Summary report, 2–9 February 2026

Every year brings new dire warnings of the number of species threatened with extinction: the world is losing biodiversity¾the variety of all life on earth¾at an alarming rate. In addition to its intrinsic value, biodiversity is essential for ecosystems to function and sustain human well-being. In recognition of the need to address this challenge, governments have engaged in coordinated action through various multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, whose parties adopted the landmark Global Biodiversity Framework that aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. 

Established in 2012, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) plays a key role in facilitating evidence-based decision-making on biodiversity, including through the regular publication of assessment reports. It aims to inform government action at various levels, but also action by other types of actors, such as civil society organizations, philanthropies, and the private sector. IPBES also inspires scientific advances by identifying policy-relevant knowledge gaps. 

The twelfth session of the IPBES Plenary (IPBES 12) launched the latest assessment report, which addresses business and biodiversity. Key messages of the report include:

• all businesses depend on and impact biodiversity;
• the current external conditions in which businesses operate are not always compatible with achieving a just and sustainable future;
• all businesses have a responsibility to address their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity; and
• creating an enabling environment can incentivize actions that are beneficial for businesses, biodiversity, and society.

Nearing the end of its rolling work programme up to 2030, the Platform finds itself at a juncture. Several of the decisions adopted at IPBES 12 mandate intersessional work aimed at informing decisions on the Platform’s future, which will be taken at the next Plenary session. In this regard, delegates mandated the Bureau and its Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP)  to develop:

• a costed proposal for the implementation of the recommendations from the midterm review for consideration by IPBES 13; 
• a holistic indicator framework, including performance and impact indicators, to monitor the implementation of the Platform’s work programme; and
• a proposal for the nature, topics, and timing of Platform deliverables across the work programme’s objectives.

Delegates also elected a new MEP, whose members will serve for a three-year term beginning at the conclusion of IPBES 12. Members further decided that IPBES 13 will be held during the second half of 2027, with a decision on the session’s venue to be taken within the six months following IPBES 12, and IPBES 14 will be held during the second half of 2028. 

IPBES 12 convened from 3–8 February 2026, in Manchester, UK. Over 1,680 delegates registered for in-person attendance and 168 for online-only attendance. On 2 February, the Platform’s largest-ever Stakeholder Day brought together scientists, Indigenous Peoples, members of local communities, and representatives of civil society organizations and the private sector to exchange views on the issues on the IPBES 12 agenda and foster networking.

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 MEP overseeing the Platform’s scientific and technical functions. To date, the Platform has 153 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 scientists, Indigenous Peoples, members of local communities, and civil society and private sector representatives 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.

Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Multi-Stakeholder Process: From 2008 to 2010, the establishment of a science-policy interface was further discussed in a series of Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Multi-Stakeholder Meetings. The first meeting (November 2008, Putrajaya, Malaysia) recommended UNEP undertake a preliminary gap analysis on existing interfaces. Based on this analysis, the second meeting (October 2009, Nairobi, Kenya) developed options to strengthen the science-policy interface, and functions and possible governance structures of an IPBES. At the third meeting (June 2010, Busan, Republic of Korea), delegates adopted the Busan Outcome, which recommended inviting the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to take appropriate action for establishing an IPBES. The 65th session of the UNGA (December 2010) requested UNEP to fully operationalize the platform and convene a plenary meeting to determine the modalities and institutional arrangements of the platform at the earliest opportunity. The 26th session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (February 2011, Nairobi, Kenya) also called for convening a plenary session for an IPBES.

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, among others, 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: IPBES’ rolling work programme up to 2030 was adopted at the Platform’s seventh Plenary session (May 2019, Paris, France) and updated at subsequent sessions. It includes assessments on: the nexus between biodiversity and water, food, and health; the determinants of transformative change; the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity; monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people; integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and ecological connectivity; and a second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Recent Meetings

IPBES 8: At its eighth session (14–24 June 2021, online), 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 Summary for Policymakers (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: At its eleventh session (9–16 December 2024, Windhoek, Namibia), IPBES approved the SPM and accepted the chapters of two assessment reports, the Nexus Assessment and the Transformative Change Assessment. IPBES 11 also approved a scoping report for a second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Participants considered this to be an unprecedentedly challenging meeting, with difficult and protracted negotiations on the Nexus Assessment in particular. 

IPBES 12 Report

The twelfth session of the IPBES Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services opened on Tuesday, 3 February 2026.

Organizational Matters and Reports

Agenda and organization of work: On Tuesday, IPBES Chair David Obura introduced the provisional agenda (IPBES/12/1 and Add.1), which the Plenary adopted. He suggested, and delegates agreed, to convene: a Contact Group on budgetary arrangements, chaired by Erik Grigoryan (Armenia); Working Group (WG) 1 on the Business and Biodiversity Assessment, co-chaired by Eeva Primmer (Finland) and Floyd Homer (Trinidad and Tobago); and WG 2 on all remaining agenda items, co-chaired by Hesiquio Benítez Díaz (Mexico) and Sebastian König (Switzerland). 

