenary at its twelfth session;
urges nominating governments, and if needed, requests those in a position to do so to provide funding to IPLCs and youth representatives to increase their participation in the full range of the Platform’s activities, and
requests the Secretariat to explore options for securing additional funding for IPLCs and youth representatives, where needed, to enable their participation in the full range of the Platform’s activities.

The Plenary further adopts:

the budget for 2025, amounting to USD 10,237,955;
the provisional budget for 2026, amounting to USD 9,879,550; and
the provisional budget for 2027, amounting to USD 10,152,411.

Organization of the Plenary

On Tuesday, 10 December, Chair Obura presented the relevant document (IPBES/11/11), announced an intention by the UK to host IPBES 12 and invited others to consider submitting relevant offers.

On Monday, 16 December, the UK presented their offer to host IPBES 12, tentatively scheduled to take place in January 2026. Delegates welcomed the offer.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION requested inclusion of a paragraph clarifying the right of “unimpeded entry and exit” from the UK and calling for speedy and non-discriminative visa proceedings. BRAZIL requested taking into account meeting dates of relevant multilateral environmental agreements to avoid overlaps. IPBES Chair Obura encouraged informal consultations.

Final Outcome: In its decision (IPBES/11/L.13), the Plenary:

decides IPBES 12 will be held in the UK, tentatively scheduled for January 2026;
decides IPBES 13 will be held in the second half of 2026 and invites members to consider hosting it;
invites the Bureau to take the timelines of IPBES assessments into account when considering the dates of future sessions of the Plenary, with a view to enabling their timely consideration by relevant bodies of the biodiversity-related conventions;
takes note of the draft provisional agendas for IPBES 12 and 13, annexed to the decision; and
requests the Secretariat to invite written comments on the proposed organization of work for IPBES 12 and finalize the organization of work in line with the comments received.

Adoption of the Decisions and the Report of the Session

On Monday, 16 December, IPBES Chair Obura presented the draft decision on the implementation of the rolling work programme up to 2030, as contained in IPBES/11/L.3. With minor amendments on welcoming the compilation of further suggestions for thematic or methodological issues that would benefit from collaboration between the IPCC and the Platform and a decision to organize a workshop on biodiversity and climate change, as requested by BRAZIL, the decision was adopted.

Closing Plenary

On Monday, 16 December, Chair David Obura invited delegations and observers to present their tributes to outgoing Executive Secretary Larigauderie, who will be retiring at the end of April 2025 after more than 10 years of service.

IPBES Vice-Chair Douglas Beard emphasized his appreciation for Larigauderie’s leadership and the work environment she created during her tenure, expressing his hope that the Platform would continue her “wonderful legacy.”

Ruth Spencer, Local Community Representative, Antigua and Barbuda, on behalf of the IPBES rightsholders and stakeholders, thanked Larigauderie for her recognition of the rights of IPLCs and the contribution of ILK systems, including in IPBES assessments, and her efforts to enable observers and stakeholders to be involved in IPBES’ work. Together with Polina Shulbaeva, IIFBES, she gifted Larigauderie an Indigenous Namibian art piece that reflects the connection between nature and connection to our ancestors. Luthando Dziba, MEP Co-Chair, said Larigauderie had been a “fierce advocate of IPBES products” and expressed deep gratitude for her custodianship of the Platform.

Executive Secretary Larigauderie said it “has been the pride of her lifetime” to contribute to, and be the first Executive Secretary of, IPBES, and highlighted IPBES’ important role in building interdisciplinary communities and changing the narrative surrounding biodiversity by bringing in concepts such as equity, justice, and domination of people over nature.

Chair Obura thanked the government of Namibia for its warm hospitality. He looked forward to communicating the findings of the two SPMs agreed at this session, including how they can increase implementation and support the CBD, GBF, and SDGs. He expressed his thanks to the outgoing Executive Secretary for all she has done.

Antigua and Barbuda, for GRULAC, acknowledged the collaborative spirit of negotiation of the SPMs, noting challenges in prioritizing agenda items at this session, highlighted the importance of respect beyond national positions, and stated the importance of providing full interpretation across sessions.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION expressed gratitude for the meeting’s high quality of work and commitment to a scientific approach.

Thailand, for ASIA PACIFIC, welcomed the meeting’s outcomes and emphasized the need for human and financial resources to address the crises facing nature and human society.

The EU emphasized that the Nexus and Transformative Change Assessments underscore the interconnections among the five nexus elements and the importance of fostering transformative change to “achieve our common goals and address the planetary emergency.” He stressed that IPBES’ role is “much bigger than ever before,” and highlighted opportunities for collaboration with IPCC.

