Highlights and images for 18 February 2026

Trust is a significant component of efficient and effective international negotiations. Lengthy negotiations on a draft resolution on resource mobilization during the sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI 6) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) revealed that trust-building is still needed for progress in implementing the roadmap agreed at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) for closing the significant biodiversity finance gap. 

Resource mobilization is a crucial means of implementation of commitments under the Convention, and has historically been among the most controversial items. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), in Target 19, calls for mobilizing at least USD 200 billion per year by 2030.  

To achieve this, COP 16 set out a roadmap for work from COP 17 to COP 19 along two tracks: establishing the permanent arrangement for the financial mechanism envisioned under Article 21 of the Convention; and assessing and improving the mobilization of finance from all sources. SBI was tasked with addressing the initial steps of these two tracks at its sixth and seventh meetings. 

Throughout the day, delegates engaged in text-based negotiations on a conference room paper (CRP) containing a draft recommendation. The slow pace of deliberations and the difficulty in agreeing on seemingly straightforward provisions were indicative of the underlying complexities of the item.  

The division of tasks between SBI 6 and 7 gave rise to drawn-out discussions. It was clarified that, in accordance with the SBI 6 agenda, the focus of the CRP was on three studies, still under peer-review until May, on: the relationship between debt sustainability and CBD implementation; the implementation of guidance on safeguards in biodiversity finance mechanisms; and the relationship between biodiversity and climate finance.  

Many delegates expressed concern with the heavy workload projected onto SBI 7, which is expected to address the criteria for the structure to operate the financial mechanism, impediments to the effectiveness of global biodiversity finance, as well as opportunities for broadening the contributor base. While many called for maintaining focus on the three studies, others wished to convey the urgency of work to be conducted by SBI 7. Despite several text suggestions and informal consultations, delegates did not reach consensus. 

Discussions also focused on the potential application of debt-related instruments to the implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), with many highlighting sensitivities around questions touching upon sovereign debt. Referring to mechanisms for loans or debt restructuring to fund biodiversity-related projects, delegates discussed instruments such as debt-for-nature swaps and biodiversity-linked bonds and loans. 

While consultations on resource mobilization continue, plenary finished considering the CRPs on NBSAPs and the midterm review of the Gender Plan of Action, with some issues remaining pending, to be discussed in further informal consultations.  

In the evening, a high-level roundtable took place on “Agrifood systems taking action for nature,” co-organized by the COP 17 Armenian Presidency, the CBD Secretariat, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). Contact groups continued their work on specialized international access and benefit-sharing instruments and cooperation with other conventions and international organizations.