Status of membership: On Tuesday, delegates welcomed five new Members: Malta, Cyprus, Rwanda, Iceland, and Poland. Chair Obura noted the US had announced its intention to withdraw from IPBES. The DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (DRC) underscored the need to reflect on the consequences of this withdrawal, including its financial impact, and encouraged others to financially support the Platform’s work. During the closing plenary on Sunday, the EU announced that Slovenia had joined the Platform.

Election of officers: IPBES Chair Obura thanked the outgoing members of the MEP for their work. Members elected the new regular and alternate MEP members by acclamation. They will serve for a three-year term starting at the closure of IPBES 12. Delegates also elected a new alternating Bureau member for the Western Europe and Others Group to serve until the end of the Bureau’s regular term.

Admission of observers: IPBES Members welcomed 85 new observers as recommended by the Bureau (IPBES/12/INF/3/Rev.1) and decided to continue using the interim procedure for observers’ admission, pending agreement on the draft policy and procedures for the admission of observers (IPBES/12/3).

Credentials: On Friday and Sunday, the IPBES Secretariat reported on credentials and the Plenary accepted the reports.

Reports on progress in the implementation of the rolling work programme up to 2030: Executive Secretary Luthando Dziba presented the report (IPBES/12/4), highlighting the success of past assessments and pointing to ongoing assessments to be completed in the next few years. He provided a brief overview of the work of the Bureau, the MEP, and the task forces. 

Robert Spaull, IPBES Secretariat, presented statistics highlighting the Platform’s growing visibility in traditional and social media and the success of the IPBES podcast. In terms of stakeholder engagement, he underlined activities to facilitate the uptake of the Nexus and the Transformative Change Assessments as well as support to the self-organizing networks of IPBES.

Delegates heard updates from the respective Co-Chairs on the progress of: the methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (monitoring assessment), which will be finalized in 2026; the methodological assessment of integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and ecological connectivity (spatial planning and connectivity assessment), which will be finalized in 2027; and the second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services (second global assessment), which will be finalized in 2028.

Jim Skea, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), highlighted the interaction between IPBES and the IPCC, underscoring that collaboration is within their respective mandates. He noted that beyond formal links such as co-sponsoring workshops on biodiversity and climate change, they have an overlapping scientific community that is actively working on the interface of both spheres.

The Plenary took note of the reports.      

UN Collaborative Partnership Arrangement for the Work of the Platform and its Secretariat: Julie Bélanger, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), presented the progress report (IPBES/12/INF/23) on behalf of IPBES’ four UN partners, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UNEP, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and FAO. She highlighted both direct support provided to the IPBES Secretariat as well as broader support for the implementation of the Platform’s rolling work programme. The Plenary took note of the report.

Business and Biodiversity Assessment

On Tuesday, Chair Obura introduced the relevant documents (IPBES/12/6, /INF/1, INF/5). He proposed that the Chair’s informal note (/Other/1), along with the relevant draft decision (/1/Add.2), inform consideration of this matter by WG 1. Executive Secretary Dziba noted that WG 1 will consider the SPM in detail with a view to approving it, and that Plenary will be invited to accept the underlying assessment chapters, based on the understanding that authors will implement any editorial changes and corrections necessary to ensure consistency with the approved SPM.

WG 1 addressed the SPM on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Several evening sessions convened and informal groups addressed the figures and tables as well as particularly contentious issues that were holding up progress in the WG. Disagreement emerged on several Key Messages (KMs) and Background Messages (BMs), including in relation to:

• references to the interconnections between the crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution (KM2 and KM10); 
• references to human rights and the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (KM8 and BM B11); 
• whether to include sector-specific data on public and private finance flows that are environmentally harmful (KM2 and BM A3);
• language on trade-distorting subsidies’ impact on developing countries (BM A3);
• the level of businesses’ responsibility to address their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity as a societal decision (KM4); 
• reference to access and benefit sharing, in particular in relation to digital sequence information derived from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (KM8 and BM B5); and
• references to citizen science (BM B5). 

On Sunday, 8 February, WG 1 Co-Chair Floyd Homer reported that despite the considerable time it took to complete the discussions, WG 1 had reached an agreement on the SPM.

IPBES Chair Obura introduced the SPM as forwarded by WG 1 (IPBES/12/L.11) and invited the Plenary to formally approve it and accept the Assessment’s individual chapters and their executive summaries. He noted that while the Key Messages have been translated across UN official languages, other parts of the SPM were only available in English for the time being. The Secretariat pointed to minor editorial changes that remained to be implemented.

The DRC, with NIGER, lamented the fact that the full SPM was not available in all UN official languages. Chair Obura noted the concerns and shared that the aim was to have the SPM in all languages by the end of the day. 

Delegates approved the SPM and accepted its individual chapters with no further comments. Chair Obura congratulated all Members and the authors for their hard work.

The DRC called the SPM “almost perfect,” noting that it shows the Platform’s political and scientific maturity. They thanked the authors for the expertise, scientific rigor, persistence, flexibility, and modesty that guided the Members in adopting the Assessment. COSTA RICA underscored the report will help speed up progress towards preserving biodiversity for future generations. They emphasized the need for governments to create regulatory frameworks that foster value chain transparency and for businesses to do their part in implementing best practices and innovative solutions. 