Armenia, on behalf of EASTERN EUROPE, stressed that the approval of the SPMs of the two assessments is a “significant milestone, allowing us to give clear guidance toward a more just and sustainable world.” He highlighted the scoping report for the second global assessment and urged exploring new ways to strengthen collaboration with the IPCC.

Mauritania, for the AFRICAN GROUP, emphasized that the two assessments promote whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches and urged prioritizing holistic approaches over strictly protective measures. He highlighted the need for greater collaboration with the IPCC, in particular on financing. He stressed the need for good quality data in languages other than English and better representation of African experts and knowledge in future work, including for the second global assessment.

Astrid Schomaker, CBD Executive Secretary, underscored the importance of the approved reports and outlined a pathway for how they feed into the CBD process. Noting that business engagement with and for biodiversity remains “disappointing,” she said that “science will be our ally to pave the way for behavioral change.”

A spokesperson for the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, highlighted the relevance of the third ocean assessment, scheduled for release at the end of 2025, for IPBES work. She said the Regular Process stands ready to deepen cooperation with IPBES for enhancing the collective understanding on oceans and biodiversity.

IPBES Chair Obura gave a final round of thanks to all participants, acknowledging Marthin Kasaona, IPBES focal point for Namibia, “who made it all possible.” He gaveled IPBES 11 to a close at 10:39 pm.

A Brief Analysis of IPBES 11

The first-ever meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on African soil, headed by its first African Chair, David Obura, began on a high note. Delegates enjoyed performances showcasing Namibia’s rich cultural heritage. The meeting’s opening plenary also highlighted the accolades that IPBES has received in recent years, including the 2024 Blue Planet Prize in recognition of the Panel’s impressive work in bridging science and policy on biodiversity conservation. But this celebratory mood proved short-lived, as storm clouds quickly gathered when delegates moved from plenary into working groups, turning to the key items for consideration at this meeting: adopting the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of two thematic Assessment Reports, and fleshing out the scoping report for a planned second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Going into the meeting, many delegates expected heated discussions on the report on transformative change (Transformative Change Assessment) in particular, grappling with historically controversial themes such as how the current global economic system and historic inequalities contribute to nature degradation. However, it soon became clear that the more traditional contents of the SPM of the report on interlinkages between biodiversity, water, food, health, and climate (Nexus Assessment) would reveal deeper political rifts, with a small number of delegations pushing through a significant number of caveats that others lamented had now “watered down” its contents and clarity for policymakers.

Ultimately, the meeting did manage to conclude all the items on its ambitious agenda. At the same time, all realized that politics had entered IPBES’ deliberations on both reports in an “unprecedented way,” in what one delegation characterized as a possible “tipping point” for the Platform and another feared could “risk the credibility of the entire scientific process.” And yet, delegates left IPBES 11 with two critical and powerful new assessments in hand to inform strengthened action towards a just and sustainable future, continuing to deliver on the Platform’s mission of strengthening the science-policy interface for biodiversity action.

This brief analysis takes stock of the outcomes of IPBES 11, the significant innovations it introduced, the challenges it faced on the way, and the questions that this experience raises for the work of IPBES going forward.

Nexus Assessment

When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. (African proverb)

Bringing together a range of closely interwoven issues— biodiversity, water, food, health, and the climate—governed by different ministries and international mechanisms was always going to be a challenging task for the 165 experts from all regions of the world. For three years, they worked to synthesize the best available knowledge on the interconnected character of the challenges facing this nexus.

Many were surprised, however, when the Nexus Assessment was confronted by an unprecedented level of politicization compared to what the IPBES process has traditionally faced, particularly considering that governments already had the opportunity to comment on the draft in three review rounds preceding IPBES 11.

There is growing recognition that our current food system is unsustainable, contributing significantly to the world’s climate, biodiversity, pollution, and health crises, among others. And yet in a world grappling with deep inequalities between and within countries, and where food insecurity and rising food prices continue to form a significant challenge for many, it was no surprise that wording around the environmental impacts of the food system and land use, and ways to mitigate these impacts, would be a careful balancing act. Some developing countries considered that the realities they face were not always fully reflected in the SPM, for instance through the choice to label one of the scenarios in the Nexus Assessment that highlights the negative environmental impacts of prioritizing food production, paired with unsustainable agriculture, “food first.”

