The challenges and opportunities faced by biodiversity globally and the role of Brazil: priorities for CBD COP17

ABSTRACT

Humanity has become the principal driver of biodiversity loss, and three of the nine Planetary Boundaries-climate change, biodiversity loss, and disruption of the nitrogen cycle-have already been transgressed globally. Despite strong political engagement with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, current national efforts remain insufficient to meet the 2030 targets, held back by limited financing, weak governance, and rising geopolitical polarization. These tensions permeate the agenda of the seventeenth Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, to be held in Yerevan, Armenia, in October 2026, where many negotiated recommendations remain bracketed and unresolved. Brazil brings three proposals to COP17: promoting synergy among the Rio Conventions on climate, biodiversity, and desertification; establishing ecological connectivity as a new, fifth element of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas; and advancing technical guidance on biodiversity credits as a complementary, non-substitutive financing instrument, subject to strict integrity and safeguard requirements. Science, technology, and traditional knowledge already offer solutions to reverse biodiversity loss, but political will at the scale required is still lacking. The outcome of COP17 will therefore be decisive in determining whether humanity can keep the planet within safe boundaries or must instead prepare to face the collapse of the biosphere.

KEYWORDS:
CBD; connectivity; conservation; finance; geopolitics; governance

We take it for granted that we live on a unique and fragile planet. Planet Earth is the only place in the Universe known by science to have Life. All known species of organisms share the same origin, which began a little over four billion years ago and resulted through evolution in the millions of species currently inhabiting our planet. Part of this myriad of species evolved slowly through adaptation and natural selection, thanks to the prevalence of sexual reproduction, which leads to the production of progeny genetically different from their parents and from one another, but significant portions of this Tree of Life were shaped by recurrent extreme events of mass extinction, which leads some experts to ask whether extinctions were a result of bad genes or bad luck (being in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Though species extinction can be a natural feature of our planet, in recent times, especially after the invention of agriculture and tools for hunting and fishing, including the control and use of fire, and more recently the industrial revolution, humanity has become the main source of loss of biodiversity with the growth of human population, consumption, civilizations, and technologies.

The Planetary Boundaries concept (Rockström et al. 2009) identified nine human pressures that threaten the stability, resilience, and functioning of Planet Earth and its ecosystems: climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification, biogeochemical flows, freshwater change, land system change, no vel chemical entities, and change in biosphere integrity. The authors clarify that the Planetary Boundaries framework is “Holocene-like,” so as to maintain the Earth system within a manageable interglacial equilibrium state.

These authors agree that this framework needs improvements in the demarcation of the upper edge of the zones of increasing risks. Currently, the framework has proposed boundary quantifications for seven pressures: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, biogeochemical nitrogen and phosphorus increase, global freshwater use, land system change, and rate of biodiversity loss. Currently, the safe boundary and the high-risk limits for biodiversity loss are set at 10 and 100 extinctions per million species per year (Rockström et al. 2024).

This framework has been updated since then, and its last review alerts that the safe operating spaces of three of these planetary boundaries have already been transgressed globally: climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. One could argue that high-biodiversity ecosystems have some level of functional biodiversity redundancy for most biological functions, which would prevent the collapse of ecological functions in the near future. However, ecosystems that have already been subjected to significant local biodiversity loss (extirpations) due to a combination of human pressures have already transgressed the biodiversity loss limits locally, and many regions and countries already face permanent, severe negative impacts unless biodiversity is restored and landscapes and waterscapes are reconnected to existing high-biodiversity ecosystems.

Edward Wilson, in one of his last books (Wilson 2016), proposed that we need to leave at least 50% of the natural ecosystems of the world to the remaining species-this was based on the results of the application of the Island Biogeography theory, which he and Robert MacArthur developed (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). In 2016, Wilson estimated that the then-current 15% of protected areas in the world would only protect some 62% of global species, with 38% at risk of extinction, but if some 50% of the world could be covered by protected areas, some 84% of the species would be protected, with only 16% at risk of extinction. Of course, such estimates would only hold if protected areas were randomly distributed and therefore representative of the distribution of the different ecosystems, which we know is not the case.

South America was the last continent colonized by humans and, not surprisingly, is the continent with the highest percentage of surviving natural ecosystems-not pristine, but biodiversity-rich human-managed ecosystems where natural processes sustained by biodiversity still prevail. Currently, about 50% of the Amazon Region is covered by protected areas, including Indigenous Lands. Indeed, there are other large regions across the world little impacted by humans and where biodiversity still plays an important role, but most of these other regions are biodiversity-poor, dominated by hot deserts or by freezing boreal climates.

Global Review of progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

The draft Global Review of progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, presented by the CBD Secretariat both at SBSTTA 28 and at SBI 7 (CBD Secretariat 2026a), has provisionally reached the following findings:

Overarching message

The Framework has generated unprecedented global engagement and has driven action, innovation, collaboration, and learning experiences across all 23 targets. However, unless collective implementation accelerates rapidly, the 2030 targets and mission will not be achieved. While it is too early to detect change in biodiversity outcomes, the slow rate of current progress represents a long-term risk, as achieving the 2030 targets and mission is the foundation for putting the world on a pathway toward the 2050 goals and vision.

Key message 1: Political will and ambition

The Framework has garnered strong political will and commitment. However, there are gaps between the collective scope of the national targets and the scope of the global targets of the Framework. Strengthening political will and commitment would enable these gaps in scope and ambition to be addressed and overcome.

Key message 2: Action and implementation

Implementation is under way across all targets, but less than half of Parties reported that their national targets were on track for any global target. This could be addressed through accelerated, strategic, and prioritized action, tailored to national circumstances, particularly on issues related to addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss.

Key message 3: Means of implementation

There have been some gains in domestic and international public finance, positive incentives for biodiversity, capacity-building and development, technology transfer, and technical and scientific cooperation since the adoption of the Framework; however, less progress is reported in mobilizing and tracking private finance, and in reducing incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity. Parties report that access to sufficient and timely means of implementation remains a barrier to implementation across the Framework.