Assessment Co-Chair Ximena Rueda Fajardo underscored that the report provides Members guidance on different ways of doing business and reconciling the private sector’s relationship with nature.

Assessment Co-Chair Matt Jones welcomed the co-creative nature of the assessment process. Emphasizing his belief that businesses can be agents of positive change and contribute to a just and sustainable future, he underscored the need to live up to expectations put forward by youth representatives to “take action, not just write reports.”

Assessment Co-Chair Steve Polasky emphasized the magnitude of the task of responding to over 6,000 comments from a wide spectrum of reviewers and acknowledged the commitment of all who contributed to the process. He highlighted the Assessment’s timely nature, considering the urgent need to foster an enabling environment for businesses to contribute to a just and sustainable world.

The INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS FORUM ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES emphasized the need for businesses to comply with access and benefit-sharing provisions, including related to digital sequence information, and encouraged further work on the Cali Fund, which allocates 50% of its resources to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Expressing appreciation for the recognition of Indigenous and local knowledge holders and their role in biodiversity conservation, they denounced lack of recognition of self-determination rights.

Final Outcome: In its decision IPBES/12/L.11, the Plenary approves the SPM of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment and accepts the chapters of the Assessment, including their executive summaries. 

The SPM features a short preface, ten Key Messages, and 29 Background Messages across three sections (A, B and C), containing six figures and seven tables. The SPM also contains an appendix communicating the degree of confidence used in the Assessment.

The preface summarizes the scope and aim of the Assessment and provides definitions of key terms. It includes a figure with an overview of the Assessment, highlighting how businesses both depend on and impact biodiversity, creating risks and opportunities. 

Section A of the Background Messages addresses understanding the relationship between businesses and biodiversity, and supports the following Key Messages:

• all businesses depend on and impact biodiversity and can be agents of positive change (KM1); and
• the current external conditions in which businesses operate are not always compatible with achieving a just and sustainable future and perpetuate systemic risks (KM2). 

Section B discusses options for action by businesses, including financial institutions, financial actors, governments, and other actors, supporting the following Key Messages:

• collaboration and collective and individual actions are essential to create an enabling environment where businesses contribute to a just and sustainable future (KM3);
• all businesses have a responsibility to address their impacts and dependencies (KM4); and
• creating an enabling environment can incentivize actions that are beneficial for businesses, biodiversity, and society for a just and sustainable future (KM10).

Section C addresses measuring businesses’ impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people and supports the following Key Messages:

• existing methods, knowledge, and data for measuring impacts and dependencies already and can further inform decisions and actions, directly and in the value chain (KM5); 
• different methods to measure and manage impacts and dependencies are needed for different sectors, levels of decision-making, and business purposes (KM6);
• appropriate methods to measure and manage business impacts and dependencies can be selected based on coverage, accuracy, and responsiveness (KM7);
• businesses could better measure and manage their impacts and dependencies by appropriately engaging with science and Indigenous and local knowledge, methods, and practices (KM8); and
• the existing knowledge base needs to be strengthened by addressing important gaps in knowledge and its application (KM9).

Financial and Budgetary Arrangements for the Platform

On Tuesday, Executive Secretary Dziba presented the relevant document (IPBES/12/5). He outlined the contributions received in 2025, which include in-kind contributions from experts and institutions and cash contributions from Member States, particularly from the EU, Germany, and the UK. Dziba welcomed the swift pledges made by Malta and Cyprus, who recently joined the Platform. He also presented the expenditure for 2024, estimated expenditure for 2025, and proposed budget for 2026–2028, and highlighted ongoing fundraising efforts, including with philanthropies.

Acknowledging the funding gap resulting from the US withdrawal, Chair Obura urged Member States to step up their contributions to enable IPBES to implement its targets, stressing the need to raise USD 2.5 million per year to address the gap between the budget and current expenditure. 

FRANCE announced an additional contribution of EUR 300,000 to support the work of IPBES. They highlighted that science is a pre-condition for credible and strong diplomacy. JAPAN pledged USD 200,000 to the Trust Fund for 2026, along with continued in-kind support for the Technical Support Unit of the Task Force on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and encouraged other countries to join funding efforts. Noting a contribution of GBP 1.3 million in 2025, the UK pledged GBP 500,000 to the Trust Fund for 2026. Chair Obura welcomed the pledges and invited additional contributions.

The item was addressed in a Contact Group chaired by Erik Grigoryan (Armenia). On Sunday, Members adopted the draft decision put forward by the Group with a minor edit.