However, in practice, certain interventions proved difficult to disentangle from broader economic and corporate interests that dictate food systems dynamics, including those associated with major international commodities such as meat. Likely reflecting broader tensions about recent international trade measures that may significantly impact such supply chains, language on trade nearly threatened to derail the entire process. Frustrated with some delegations’ unwillingness to accept language noting that “land use, biodiversity and climate impacts of consumption are tele-connected through the value chains of food and other consumables to many parts of the world,” one delegate invoked IPBES’ rules of procedure. As a result of these dynamics, what was scheduled to be 16 hours of deliberation time ballooned to double that number. In the end, while IPBES experts had secured the scientific integrity of the document, some participants expressed dissatisfaction with “overly caveated” text. Final acceptance of the SPM unleashed emotional reactions by the author team, many of whom had to depart before successful completion of the work, leaving a visibly exhausted Co-Chair of the Nexus Assessment deliberations, Douglas Beard, summarizing: “It was painful, but we did it.”

Transformative Change Assessment

The chameleon changes color to match the earth, the earth doesn’t change colors to match the chameleon. (African Proverb)

The Transformative Change Assessment was born out of the objective to understand the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and to identify factors at the individual and collective levels that can be leveraged to bring about transformative change. In doing so, the report marks the first time that an intergovernmental body represented by all regions has tackled so directly the question of how human-nature relations are shaped by power asymmetries in dominant economic and financial paradigms, bringing in the rapidly-expanding knowledge base from social sciences and the humanities.

Featuring themes such as structural aspects of colonialism and significant interlinkages between economic growth and biodiversity loss, many braced themselves for heated discussions. But as the week progressed, several delegates informally confided that negotiations on the Transformative Change Assessment felt like “stepping into another world” in which delegates could adopt a broader perspective on “day-to-day realities” as philosophies of human-nature relations and distinctions between “nature” and relations to “Mother Earth” were discussed.

While not without hiccups, the working group considering this item concluded its deliberations in a timely manner, forwarding to plenary a document that contained strong and unprecedented language on a number of issues. The SPM includes discussions on how capitalism and neoliberalism may contribute significantly to underlying causes of biodiversity and nature decline and stresses the need for the rights and worldviews of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) to be protected and strengthened.

Nevertheless, on the final day, many walked into evening plenary discussions bracing themselves for a potentially tense discussion, cognizant that Brazil, in the opening plenary, had reserved the right to re-open discussions, noting challenges faced by a one-person delegation in engaging with both the Nexus and the Transformative Change Assessments simultaneously. In a first for IPBES, new substantive changes were indeed introduced during the plenary, which saw a reluctantly-agreed-upon Friends of the Chair group convene to hash out a number of additional changes proposed by Brazil.

While the eventual changes that emerged from those discussions were smaller and less significant than many had feared, some lamented a weakening of reference to downscaling production and consumption and reference to landmark research on ecologically uneven exchange, which refers to resources and energy extracted from poorer regions and consumed in richer ones. Others noted that “it is not the Assessment, but the process that has lost today,” regretting that last-minute changes to the text were not in the spirit of trust in scientists and governments co-shaping the contents of the SPM constructively together that has previously governed IPBES. The “powerful” key message of the Assessment that transformative change is “urgent, necessary and challenging — but possible” nevertheless remains intact, In her closing remarks, Assessment Co-Chair Karen O’Brien noting that while the word “love” does not appear in the Assessment glossary, transformative change is ultimately about “our love for nature and Mother Earth, both human and non-human entities.”

Looking Ahead

If the rhythm of the drum beat changes, the dance step must adapt. (African proverb)

The co-production of knowledge at intergovernmental science-policy bodies is by no means an uncontroversial endeavor. Plenary sessions of IPBES’ sister organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have often featured arduous negotiations over the content of its SPMs and teetered on the brink of collapse due to political disputes over the scientific evidence base. With the IPBES process not only seeking to deepen collaboration with, but also, in many ways, aspiring to achieve the recognition of its bigger and better-known sister, some observed that as IPBES gains prominence, such heightened visibility may “go hand in hand” with increasing politicization of its meetings.

The presence of representatives from a variety of different government ministries contributed to these dynamics. Some countries had delegated scientists, others were represented by negotiators from ministries of environment, and still others were represented by seasoned negotiators from ministries of foreign affairs. This led to significant divergences in how text was discussed and how willing—or able—delegations were to engage with proposals for line-by-line changes to the text of the Assessments as well as the scoping report for the second global assessment. Compounding the challenge, several developing and small delegations also struggled to partake in all discussions, regretting a lack of interpretation services across both the meeting’s working groups.