Key message 4: Whole-of-Government approaches

While many Parties report actions to strengthen environmental governance, advance the mainstreaming of biodiversity and its multiple values, and improve policy coherence, progress remains uneven and insufficient. The targets of the Framework include aspects related to economic development plans and other sectors, including food systems, health, infrastructure, trade, fiscal policy, finance, and other national priorities. As such, improving the integration and mainstreaming of biodiversity across Government is necessary to implement the Framework and to avoid or minimize trade-offs, reduce duplication, and streamline domestic resource allocation.

Key message 5: Whole-of-society

The Framework cannot be achieved without engaging actors other than national Governments. The whole-of-society approach can be a very effective, inclusive, and cost-efficient pathway to strengthening implementation. The impacts on and reliance of different actors on biodiversity, the participation, rights, and resource needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, youth, and other actors, and the contributions that different actors are making or could make toward the Framework, are not yet being fully realized, accounted for, and supported, or consistently reflected in planning, monitoring, and reporting.

Key message 6: Data and knowledge

There has been substantial effort by Parties to improve national monitoring and knowledge management systems, including traditional knowledge. However, there are major gaps in data availability, data sharing, appropriate and operationalized indicators, existing infrastructure, and technical capacity, which create gaps in data, information, and knowledge available for decision-making.

Global reports on nature and biodiversity

The first broad and consistent assessment of the extent of human impacts on nature was made by George Perkins Marsh in 1864, in his impactful book ‘Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action’ (with a new edition published in 2003, Marsh 2003). More recently, a number of global assessments of human impacts on nature have been published, such as Goudie (1981) ‘The Human Impact on the Natural Environment: Past, Present and Future’; Perlin (1989) ‘A Forest Journey: The Role of Wood in the Development of Civilization’; Roberts (1989) ‘The Holocene, an Environmental History’; Turner II et al. (1990) ‘The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years’; Ponting (1991) ‘A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations’; Viola and Margolis (1991) ‘Seeds of Change: Five Hundred Years since Columbus - A Quincentennial Commemoration’; WCMC (1992) ‘Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources’; Diamond (1999) ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’; McNeill (2000) ‘Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth Century’; Hughes (2001) ‘An Environmental History of the World: Humankind’s Changing Role in the Community of Life’; Jackson et al. (2001) ‘Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems’; Williams (2003) ‘Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis’; Myers and Worm (2003) ‘Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities’; Myers and Worm (2005) ‘Extinction, Survival or Recovery of Large Predatory Fishes’; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) ‘Ecosystems and Human Well-Being’; Diamond (2005) ‘Collapse’; Worm et al. (2006) ‘Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services’; Ellis et al. (2010) ‘Anthropogenic Transformation of the Biomes, 1700 to 2000’; Chivian and Bernstein (2010) ‘How Our Health Depends on Biodiversity’; UNEP (2011) ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making’; Franzo et al. (2013) ‘Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health’; FAO (2014) ‘Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: Principles and Approaches’; CBD Secretariat and WHO (2015) ‘Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health - A State of Knowledge Review’; Whitmee et al. (2015) ‘Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch”; Gemmill-Herren (2016) ‘Pollination Services to Agriculture: Sustaining and Enhancing a Key Ecosystem Service’; IPES-Food (2016) ‘From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems’; UNEP (2016) ‘Healthy Environment, Healthy People’; Bioversity International (2017) ‘Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems’; UNEP (2018a) ‘TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations’; UNEP (2018b) ‘Measuring What Matters in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Synthesis of the Results and Recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s Scientific and Economic Foundations Report’; FAO (2018) ‘Transforming Food and Agriculture to Achieve the SDGs: 20 Interconnected Actions to Guide Decision-Makers’; IPCC (2018) ‘Global Warming of 1.5 °C - An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways’; IPBES (2019a, 2019b) ‘Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’; FAO (2019) ‘The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture’; OECD (2019) ‘Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action, Report Prepared for the G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting’; Deutz et al. (2020) The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability report on ‘Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap’; FAO et al. (2020) ‘State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity - Status, Challenges and Potentialities’; CBD Secretariat (2020) ‘Glo bal Biodiversity Outlook 5’; FPP (2020) ‘Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures. A Complement to the Fifth Edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook’; Dasgupta (2021) ‘The Economics of Biodiversity’; WEF (2020) ‘The Future of Nature and Business’; Mann (2021) ‘The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet’; WCMC (2024) ‘Protected Planet Report’; etc.

On the other hand, Harvard professor Steven Pinker has documented (Pinker 2018) that, despite our negative views and perceptions, humanity has experienced great progress in the last two centuries in increasing access to education, reducing child mortality, and reducing oil spills in oceans, among other achievements, thanks to progress in science and technology and in governance systems, resulting in enhanced human well-being (see Lomborg 2001, Bregman 2020).

We should recognize here that Brazilian democratic governments have consistently implemented strong measures to reduce negative anthropic impacts on biodiversity and to increase measures with positive impacts on biodiversity, as documented in the 7th National Report of Brazil to the CBD (MMA 2026a, 2026b) and in the comprehensive new National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity of Brazil, adopted in 2025 (MMA 2025a, 2025b).

Between 2017 and 2021 (see, for example, Dias 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021), I published several review articles on the history of human impacts on biodiversity and the efforts made under the CBD to strengthen legal, institutional, and field management measures to revert this situation, with a focus on the implementation of the Aichi Targets adopted at CBD COP10, both at the global level and at the national level in Brazil. The findings were mixed: on the one hand, it is evident that countries and organizations are making an extra effort to help achieve the agreed targets, but, on the other hand, it is clear that such efforts have not been sufficient to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity. In my assessment, Brazil has been outperforming most countries on most targets, but the estimated net result is still negative-more loss than gains.

One may then ask: what are the reasons behind such insufficient results for biodiversity? There is no lack of solutions provided by science, technology, and traditional knowledge (see, for example, the results of the ‘Conservation Evidence’ initiative-Sutherland et al. 2021), but there are significant constraints in the availability of financial resources and a lack of appreciation of our economic dependence on biodiversity. In most societies, there are legitimate conflicts of interest among different stakeholder groups, as most modern societies are diverse and economically asymmetric, and most governance systems are unable to resolve these conflicts, especially when societies exhibit great political polarization. One potential way forward is to transfer the mandate to negotiate and promote sustainable land- and water-use management solutions back to local communities, as promoted by 2009 Economics Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom (Ostrom 1990).