Final Outcome: In its decision IPBES/12/L.4, the Plenary, among others:

• notes with concern the limited number of Members contributing to the Trust Fund and the limited progress in increasing this number; 
• urges the Executive Secretary to explore all available options within budgetary limits to reinforce the Secretariat’s fundraising unit;
• urges governments, including regional economic integration organizations, 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;
• invites UN bodies, the Global Environment Facility, other intergovernmental organizations, the private sector, foundations, stakeholders, and others in a position to do so to support the work of the Platform;
• requests the Bureau and the Executive Secretary to take into consideration the recommendations of the report on the midterm review regarding financial and budgetary arrangements when implementing this decision;
• urges nominating governments and those in a position to do so to provide funding to Indigenous Peoples and local communities and youth representatives to increase their participation in the full range of activities of the Platform; and
• adopts the revised budgets for 2026 and 2027 and the provisional budget for 2028, annexed to the decision.

Building Capacity, Strengthening Knowledge Foundations, and Supporting Policy

On Tuesday, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/12/7 and /INF/10-16). Members agreed to assign consideration of this item to WG 2 and to use the Chair’s informal note (/Other/2) and the relevant draft decision text (/1/Add.2) as a basis for their deliberations.

This item was addressed by WG 2 on Wednesday and Friday. Delegates heard updates from the task forces, the Bureau, and the MEP on progress across work programme objectives and the proposed workplans for 2026–2027. They also reflected on proposed indicators to track progress towards the workplans’ implementation. Delegates highlighted, among others, the need to enhance coherence in delivering on the objectives and to ensure regional balance in the fellowship programme. They also suggested that dialogues with national focal points could address recommendations identified in the midterm review and options to support the use and uptake of IPBES products. 

Delegates agreed to the proposal for the Bureau and MEP to develop a holistic indicator framework to monitor implementation of the IPBES work programme to be used for future IPBES reviews.

Final Outcomes: In its decision IPBES/12/L.2, the Plenary approved workplans for the intersessional period 2026–2027 and indicators for reporting progress thereon at IPBES 13. 

The workplan for objective 2 (building capacity) is contained in IPBES/12/L.5. On objective 2.a (enhanced learning and engagement), the workplan includes activities such as: 

• the organization of an annual training workshop for fellows in ongoing assessments; 
• the further development and promotion of IPBES webinars, online tools, and videos on approved IPBES assessment reports and other products;
• the organization of a youth workshop; and 
• the organization of in-person dialogue meetings with national focal points and an online meeting for new IPBES national focal points and other government representatives.

On objective 2.b (facilitated access to expertise and information), the workplan includes, among others, the organization of the ninth meeting of the capacity-building forum to facilitate engagement with and enhance collaboration among organizations and institutions for the implementation of the IPBES rolling capacity-building plan, with the specific theme of the forum to be proposed by the Task Force on Capacity-Building and agreed on by the Bureau.

On objective 2.c (strengthened national and regional capacities), the activities will focus on facilitating the sharing of knowledge and best practices among: existing national and (sub)regional science-policy platforms; those interested in establishing new ones; and organizations and institutions that could support their establishment.

The workplan for objective 3.a (advanced work on knowledge and data – data and knowledge management) is contained in IPBES/12/L.6. The workplan includes activities, such as: 

• reviewing and, if necessary, revising the long-term vision and policy for data and knowledge management and the codes of practice that support their implementation;
• technical support for a centralized platform for the compilation of glossaries from all completed assessments, the documentation of knowledge gaps and their traceability to the relevant assessment sections, and maintenance of IPBES libraries on Indigenous and local knowledge; and
• analysis and creation of spatial data, as well as the verification of maps for conformity with the IPBES guidelines.

The workplan for objective 3.a (advanced work on knowledge and data – knowledge generation catalysis) is contained in IPBES/12/L.7. The workplan features, among others, activities to:

• support assessment experts in the identification of knowledge gaps;
• organize dialogue meetings to present the knowledge gaps identified in the Business and Biodiversity Assessment to research funding agencies, governments, and other stakeholders; 
• identify recurrently identified knowledge gaps; and
• ensure the overall coherence, efficiency, and regular updating of the knowledge generation catalysis process. 

The workplan for objective 3.b (enhanced recognition of and work with Indigenous and local knowledge systems systems) is contained in IPBES/12/L.8. It includes activities, such as:

• capacity-building and training for Indigenous and local knowledge liaison groups;
• dialogue workshops with experts on Indigenous and local knowledge and with members of Indigenous Peoples and local communities for the external reviews of the monitoring assessment, spatial planning and connectivity assessment, and the second global assessment; 
• post-assessment activities, including collation and dissemination of materials of relevance to Indigenous Peoples and local communities from the Business and Biodiversity Assessment, and a webinar to communicate the key messages; and 
• the further development of the Indigenous and local knowledge section of the IPBES website.

The workplan for objective 4.a (advanced work on policy instruments, policy support tools, and methodologies) is contained in IPBES/12/L.9. Activities include:

• the provision of training to experts of the second global assessment;
• targeted outreach to encourage participation in the external reviews of drafts of the spatial planning and connectivity assessment and second global assessment;
• the development of fact sheets for the monitoring assessment and the spatial planning and connectivity assessment; 
• informing relevant multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), other intergovernmental processes, and relevant international organizations about completed and ongoing assessments; and
• developing options for more effective contextualization of assessment findings for specific audiences.