Throughout the week, many expressed appreciation for the authors of the two Assessments in particular, who saw significant modifications to their years’-long efforts throughout the week. Working Group 1 Co-Chair Douglas Beard, among others, warned delegates that it may become “tougher and tougher” to recruit experts to volunteer their time to the Platform’s thorough assessments. The essential role of the facilitators of IPBES’ negotiations was also observed. Some ventured that certain delegations may have been given too much leeway to introduce changes during the negotiations, while others stressed the delicate balance that needs to be struck between “maintaining the red lines of science” while “ensuring continued government buy-in of the process.”

Looking ahead, the IPBES process is in many ways entering a new era, with Executive Secretary Anne Larigauderie soon passing on the baton after more than 10 years. In the closing plenary, many expressed heartfelt thanks for the impressive work that has been done to get IPBES to this point, growing to a twenty-person team in a decade, strengthening the involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the science-policy interface, and introducing and helping to bring new and innovative concepts such as nature’s contributions to people and “transformative change” into intergovernmental processes.

In a world where science continues to be under threat, the Platform has its work cut out for it as it sets its sights to the next Plenary. This next meeting, tentatively scheduled for January 2026 in the United Kingdom, will see governments consider the methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Further ahead, in 2028, the Platform is expected to complete the second global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services, which will provide valuable input to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as deliberations on a post-2030 biodiversity framework. As the Platform works towards these contributions, a message from IPBES 11 is that continued trust and a spirit of collaboration will be essential for maintaining its stance as a credible, legitimate, and relevant science-policy body.

Further information

Upcoming Events

78th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee

The Standing Committee provides policy guidance to the Secretariat on the implementation of the Convention, oversees the management of the Secretariat’s budget, and oversees and coordinates the work of other committees and working groups.

CGRFA 20

The 20th regular session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture will address a range of issues related to its Multi-Year Programme of Work.

ITPGRFA Working Group on the MLS

The thirteenth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture will continue discussing the enhancement of the Treaty’s Multilateral System of ABS.

BBNJ Agreement Preparatory Commission

The Commission will meet to ensure the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) is operational upon its entry into force.

UNFF 20

The UN Forum on Forests will review progress in implementation of the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030, progress in implementing mid-term review outcomes, and other international forest-related developments.

Third UN Ocean Conference (UNOC-3)

Co-chaired by France and Costa Rica, the Conference aims to generate transformative action and provide solutions the Ocean needs, supported by ocean science and funding for SDG 14 (life below water).

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (COP 15)

The 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (COP15) will convene to review the Convention’s implementation.

IUCN World Conservation Congress

Held once every four years, the World Conservation Congress brings together leaders and decision-makers from government, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, business, and academia, to harness the solutions nature offers to global challenges.

ITPGRFA GB 11

The next meeting of the Governing Body will conclude the revision of the Treaty’s Multilateral System of ABS and will address other issues, including on farmers’ rights. The meeting is expected to adopt the outcome of the Working Group on the enhancement of the MLS.

CITES COP 20

The 20th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES COP 20) will convene to review the implementation of the Convention.

UNEA-7

The seventh meeting of the UN Environment Assembly will set the global environmental agenda, provide overarching policy guidance, and define policy responses to address emerging environmental challenges.

IPBES 12

The 12th session of the IPBES Plenary will address, among other things, the methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

UN Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP 17)

COP17 will convene in 2026 to continue reviewing implementation of the Convention and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Glossary

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
DRC: Democratic Republic of the Congo
GBF: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
GRULAC: Latin American and Caribbean Group
IIFBES: International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
ILK: Indigenous and local knowledge
IPBES: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPLC: Indigenous Peoples and local communities
MEP: Multidisciplinary Expert Panel
SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals
SPM: Summary for policymakers
UNESCO: UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WEOG: Western European and Others Group
WG: Working Group

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) © enb@iisd.org is written and edited by Asterios Tsioumanis, Ph.D.; Vijay Kolinjivadi, Ph.D.; Moritz Petersmann; and Cleo Verkuijl. The Photographer is Kiara Worth, Ph.D. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. pam@iisd.org. The ENB is published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The Sustaining Donor of the Bulletin is the European Union (EU). General support for ENB during 2024 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV), the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Government of Switzerland (Swiss Federal Office for the Environment - FOEN), and SWAN International. Specific funding for the coverage of this meeting has been provided by the IPBES Secretariat. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the donors or IISD. Generative AI was not used in the production of this report. Excerpts from ENB may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting, contact the ENB Lead, Jessica Templeton, Ph.D. jtempleton@iisd.org.

Participants

Negotiating blocs: IPLCs; African Group; European Union; Latin American and Caribbean Group; Western Europe and Others Group
Non-state coalitions: IPLC