The question that comes to mind is whether human societies have learned the hard lessons of the consequences of the loss of biodiversity, or whether they are still captured by the tragedy of the commons phenomenon. Unfortunately, part of humanity is still trapped under the tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968), either because people still live under poverty and hunger or because they are trapped by the modern phenomenon of unsustainable consumption promoted by the “ethics” of extreme economic liberalism.

UN 2026 Conference on Biodiversity - COP17

The 2026 UN Conference on Biodiversity (including COP17 of the CBD, COPMOP 12 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and COPMOP 6 of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing) will be held in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in the Caucasus region, from October 19 to 30. The agenda of the CBD COP17 will cover 37 agenda items, which can be grouped into eight main subjects:

Review of progress (two items) - item 9. Planning, monitoring, reporting and review: (a) Global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; (b) Monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Resource mobilization (two items) - item 8. Resource mobilization and financial mechanism: (a) Resource mobilization; (b) Financial mechanism.

Implementation of Article 8(j) and related provisions (issues related to traditional knowledge) (eight items) - item 10. Implementation of Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity related to indigenous peoples and local communities: (a) Modus operandi of the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) and Other Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity Related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities; (b) Implementation of the programme of work on Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention related to indigenous peoples and local communities to 2030: (i) Guidelines to strengthen the legal and policy framework for the implementation of Targets 2 and 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including on indigenous and traditional territories, to support the protection and restoration practices led by indigenous peoples and local communities (Task 1.1), and guidelines for the inclusion and consideration of traditional lands and of resource use in spatial planning processes and environmental impact assessments (Task 1.2); (ii) Process to review and update the Voluntary Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts Within the Context of Article 8(j) and Related Provisions of the Convention (Task 5.4); (c) In-depth dialogue on Article 8(j) and related provisions of the Convention; (d) Recommendations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Mechanisms for promoting benefit-sharing (one item) - item 11. Digital sequence information on genetic resources.

Support mechanisms (seven items) - item 12. Matters relating to support mechanisms for the implementation and awareness of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: (a) Capacity-building and development and technical and scientific cooperation; (b) Clearing-house mechanism and knowledge management; (c) Communication, education and public awareness; and item 13. Cooperation with international organizations and bodies established under other conventions; as well as item 14. Mainstreaming of biodiversity and engagement with subnational governments: (a) Mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors; (b) Engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to enhance the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Scientific and technical needs (five items) - item 17. Scientific and technical needs to support the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and matters related to the programme of work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: (a) Strategic review and analysis of the programmes of work under the Convention on Biological Diversity in the context of the Framework; (b) Strategic review of and updates to the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity; (c) Strategic review of and updates to the programme of work on protected areas; (d) Areas of potential further work in the context of the Framework; (e) Matters related to the work programme of the Platform.

Other thematic and technical issues (eight items) - item 15. Gender Plan of Action; item 16. Synthetic biology; and item 18. Other scientific and technical issues related to the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: (a) Biodiversity and climate change; (b) Sustainable wildlife management; (c) Marine and coastal biodiversity and island biodiversity; (d) Biodiversity and agriculture; (e) Invasive alien species; (f) Biodiversity and health.

Administrative issues (five items) - item 19. Review of the effectiveness of processes under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols; and item 20. Multi-year programme of work of the Conference of the Parties; as well as item 5. Date and venue of future meetings of the Conference of the Parties; as well as item 7. Administration of the Convention on Biological Diversity, budget for the trust funds, and functional review of the Secretariat.

It is evident that the COP17 agenda is huge. The CBD Secretariat organized five meetings of subsidiary bodies to discuss, negotiate, and adopt recommendations for COP17: two meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)-SBSTTA 27 in Panama City in October 2025 and SBSTTA 28 in Nairobi in July 2026; two meetings of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI)-SBI 6 in Rome in February 2026 and SBI 7 in Nairobi in August 2026; and one meeting of the new Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) and Other Provisions (SB8j)-the first meeting of SB8j, in Panama City in October 2025. Altogether, these five meetings adopted 45 recommendations for COP17-six recommendations by SB8j, 10 from SBSTTA 27, 7 from SBSTTA 28, 9 from SBI 6, and 13 from SBI 7.

Unfortunately, many of the paragraphs in these recommendations are in brackets, which, in UN language, means that these are not agreed paragraphs. But the COP cannot adopt decisions with bracketed paragraphs-either the texts within these paragraphs are negotiated and agreed by consensus in the negotiations at COP17, or their contents will have to be discarded, which, in the end, can compromise the adoption of certain decisions. This happens because the developed countries that are members of the CBD refused to adopt a decision on voting rules, as part of the rules of procedure. Earlier biodiversity conventions have voting rules, but the Rio Conventions do not, because these conventions have dedicated financial mechanisms, which earlier conventions did not have, and developed countries did not want to face the risk of losing decisions related to financing, as developing countries are the majority of Parties to these conventions.

Why are we seeing so many paragraphs of recommendations in brackets? My impression is that current global environmental politics is suffering badly from geopolitical turbulence, from the erosion of reliance on good public governance, and from the increasing prevalence of science denial, in particular: 1) the current global geopolitics, with a prevalence of wars and trade tariffs, with more public funds going to military defense and less public money available to support the environmental and climate global agendas (Sun et al. 2026); 2) the current decline of democracies and the more polarized politics and more extreme right-wing governments in many countries, which lead to reduced attention to environmental and climate issues, together with the success of billionaires in many countries in reducing the role of public policies and the rule of law, and a consequent increase in freedom for the business community to maximize the pursuit of profit at the cost of disregard for social and environmental concerns (Oreskes and Conway 2025); and 3) the prevalence of scientific denialism, which removes concerns over the loss of nature and global warming and climate change from mainstream attention in government and business decision-making (Oreskes and Conway 2010).