The workplan for objective 4.b (advanced work on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services) is contained in IPBES/12/L.10. Activities to provide support for scenarios and models for IPBES assessments include:

• mobilizing existing communities working on scenarios and models and other types of future studies to facilitate the development of scenarios and models relevant to the work of IPBES;
• continuing the development of a compilation on gaps and needs regarding nature-centered scenarios and models to communicate to the scientific community; and 
• engaging with stakeholders, including those with backgrounds in modeling, social sciences, humanities, or Indigenous and local knowledge, as well as with policymakers and the private sector, through participation in relevant international meetings to disseminate and further develop IPBES’ work on scenarios and models, including the Nature Futures Framework.

The indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the workplans for objectives 2, 3 and 4 of the rolling work programme up to 2030 are contained in IPBES/12/L.12. Indicators include:

• the number of fellows and former fellows selected for intergovernmental science-policy panel roles;
• number of participants and institutions taking part in the IPBES capacity-building forum;
• feedback from participants on the usefulness of the capacity-building activities;
• the number of data sets, data management reports, and other knowledge products deposited in long-term open-access repositories, including the number of views and downloads of those products;
• the number of entries in the IPBES semantic knowledge base;
• the number of knowledge gaps identified in IPBES assessments completed in the intersessional period;
• the number of projects and/or amount of funds catalyzed to address the knowledge gaps;
• the inclusion of information on Indigenous and local knowledge and/or Indigenous Peoples and local communities in SPMs;
• the proportion of surveyed policymakers and focal points reporting that IPBES products provide actionable and context-relevant policy options or tools for decision-making; and
• the number of new or revised international, regional, or national policies, strategies, or official decisions explicitly referencing or applying findings from IPBES assessments.

Improving the Effectiveness of the Platform

On Tuesday, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/12/8, /1/Add.2 and /INF/20-21) and thanked the review panel and consultants for completing the review. The item was assigned to WG 2, which considered it on Wednesday. The external review panel presented its recommendations and the Secretariat, Bureau, and MEP presented initial responses. One delegate suggested issuing a call for the submission of concrete proposals for implementation of the recommendations.

Final Outcome: In its decision, contained in section VI of IPBES/12/L.2, the Plenary: 

• welcomes with appreciation the report on the midterm review;
• welcomes the responses by the Bureau, MEP, and Executive Secretary to the report on the midterm review;
• requests the Secretariat to issue a call to Members, observers, and stakeholders on concrete proposals for implementation in response to the recommendations presented in the report on the midterm review; 
• requests the Bureau and the MEP to further review the recommendations contained in the report on the midterm review under the rolling work programme and to consider relevant submissions when developing a costed proposal for their implementation for consideration by IPBES 13; and
• encourages Members and observers to consider the review’s recommendations to inform their interactions with the Platform and support the implementation of its work programme. 

Additional Elements of the Rolling Work Programme of the Platform up to 2030

On Tuesday, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/12/9, /9/Add.1, /1/Add.2, and /INF/22), as well as a Chair’s informal note (/Other/3). The Plenary agreed to assign this item to WG 2, which considered it on Thursday and Friday.

At the outset, MEP Co-Chair Shizuka Hashimoto noted that four topics were prioritized for future assessments, building on input received from MEAs, Members, and other stakeholders: pollution; poverty; cities; and climate change. While many delegations emphasized pollution as a priority topic, Members supported the Bureau and MEP’s recommendation not to agree on a new assessment at IPBES 12. This was motivated by various strategic considerations, including the Platform’s financial situation, calls to enhance uptake of existing deliverables, and timing to consider the midterm review recommendations and institutional arrangements across work programme objectives. 

With input from the Secretariat on the Platform’s different deliverable formats, including the number of authors involved, approval requirements, and related costs, Members had a more fundamental reflection on what future work to mandate. Topics of discussion included: the extent to which synthesis reports and technical papers could serve to update existing assessments; the nomination and selection process for experts for these formats; the impact of deliverables that are not subject to government approval; and the fact that the expected impact of work on a given topic may inform decisions on format and budget allocation. Some emphasized the value of leveraging existing assessments to inform the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). 

While delegates quickly reached agreement on mandating the Bureau and MEP to develop a proposal for future deliverables across objectives to be considered at IPBES 13, they debated the format and expected outputs of a workshop aimed at informing its development. 

Final Outcome: In its decision contained in section II of IPBES/12/L.2, the Plenary requests the Bureau and the MEP to develop a proposal for the nature, topics, and timing of Platform deliverables on assessing knowledge, building capacity, strengthening the knowledge foundations and supporting policy, for consideration by IPBES 13, taking into account:

the report on the prioritization of requests, input, and suggestions for additional elements of the rolling work programme of the Platform up to 2030;

• the report on the midterm review under the rolling work programme;
• the financial and budgetary situation of the Platform;
• potential synergies with other intergovernmental science-policy interfaces and other relevant forums;
• the importance of strengthening the uptake, use, and policy impact of ongoing and completed assessments; and
• the institutional and human capacity of the Platform, including small delegations and the workload of the Bureau, the MEP, and the Secretariat.

To inform the development of this proposal, the Panel also requests the Bureau and the MEP to carry out a review of experiences from conducting fast-track assessments and to organize an expert workshop. The Panel further requests the Executive Secretary to make the draft proposal available for external review by governments and experts during the intersessional period.

Organization of the Plenary

On Tuesday, Chair Obura presented the relevant documents (IPBES/12/10 and /1/Add.2). Noting the challenges of organizing two plenary sessions in 2026, he underlined the Bureau’s recommendation to hold IPBES 13 during the second half of 2027 and for it to consider both the monitoring assessment and the spatial planning and connectivity assessment. He invited Members to submit proposals to host IPBES 13.

On Friday, Chair Obura noted the Secretariat had not received any offers to host IPBES 13 and proposed that Members only decide on the session’s dates at IPBES 12, inviting the Bureau to take a decision on the venue within the next six months. With regard to the relevant draft decision, one member emphasized the need for the Bureau to take into account other multilateral environmental processes more generally, rather than only of the relevant bodies of the biodiversity-related conventions, when considering the dates of future sessions.

On Sunday, Chair Obura introduced the relevant draft decision. At the suggestion of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, delegates agreed to add previously agreed language emphasizing that all Member representatives performing functions in connection with IPBES 13 and IPBES 14 should have the right of unimpeded entry into and exit from the session’s host country, and that visas and entry permits, when required, should be granted as speedily as possible and without discrimination. With this, Members approved the decision.

Final Outcome: In its decision (IPBES/12/L.3), the Plenary, among others:

• decides that IPBES 13 will be held in the second half of 2027, taking into account the calendar of relevant international meetings;
• invites Members to consider hosting IPBES 13;
• requests the Bureau, in consultation with Members, to decide on the specific dates and the venue of IPBES 13 within six months of IPBES 12, taking into account any hosting offers;
• decides that IPBES 14 will be held in the second half of 2028, taking into account the calendar of relevant international meetings, in particular under the CBD; 
• invites Members to consider hosting IPBES 14;
• requests the Bureau, in consultation with Members, to decide on the specific dates and the venue of IPBES 14, taking into account the calendar of relevant intergovernmental meetings and any hosting offers;
• invites the Bureau to take the timelines of Platform assessments into account when considering the dates of future Plenary sessions, with a view to enabling their timely consideration by relevant bodies under multilateral environmental agreements and policy processes; 
• takes note of the draft provisional agendas for IPBES 13 and IPBES 14; and
• requests the Executive Secretary to invite comments on the proposed organization of work of IPBES 13.

Adoption of Decisions and the Report

On Sunday, Chair Obura introduced document IPBES/12/L.2 on the implementation of the rolling work programme up to 2030. Delegates approved the draft decision, also approving as they moved through the document:

• the workplan on objective 2.a (enhanced learning and engagement) contained in IPBES/12/L.5;
• the workplan for objective 3.a (data and knowledge management) contained in IPBES/12/L.6;
• the workplan for objective 3.a (knowledge generation catalysis) contained in IPBES/12/L.7;
• the workplan for objective 3.b (enhanced recognition of and work with Indigenous and local knowledge systems systems) contained in IPBES/12/L.8;
• the workplan for objective 4.a (advanced work on policy instruments, policy support tools, and methodologies) contained in IPBES/12/L.9;
• the workplan for objective 4.b (advanced work on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services) contained in IPBES/12/L.10; and
• the indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the above workplans contained in IPBES/12/L.12.

Rapporteur Bishwa Nath Oli (Nepal) introduced the meeting’s report (IPBES/12/L.1), noting that it will be finalized with the proceedings of the closing plenary session once the meeting is over. Members approved the report.

CAMEROON lamented that it was not listed among the countries that had submitted original credentials. The Secretariat explained this was because the credentials submitted were not signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to which Cameroon replied that the competent Vice-Minister had signed them instead. Chair Obura said the matter would be taken up bilaterally by the Secretariat.

The DRC noted that a statement about some of the WG 1 sessions having been held solely in English was not reflected in the report despite their explicit request. Chair Obura noted the report would be updated to reflect the latest developments and requests.

Final Outcome: In its decision (IPBES/12/L.2), the Plenary, among others:

• requests the Bureau and the MEP to develop a holistic indicator framework to monitor the implementation of the Platform’s work programme, including performance and impact indicators, for consideration by IPBES 13; and
• decides to enable governments to undertake an additional review of the SPMs and chapters of the monitoring assessment and the spatial planning and connectivity Assessment.

Closing Plenary

On Sunday, IPBES Executive Secretary Luthando Dziba said the key message of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment is that all businesses depend on and impact biodiversity, but can be positive agents of change. He thanked Members for their constructive engagement on the SPM, noting it is much better for these contributions. Recognizing that the primary audience for this report is governments and organizations in the financial system, he underlined that “all of us have a role to play” in taking up its findings.

IPBES Chair Obura lauded the respectfulness and collegiality of discussions and stressed the need to integrate Indigenous and local knowledge even more in upcoming assessments. He highlighted IPBES’ unique role in showing the importance of science and evidence for decision-making, and the Platform’s contribution to other multilateral processes.