Highlights of Brazil’s proposals for COP17

1. Promotion of synergy among the Rio Conventions

During COP16 of the CBD in Cali, Colombia, in October 2024, the Brazilian delegation, at the request of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, negotiated the adoption of paragraph 19 of Decision 16/22 on Biodiversity and Climate Change: ‘Further requests the Executive Secretary to invite Parties, observers and other stakeholders, to submit by May 2025 their views on options for enhanced policy coherence, including a potential joint work programme of the Rio conventions, to be compiled by the Executive Secretary for the attention of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions, to submit its compilation for consideration the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting held before the seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, and to invite the executive secretaries of the other Rio conventions to collaborate on the organization of a technical information exchange in 2025 to further explore options to enhance cooperation and policy coherence to support the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement’ (CBD Secretariat 2024).

In response to this decision, the CBD Secretariat issued, on January 28, 2025, Notification 2025-05 (CBD Secretariat 2025a), requesting submission of views and information on biodiversity and climate change from governments and observer organizations by May. Only 10 governments submitted their views and proposals, including Brazil (see MMA and MRE 2025), Colombia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Gambia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the European Union. However, the Secretariat received submissions from 60 observer organizations, indicating broad support from international organizations, academic, and civil society organizations! These proposals were discussed and negotiated at SBSTTA 27 in Panama City in October 2025, which adopted Recommendation 27/3 (CBD Secretariat 2025b) with 14 paragraphs in brackets (which, in UN language, means that they were not agreed by all CBD Parties present) and an Annex on Supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: Primer for Policymakers, with 36 paragraphs, all in brackets.

Recommendation 27/3 of SBSTTA (see Appendix 1) therefore contains many important elements which, if adopted by COP17, would promote significant progress in achieving greater synergy among the three Rio Conventions-but this will require considerable negotiation at COP17!

2. Enhancing efforts to promote connectivity between protected areas

The Brazilian Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, with the support of international civil society organizations, in particular the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), submitted a proposal to create a fifth element to the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the CBD, to highlight the urgent need to enhance efforts to promote connectivity (CBD Secretariat 2026b).

The motivations that led the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to submit this proposal were:

Ecological connectivity is fundamental to the achievement of the objectives of the CBD, as it enables the movement of species, the flow of genes and ecological processes, and the maintenance of ecosystem integrity across terrestrial, aerial, inland water, coastal, and marine systems.

Importantly, climate change is becoming an increasingly significant driver of biodiversity loss and a growing threat to species survival. Species’ capacity to adapt to climate change, however, depends in part on the availability of functional landscape and waterscape connectivity. Yet, in many regions of the world, landscapes and waterscapes are highly fragmented, leaving protected areas ever more isolated and exposed to genetic erosion and species loss. Maintaining and restoring connectivity is therefore already an essential strategy for biodiversity conservation and will become even more critical in the near future.

In an increasingly fragmented world, where infrastructure development and land- and sea-use change continue to intensify, protected and conserved areas (PCAs) that function in isolation are insufficient to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. According to one estimate in the latest Protected Planet Report by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and IUCN, much greater progress is still needed to achieve the “well-connected” element of Target 3 of the KMGBF, as only approximately 8.5% of the world’s terrestrial surface is currently both protected and connected.

The new Programme Element 5, “Ecological Connectivity”, was proposed for consideration as follows-see Appendix 2. Unfortunately, the Brazilian proposal did not receive sufficient support from other Parties, and only a short reference in brackets was included in SBSTTA 28 Recommendation 5 (CBD Secretariat 2026c); it would require a great effort at COP17 to incorporate Brazil’s proposal into a COP17 decision!

3. Proposal to establish general guidance for biodiversity credits

The Brazilian Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change organized, in April 2026, in partnership with the Igarapé Institute, a member of the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credit (IAPB), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), a national seminar to discuss the opportunities and challenges of promoting biodiversity credits in Brazil (MMA 2026c).

Based on the diversity of presentations and rich discussions at this seminar, UNDP, upon request from MMA, selected and hired a skilled consultant, Mariana Aparecida Calabrez Oreng, lecturer in finance at the Getulio Vargas Foundation School of Business Administration in São Paulo, to produce a document summarizing the different views and concerns of Brazilian stakeholders regarding the promotion of biodiversity credits in Brazil (MMA 2026d). This document was submitted to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with a request to submit a proposal to the 7th meeting of the CBD Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI 7).

Based on this request, the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted the non-paper ‘Biodiversity credits: state of play, technical and scientific uncertainties, integrity considerations and issues for further examination’ (CBD Secretariat 2026d - see Appendix 3), and Brazil organized a side event at SBI 7 to discuss biodiversity credits.

Unfortunately, Brazil’s proposal was not supported by other Parties, and the SBI 7 recommendation on resource mobilization did not include a single reference to biodiversity credits (CBD Secretariat 2026e).

4. Proposal to set a consultation process with a view to potentially establish a Programme of Work on Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

During the 28th meeting of the Subsidiary Boday on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice to the CBD, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in July of 2026, Brazil presented a proposal as part of the requests to the Executive Secretary of the CBD, which was included in brackets in Recommendation 28/4 (on Sustainable Wildlife Management), as follows:

[9. Also requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources and building on decisions VII/12, 15/4, 16/12 and 16/15, to initiate [a][an inclusive] consultation process on options for [strengthening the implementation of sustainable use, including through] a potential programme of work on the sustainable use of biodiversity[, including sustainable biodiversity-based activities, products and services that enhance biodiversity] by requesting information from Parties, other Governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth and relevant organizations and actors, and to submit the options for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at a meeting held before the eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.]

Conclusion: What is at stake?

The question is whether the current human generations will succeed in saving our planet, keeping it within its sustainable boundaries, avoiding the so-called “tipping points”, avoiding the collapse of water availability, avoiding the expansion of land degradation and desertification, avoiding food insecurity and famine, avoiding worsening global warming, and avoiding the loss of biodiversity, including mass extinction of species (Kolbert 2014) and continuous genetic erosion, among other risks. Though we have the solutions to achieve these goals, we currently do not collectively exhibit the political will, at the scale required, to reverse these risks and trends. Therefore, a realistic assessment at this stage is that human societies might fail this task, and, in this case, we would need to be prepared to witness and survive the collapse of the world’s current biosphere.

LITERATURE CITED

• Bioversity International (2017) Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index. Bioversity International, Rome. https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/online_library/Mainstreaming_Agrobiodiversity/Mainstreaming_Agrobiodiversity_Sustainable_Food_Systems_WEB.pdf
  » https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/online_library/Mainstreaming_Agrobiodiversity/Mainstreaming_Agrobiodiversity_Sustainable_Food_Systems_WEB.pdf
• Bregman R (2020) Humankind: A hopeful history. Little Brown and Company, New York, 480 pp.
• CBD Secretariat (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, 212 pp.
• CBD Secretariat (2024) COP16. Decision 16/22. Biodiversity and Climate Change, 6 pp.
• CBD Secretariat (2025a) Notification 2025-005. Submission of views and information on biodiversity and climate change (Ref.: SCBD/SSSF/JL/SS/TT/92042 28 January 2025), 1 p. https://www.cbd.int/notifications/2025-005
  » https://www.cbd.int/notifications/2025-005
• CBD Secretariat (2025b) SBSTTA 27. Recommendation 27/3. Biodiversity and climate change. https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-27, 15 pp.
  » https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-27
• CBD Secretariat (2026a) Summary, conclusions and key messages of the Global Review of progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework presented by the CBD Secretariat both at SBSTTA28 and at SBI7. CBD/SBSTTA/28/2/Add.3-CBD/SBI/7/2/Add.1, 25 pp.
• CBD Secretariat (2026b) SBSTTA 28 Information Document 7. Submission from Brazil regarding the strategic review of and update to the programme of work on protected areas: Ecological Connectivity as a new Programme Element for the PoWPA. https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-28
  » https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-28
• CBD Secretariat (2026c) SBSTTA 28 Recommendation 5. Scientific and technical needs to support the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: strategic review of and update to the programme of work on protected areas. https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-28
  » https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBSTTA-28
• CBD Secretariat (2026d) SBI 7. Submission of Brazil. Biodiversity credits: state of play, technical and scientific uncertainties, integrity considerations and issues for further examination. Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6 pp. https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBI-07#other
  » https://www.cbd.int/meetings/SBI-07#other
• CBD Secretariat (2026e) SBI 7 Recommendation 7/2 on Resource mobilization, 6 pp.
• CBD Secretariat, WHO (2015) Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health - A State of Knowledge Review. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, World Health Organization, Geneva, 344 pp. https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf
  » https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf
• Chivian EMD, Bernstein AMD (2010) How Our Health Depends on Biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Harvard Medical School, Boston. https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2012/12/Chivian_and_Bernstein_2010_ How_our_Health_Depends_on_Biodiversity.pdf
  » https://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2012/12/Chivian_and_Bernstein_2010_ How_our_Health_Depends_on_Biodiversity.pdf
• Dasgupta P (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Her Magesty’s Treasury, London, 606 pp.
• Deutz A, Heal GM, Niu R, Swanson E, Townshend T, et al. (2020) Financing Nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, Chicago, 262 pp.
• Diamond J (1999) Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton, New York, 480 pp.
• Diamond J (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Allen Lane, Penguin Books, London, 575 pp.
• Dias BFS (2017) Biodiversidade, Por que importa! Cause Magazine, Rio de Janeiro, 5(Nature): 94-100. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Braulio-Ferreira-De-Souza-Dias/publication/340267139_Biodiversidade_por_que_importa/links/5e810acc92851caef4ac9831/Biodiversidade-por-que-importa.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
  » https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Braulio-Ferreira-De-Souza-Dias/publication/340267139_Biodiversidade_por_que_importa/links/5e810acc92851caef4ac9831/Biodiversidade-por-que-importa.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
• Dias BFS (2019) Biodiversity: A unique property of Planet Earth/Biodiversidade: uma propriedade única do Planeta Terra. In: Klabin I (Org.) 25+25 Sustainability: the state of the art/25+25 Sustentabilidade: o estado da arte. Andrea Jakobsson Estúdio Editorial, Rio de Janeiro, 164-177.
• Dias BFS (2020) The Slow but Steady Progress in the Implementation of the Biodiversity Agenda. IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, 31 July 2020. https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-law/news
  » https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-law/news
• Dias BFS (2021) Degradação da Biodiversidade e as Metas de Aichi no Mundo e no Brasil: um balanço dos avanços e das perspectivas. Revista Bio Diverso, Porto Alegre, 1: 22-44.
• Ellis EC, Goldewijk KK, Siebert S, Lightman D, Ramankutty N (2010) Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x
• FAO (2014) Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture: Principles and approaches. FAO, Rome, 56 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3940e.pdf
  » http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3940e.pdf
• FAO (2018) Transforming Food and Agriculture to Achieve the SDGs: 20 Interconnected Actions to Guide Decision-Makers. FAO, Rome, 76 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/I9900EN/i9900en.pdf
  » http://www.fao.org/3/I9900EN/i9900en.pdf
• FAO (2019) The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome, 572 pp.
• FAO, ITPS, GSBI, SCBD, EC (2020) State of knowledge of soil biodiversity - Status, challenges and potentialities, Summary for policy makers. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 40 pp. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1929en
  » https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1929en
• FPP (2020) Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. A complement to the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, 312 pp.
• Franzo J, Hunter D, Borelli T, Mattei F (2013) Diversifying Food and Diets: Using agricultural biodiversity to improve nutrition and health. Earthscan, Routledge, London, 368 pp.
• Gemmill-Herren B (2016) Pollination Services to Agriculture: Sustaining and Enhancing a Key Ecosystem Service. FAO, Routledge, Rome, 310 pp.
• Goudie A (1981) The Human Impact on the Natural Environment: past, present and future. Blackwell, Oxford, [4th updated edition in 1994], MIT Press, Cambridge, 454 pp.
• Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.
• Hughes JD (2001) An Environmental History of the World: Humankind’s changing role in the community of life. Routledge, London [2nd edition in 2009, London, Routledge, 306 pp.]
• IPBES (2019a) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policy Makers. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, 60 pp. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment
  » https://ipbes.net/global-assessment
• IPBES (2019b) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, 1148 pp.
• IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bonn, 630 pp.
• IPES-Food (2016) From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems (IPES), 96 pp. https://pt.slideshare.net/slideshow/ipes-food-2016-uniformitytodiversityfullreport/63039949