Grenada, on behalf of the LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN GROUP, recognized ensuring the uptake of assessments as one of the “greatest challenges” for the Platform and asked the Chair, Bureau, and MEP to take action to reduce the length and simplify the language of future SPMs. They highlighted the value of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment to their region, and supported the two assessments on the agenda for IPBES 13 to be considered sequentially so as to facilitate the participation of small delegations.

Ghana, for the AFRICAN GROUP, called the Business and Biodiversity Assessment a “critical tool” for aligning development with biodiversity objectives and underlined the importance of translating IPBES assessments into national policies and programmes.

Malaysia, for the ASIA-PACIFIC GROUP, stressed the importance of continued attention to capacity-building for national focal points to support effective uptake at national and subnational levels.

Armenia, for EASTERN EUROPE, announced that a new Member from the region would join the platform “very soon” and stated their commitment to carry over the spirit of inclusive consensus-building to the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD in Armenia in October 2026.

Switzerland, for AUSTRALIA, CANADA, ICELAND, ISRAEL, JAPAN, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, SWITZERLAND, and the UK, noted the “heavy agenda” for IPBES 13 and underlined the importance of intersessional work.

Saying that “investing in nature is the best investment into our future,” the EUROPEAN UNION welcomed the Business and Biodiversity Assessment and underlined the need for the Platform to produce a wider range of deliverables going forward. They welcomed the financial pledges announced at IPBES 12, inviting Members to contribute to fundraising efforts. Announcing that Slovenia’s membership request had been approved earlier on Sunday, they emphasized that all 27 EU Member States are now IPBES Members.

The OPEN-ENDED NETWORK OF IPBES STAKEHOLDERS laid out their vision of a world in which people from all walks of life consider and benefit from IPBES assessments. They underscored the role of groups and networks within IPBES and encouraged governments, national focal points, and platforms to collaborate with diverse stakeholders to maximize the Platform’s reach and impact.

Chair Obura thanked all participants for their hard work and gaveled the meeting to a close at 2:18 pm.

A Brief Analysis of IPBES 12

The twelfth session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 12) kickstarted a busy year for biodiversity-related multilateral meetings in 2026, by successfully launching its latest report, the Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People.

On a more somber note, IPBES 12 opened with delegates reflecting on the news of the US withdrawal from the Platform, despite its status as a founding Member. The full repercussions of this decision remain to be seen, including in terms of scientific expertise, but the IPBES community already showcased its resolve not to let this impede the Platform’s work. Some Member States announced new financial pledges, emphasizing the Platform’s value as an “organization that tells the truth” and informs sound decision-making and diplomacy. Others promised in-kind contributions and voiced political commitment. 

This brief analysis reflects on discussions held in Manchester, looking at strides made in the two Working Groups that convened throughout IPBES 12, which respectively addressed the Business and Biodiversity Assessment as the session’s key deliverable, and served to chart out the Platform’s future work.

“Nature is Everyone’s Business”

In contrast to the two assessments that were reviewed and approved in intense negotiations at the Platform’s previous meeting in Windhoek, Namibia, in December 2024, delegates were relieved to see that only one report was on the agenda at IPBES 12: the Business and Biodiversity Assessment. Many also hoped that its “methodological” character, focusing on how to measure businesses’ impacts and dependencies on biodiversity, could facilitate the approval of its Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Businesses’ impacts and dependencies on biodiversity have been on the biodiversity agenda for a while. Seasoned delegates will remember that the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a decision on promoting a public-policy environment that enables private-sector engagement and the mainstreaming of biodiversity in corporate decision-making back in 2010. The idea for IPBES to prepare a report on this topic can be traced back to another decision the CBD adopted in 2018. Since then, recognition of the topic’s relevance has further grown, as demonstrated by the inclusion of a business-focused target in the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Framework (Target 15). More recently, it has been further bolstered by a wave of “due diligence” legislation adopted by major economies, explicitly mandating corporations to monitor and minimize their ecological footprints. 

As Executive Secretary Luthando Dziba was keen to underline at IPBES 12, companies have contributed to many of the rapid advances in poverty reduction seen in recent decades, but these advances have come at the cost of depleting the ecological systems that sustain life on the planet and, ultimately, threaten business activity itself. 

In principle, IPBES reports always address a broad range of stakeholders, providing guidance for government action at various levels, but also decision-making by other types of actors, including civil society, philanthropies, and the private sector. This time around, though, the report addresses businesses in a more straightforward way, leading Members to wrestle with finding the right language to make findings palatable to boardrooms and government officials alike. 

There was also some contention as to the appropriate extent of “finger-pointing.” For instance, some countries were keen to highlight the magnitude of environmentally harmful public subsidies and private investment flowing to particular sectors, an idea others strongly opposed. As is the case in other processes, debates also debated references to the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. What all could agree on was the key message that: businesses currently operate within conditions that are not favorable to a just and sustainable future; and that remedies to this problem go beyond individual sectors or businesses, they need to foster an enabling environment more generally.