  » https://pt.slideshare.net/slideshow/ipes-food-2016-uniformitytodiversityfullreport/63039949
• Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, et al. (2001) Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science 293: 629-638. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059199
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059199
• Kolbert E (2014) The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Henry Holt, New York, 319 pp.
• Lomborg B (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 515 pp.
• MacArthur R, Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 203 pp.
• Mann ME (2021) The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back our Planet. Public Affairs/Hachete Book Group, New York, 351 pp.
• Marsh GP (1864) Man and Nature or Physical Geography as modified by Human Action. Charles Scribner, New York, 560 pp.
• Marsh GP (2003) Man and Nature or Physical Geography as modified by Human Action. University of Washington Press, Weyerhaeuser Environmental Classics, Seattle, 472 pp. [Edited and introduced by David Lowenthal and foreword by William Cronon]
• McNeill JR (2000) Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth Century. Allen Lane, Penguin Press, London, 421 pp.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Island Press, Washington, DC, 4 vols.
• MMA (2025a) Estratégia e Plano de Ação Nacionais para a Biodiversidade - EPANB 2025-2030. Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima, Brasília, 152 pp.
• MMA (2025b) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan - NBSAP 2025-2030. Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima, Brasília, 107 pp.
• MMA (2026a) Preliminary 7th National Report of Brazil to the CBD February 28 of 2026 (submitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the CBD Online Reporting Tool in early March of 2026). CBD Secretariat, 99 pp.
• MMA (2026b) Seventh National Report of Brazil do the Convention on Biological Diversity (submitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the CBD Online Reporting Tool in July of 2026). CBD Secretariat, 1099 pp.
• MMA (2026c) Relatório Técnico: Primeiro Workshop sobre Créditos de Biodiversidade do Governo Federal (em parceria com o Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento e Relatoria da Vallie). Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Mudança do Clima, Brasília, 77 pp.
• MMA (2026d) Documento Técnico. Créditos de Biodiversidade: Subsídios para a posição Brasileira na COP-17 da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica. Secretaria de Biodiversidade, Florestas e Direitos Animais do MMA, Brasília, 17 pp. [Unpublished document submitted to the Ministério de Relações Exteriores]
• MMA, MRE (2025) Brazil’s submission of views and information on options for enhanced policy coherence, including a potential joint work programme of work of the Rio Conventions, in response to Notification CBD 2025/5 (SCBD/SSSF/JL/SS/TT/92042), May 1^st, 2025, 5 pp.
• Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610
• Myers RA, Worm B (2005) Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1573
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1573
• OECD (2019) Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action Report prepared for the G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting, 5-6 May 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 96 pp.
• Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from Tobacco to Climate Change. Bloomsbury Press, New York, 355 pp.
• Oreskes N, Conway EM (2025) The Big Myth: How American Business taught us to loathe government and love the free market. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, 592 pp.
• Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 298 pp.
• Perlin J (1989) A Forest Journey: The Role of Wood in the Development of Civilization. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 446 pp.
• Pinker S (2018) Enlightenment Now: The base for reason, science, humanism and progress. Penguin Random House, New York, 556 pp.
• Ponting C (1991) A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. St Martin’s Press, New York, 432 pp.
• Roberts N (1989) The Holocene, an Environmental History. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 316 pp.
• Rockstrom J, Donges JF, Fetzer I, Martin MA, Wang-Erlandsson L, Richardson K (2024) Planetary Boundaries guide humanity’s future on Earth. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 5: 773-788.
• Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin III FS, et al. (2009) Planetary Boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): Art32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
  » http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
• Sun Y, Clapp J, Andonova L, Dauvergne P, Jayaram D, et al. (2026) Global Environmental Politics amid Geopolitical Turbulence. Global Environmental Politics 26(1): 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP.a.731
  » https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP.a.731
• Sutherland WJ, Dicks LV, Petrovan SO, Smith RK (2021) What Works in Conservation. Open Books Publishers, Cambridge, 1040 pp. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0267
  » https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0267
• Turner II BL, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richards JF, Mathews JT, Meyer WB (1990) The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 713 pp.
• UNEP (2011) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Earthscan, London, 494 pp.
• UNEP (2016) Healthy Environment, Healthy People. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 56 pp. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/17602
  » https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/17602
• UNEP (2018a) TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations. UN Environment, Geneva, 42 pp. http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TEEB_Foundations_October13.pdf
  » http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TEEB_Foundations_October13.pdf
• UNEP (2018b) Measuring what matters in agriculture and food systems: a synthesis of the results and recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s Scientific and Economic Foundations report. UN Environment, Geneva, 84 pp. http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/uploads/2018/Synthesis_report_highres.pdf
  » http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/uploads/2018/Synthesis_report_highres.pdf
• Viola HJ, Margolis C (1991) Seeds of Change: Five hundred years since Columbus (A Quincentennial Commemoration). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 278 pp.
• WCMC (1992) Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, London, 585 pp.
• WCMC (2024) Protected Planet Report 2024. Executive Summary. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge. https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/
  » https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/
• WEF (2020) The Future of Nature and Business. World Economic Forum, Geneva, 111 pp.
• Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyer C, Boltz F, Capon AG, et al. (2015) Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet (2015): 7-62. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60901-1/fulltext
  » https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60901-1/fulltext
• Williams M (2003) Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 689 pp.
• Wilson EO (2016) Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. Liveright, W.W. Norton, New York, 272 pp.
• Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, et al. (2006) Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314: 787-790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294

ZooBank register

https://zoobank.org/CD190B36-CAF4-427E-B933-B90BFB580303

Data Availability Statement

All data generated and/or analyzed are included in this article.

Funding Statement

This study received no external funding.

Ethical Statement

Not applicable.

AI Statement

Artificial intelligence tools were used solely to assist with language editing and grammar.

How to cite this article

Dias BFS (2026) The challenges and opportunities faced by biodiversity globally and the role of Brazil: priorities for CBD COP17. Zoologia 43: e25130. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-4689.v43.e26130

Published by

Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia at Scientific Electronic Library Online - https://www.scielo.br/zool

Appendices

Appendix 1. Promote Synergy among the Rio Conventions.

SBSTTA 27 Recommendation 27/3:

[1. Takes note of][Welcomes] the Thematic Assessment Report on Interlinkages among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health (“nexus assessment”) [and The Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (“transformative change assessment”)] of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and [their] relevance to the work undertaken under the Convention and to the implementation of the Framework;

2. Encourages Parties, other Governments [at all levels], indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, relevant organizations and stakeholders to take steps to promote and implement integrated and synergistic approaches for biodiversity and the other nexus elements, including climate change, as appropriate, in accordance with national priorities and circumstances;

[3. Takes note of Advisory Opinion No. 31 of 21 May 2024 of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on climate change and international law and the advisory opinion of 23 July 2025 of the International Court of Justice concerning the obligations of States in respect of climate change;]

[4. Stresses that the achievement of the mission, goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is only possible with urgent and effective action on climate change in a manner that is mutually supportive of the goals of the Paris Agreement, and informed by a nexus approach, as this is pivotal to avoid further biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation;]

[5. [Adopts][Takes note of] the primer for policymakers of the supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction contained in the annex to the present decision;]

[6. Encourages][Urges] Parties and other governments at all levels, when undertaking actions to achieve Targets 8 and 11 of the Framework, as well as Target 2 and other related targets, with the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, persons with disabilities, people in vulnerable situations and those most dependent on biodiversity:

[6(a) To identify and operationalize potential biodiversity and climate synergies through their national biodiversity strategies and action plans and relevant national targets, including by prioritizing the conservation and restoration of ecological integrity and ecosystem functions, [including those mediated or affected by wild animals,] promote synergies with other national planning processes, including nationally determined contributions, national adaptation plans and voluntary land degradation neutrality targets, and promote positive impacts and avoid negative impacts of climate action on biodiversity, including through the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and the respect for their free, prior, and informed consent at all stages, in accordance with national legislation and international obligations, and ensuring that the development and implementation of those integrated plans are supported by adequate, predictable and easily accessible means of implementation;]

[6(b) To prioritize the protection, conservation, restoration, sustainable management and enhancement of terrestrial, freshwater, marine and coastal, and managed and unmanaged ecosystems, inclusive with regard to wild animal populations, and of ecosystems with high ecological integrity that contribute to carbon storage and sequestration and adaptation, strengthening carbon sinks and reservoirs [and limiting the risk of crossing tipping points];] [6(c) To promote and support the use of the 71 response options assessed in The Thematic Assessment Report on Interlinkages among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;]

7. Also encourages Parties, other Governments at all levels and relevant organizations, in accordance with national priorities, circumstances and capabilities, to make use of the Voluntary Guidelines and its supplement, including through effective social and environmental safeguards to avoid or minimize social and environmental risks, when designing and implementing nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches for climate change mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction, recognizing the co-benefits for biodiversity and livelihoods;

8. Further encourages Parties, and invites other Governments and relevant stakeholders, financial institutions, multilateral development banks and the private sector, when undertaking actions towards the achievement of Targets 8 and 11 of the Framework, as well as other related targets, in line with national circumstances, priorities and capabilities, to act in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention and consistent with Target 19 to collectively scale up investments for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity through climate change mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction, leveraging the potential of nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches and their multiple benefits with environmental and social safeguards;

9. Invites the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action and its institutional partners to further integrate biodiversity and climate change interlinkages into its work programme, including through the development of tools and guidance to support the implementation of the Framework;

[10. Notes the relevance of work conducted under the United Arab Emirates-Belém work programme on indicators for measuring progress achieved towards the targets referred to in paragraphs 9 and 10 of decision 2/CMA.5 of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement to the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;]

11. Invites the United Nations Environment Programme to consider the use of, as appropriate, the indicators used under [the United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience and] the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as the basis for monitoring the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services to climate change adaptation.

[12. Requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources, to develop dissemination tools for Parties, other Governments, observers, relevant organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth on the use of the Voluntary Guidelines and its supplement, which could include the development of a Technical Series issue integrating both the Voluntary Guidelines [and its supplement], examples of nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches, activity-based reporting templates, metrics for demonstrating multiple benefits or other practical tools or toolkits, and share them, as appropriate, through the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism and the network of regional and subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centres, with a view to promoting both enhanced capacities and the effective uptake of scientific and technical guidance by Parties;]

13. Invites the respective bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Parties to consider using the Voluntary Guidelines [and its supplement] for Parties to integrate biodiversity, nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches and social and environmental safeguards in mitigation and adaptation measures;

14. Encourages the regional and subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centres to make use of the Voluntary Guidelines [and its supplement] in supporting Parties in the implementation of Targets 8 and 11 of the Framework;

[15. Requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources and avoiding the duplication of efforts, in collaboration with the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions and the partners in the Rio Conventions Joint Capacity-building Programme, rights holders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, relevant stakeholders, other relevant multilateral environmental agreements, organizations, partnerships, initiatives and coalitions and their respective members, to further pursue enhancing policy coherence, as appropriate, in cooperation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention to Combat Desertification;]

16. Also requeststhe Executive Secretary to collaborate with the Executive Secretaries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention to Combat Desertification on assessing and strengthening the mandate of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions, and increase transparency and engagement between the Group and Parties by inviting representatives of the bureaux of the scientific and technical bodies of the Rio conventions to participate in meetings of the Group.

Appendix 2

Appendix 2.Promote connectivity between protected areas.

The new Programme Element 5 “Ecological Connectivity” was proposed for consideration as follows:

Goal 5.1 - To integrate ecological connectivity into land and seascapes spatial planning processes including the planning and design of protected and conserved area (PCA) systems:

Target. By 2030, Parties have integrated ecological connectivity objectives into the designation and expansion of PAs and OECMs, and in turn, networks of PAs and OECMs are integrated into national and subnational spatial planning policies, legislation, regulations, and programs across terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine environments.