It is worth noting that the SPM, at Members’ repeated requests, highlights alternative models and measures of economic welfare, such as bioeconomy, circular economy, degrowth, postgrowth, inclusive wealth, and de-coupling. Some participants were hopeful that the Assessment could help legitimize these ideas and bridge the growing gap between business-as-usual and scientific evidence on the alarming rate at which conventional economic paradigms erode the conditions for life on the planet.

Ultimately, delegates strongly welcomed the adoption of a balanced SPM that contains a wide range of concrete guidance and examples for action to be taken by both public and private actors. “This is a huge step towards a truly whole-of-society approach,” commented a seasoned IPBES observer. There was additional cause for celebration, as the Assessment marked the Platform’s first ever fast-track assessment, developed in a little more than two years, compared to the regular four-year process. While some expressed concern that the shortened timelines put a strain on contributing experts and limited Members’ abilities to provide input, others saw the fast-track option as a viable resource for making the Platform more agile and responsive to a quickly shifting scientific and policy landscape.

The Platform’s Future Business

Discussions in Manchester also charted a path for the Platform’s future work. For one, delegates elected a new Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP). Along with the Bureau, which is composed of regional representatives, the MEP is one of the Platform’s key bodies. It consists of 25 scientific experts who serve three-year terms and provide scientific and technical advice to support the Platform in its core tasks. With many elections in multilateral environmental processes currently complicated by geopolitical tensions—once again evidenced during the Plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution (ISP-CWP) convening in parallel—observers were relieved to see the IPBES elections conclude without a hitch.

Discussions on the 2026–2027 workplans to advance progress on the objectives of the Platform’s rolling work programme up to 2030 were similarly smooth. Since the terms of office and mandates of the relevant task forces and technical support units run until IPBES 13, neither the proposed workplans nor the related reporting indicators contained any surprises.

In relation to indicators, delegates took up one of the recommendations arising from the recently concluded midterm review of the Platform’s work. They agreed to mandate the Bureau and MEP to develop a “holistic indicator framework,” including performance and impact indicators, which will serve to assess IPBES activities across all components. While IPBES 12 heard initial reactions on the review’s findings, substantive reflection on how to address them remained limited. Instead, delegates added to the Bureau and the MEP’s tally, mandating them to develop a costed proposal for the recommendations’ implementation for consideration by IPBES 13. Through submissions, Members and observers can also feed into this process.

The agenda for IPBES 13 further grew in weight when delegates followed the Bureau and MEP’s recommendation not to agree on an additional assessment to be conducted within the current work programme just yet. Ahead of IPBES 12, four topics had been prioritized for consideration, building on requests received by multilateral environmental agreements, Members, and other stakeholders: pollution, poverty, cities, and climate change. In Manchester, pollution emerged as the clear favorite. Yet delegates ultimately only mandated the development of another proposal to inform discussions in 2027. During the intersessional period, the Bureau and MEP will reflect on the breadth of possible deliverables, weighing the pros and cons of thematic assessments, fast-track assessments, as well as two novel formats¾synthesis reports and technical papers¾to develop a proposal for the nature, topics, and timing of deliverables up to 2030.

Various strategic considerations motivated this decision. As the midterm review showed, IPBES has demonstrated a strong productivity, high level of scientific integrity, increasing visibility, and significant advances in integrating diverse knowledge. But delegates are also mindful of challenges, especially in terms of government uptake and financial and capacity constraints related to the management of concurrent assessment processes. While a look at the concurrent ISP-CWP session suggests that IPBES may be a more efficient and expeditious venue to develop a pollution report than a pollution panel currently lacking basic institutional arrangements, support also emerged for a synthesis report of sorts that would leverage existing IPBES assessments to inform the implementation and monitoring of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

Looking toward IPBES 13

Ultimately, IPBES 12 showcased the Platform’s growing maturity. Experts and government representatives are well-versed in the SPM approval process by now, although long-time observers noticed many new faces in the room. And delegates did not try to push through a long wish list of topics to address in the future. Instead, they decided to take time for reflection.

Seeing how much work IPBES 12 added to their plate, the Bureau and MEP will surely welcome the long intersessional period until IPBES 13, which is scheduled for the second half of 2027. A fresh MEP will surely take up the challenge with renewed energy. 

Delegates, too, have their work cut out for themselves at the next Plenary session, with so many fundamental decisions to be taken about future work and related institutional setups. On top of that, the approval of no less than two SPMs will be on the agenda. Building on lessons learned from IPBES 11 in Namibia, the monitoring assessment and the spatial planning and connectivity assessment are expected to be considered sequentially, rather than at the same time, to facilitate the process of adopting each SPM.

Now only one question remains: who will step up to host IPBES 13? Regardless of its venue, IPBES 13 may prove to be a pivotal moment for the Platform to maintain its position as a leading voice at the science-policy interface.

Citation

For summary report citation, please use: Bansard, Jennifer, Daniel Bertram, Christina Fernandez, and Cristina Mundin. 2026. 12th Session of the IPBES Plenary and Stakeholder Day. Earth Negotiations Bulletin/IISD, Vol. 31 No. 83.