Suggested activities of the Parties

5.1.1 By 2027, Identify and map corridors, stepping-stones and other critical areas for ecological connectivity, using best available science, and Indigenous and local knowledge, and apply this knowledge to relevant national and subnational policies for the designation and expansion of PAs and OECMs, paying particular attention to those priority corridors that are not yet part of the PA and OECM network.

5.1.2 By 2027, identify priority areas and carry out measures to maintain, enhance or restore ecological connectivity to ensure an effective and well-connected PA and OECM network by taking into account key gaps in areas important for connectivity outwith the existing PA network, connectivity gaps between existing PAs and OECMs, threatened species, and the conservation needs of migratory species, among other considerations aligned with national priorities for biodiversity conservation.

5.1.3 Scale up ecological connectivity measures in currently under-represented ecosystems across the PA network, which include, marine and island ecosystems in national seas, exclusive marine economic zones and areas beyond national jurisdiction; rivers; wetlands; estuaries; and coastal zones and seek out opportunities to align ecological corridors for terrestrial connectivity with riverine and inland water networks where feasible.

5.1.4 Draft and adopt legislation that recognizes ecological networks, corridors, stepping-stones and other critical areas for enhancing ecological connectivity and require them to be managed in ways that support their ability to allow for the movement of wildlife and ecological processes across the PA and OECM networks and beyond.

5.1.5 Support the integration of regional, national and sub-national networks of protected areas and OECMs into broader land- and seascape spatial planning processes, inter alia by establishing and managing ecological connectivity networks, ecological corridors and/or buffer zones, where appropriate, to maintain ecological processes and taking into account the needs of migratory species.

Suggested supporting activities of the Executive Secretary

5.1.6 Compile, analyze, and make available case studies, spatial tools and best practices on integrating ecological connectivity into terrestrial, aerial, freshwater, coastal and marine spatial planning processes.

5.1.7 Facilitate technical exchange and cooperation among Parties, international organizations, other conventions, and relevant partners to support the integration of ecological connectivity into PCA systems and for larger ecological networks for conservation, including under climate-change scenarios.

5.1.8 Liaise with long distance trail managers to align their routes and management with ecological connectivity strategies and goals.

Goal 5.2 - To create enabling conditions for the inclusive, equitable, and effective governance and management of PAs and OECMs networks.

Target. By 2030, Parties have established or strengthened inclusive, equitable, and effective governance arrangements for ecological networks and corridors and have created policy, institutional, technical, and financial enabling conditions to scale up effective action for enhancing ecological connectivity across the PA network.

Suggested activities of the Parties

5.2.1 Consistent with national legislation and applicable international obligations promote governance models that recognize the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as the nature recreation community, consistent with national legislation and applicable international obligations.

5.2.2 Assess and, where appropriate and feasible, address social, cultural, recreational, and economic positive and negative impacts associated with ecological connectivity measures and promote collaborative landscape- and seascape-scale governance mechanisms linking protected and conserved areas with surrounding uses.

5.2.3 By 2028, integrate well-connected Protected Area (PA) and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measure (OECM) objectives into National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and relevant sectoral policies through spatially explicit and measurable commitments at national, subnational, and territorial levels, while harmonizing sectoral policies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on ecological connectivity across landscapes and seascapes.

5.2.4 Ensure that PA and OECM capacity building measures include components related to the planning, management and restoration of ecological connectivity, and that sustainable financing for protected areas and national biodiversity finance plans include financial mechanisms to support the maintenance, enhancement and restoration of ecological connectivity across the PA and OECM network.

5.2.5 Co-develop with financial institutions and the private sector, investment frameworks, incentives, and biodiversity risk assessments that consider ecological connectivity and establish public-private partnerships to mobilize finance, integrate connectivity considerations into investment decisions, and to pilot and scale ecological connectivity initiatives and projects to ensure an effective and well-connected PA and OECM network.

Suggested supporting activities of the Executive Secretary

5.2.6 Develop guidance and principles of good practice on inclusive and equitable governance models for ecological networks and corridors, including for migratory routes and flyways, with particular attention to the recognition of the rights, roles and governance systems of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as the nature recreation community, and share best practices for ecological connectivity.

5.2.7 Facilitate dialogue processes among Parties, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, civil society organizations, and relevant sectors to exchange experiences and lessons learned for the governance of ecological connectivity at landscape- and seascape-scales.

5.2.8 Facilitate capacity-building activities, including work shops, learning modules, and cooperation on planning, management, and financing related to ecological connectivity.

5.2.9 Provide technical support to Parties for the integration of ecological connectivity objectives into national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), sectoral policies, and implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including through practical guidance and examples of successful models.

5.2.10 Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogues and platforms for private sector engagement and coordinate with international finance and conservation bodies to mobilize resources and share best practices for ecological connectivity.

5.2.11 Support the mobilization and alignment of financial resources for ecological connectivity, in cooperation with the financial mechanisms of the Convention and relevant partner institutions.

Goal 5.3 - To strengthen transboundary, cross-sectoral and international cooperation to share knowledge and promote coherent action for scaling up ecological connectivity across national systems of protected areas and OECMs.

Target. By 2030, Parties have strengthened transboundary, cross-sectoral and international cooperation and collaboration including between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), and other Multilateral Environmental Agreements and decision-making fora, and there is coherent and coordinated ecological connectivity action occurring within and across countries, through its integration into sectoral polices and the harmonization of MEAs.

Suggested activities of the Parties

5.3.1 By 2028, identify priority transboundary ecological networks and corridors and strengthen regional agreements and cooperation frameworks to manage shared ecosystems and transboundary PAs for connectivity.

5.3.2 Recognize, promote and integrate ecological connectivity and well-connected PA and OECM networks as ecosystem-based and climate-smart approaches that support land- and seascape spatial planning, climate mitigation and adaptation, sustainable development goals and other sectors’ goals beyond biodiversity.

5.3.3 Promote and support harmonized approaches, in line with CBD and KMGBF objectives, across the MEAs for addressing ecological connectivity and its threats.

Suggested supporting activities of the Executive Secretary

5.3.4 Provide technical support to Parties for the development of regional agreements and cooperation frameworks and the integration of ecological connectivity objectives into other sectors.

5.3.5 Formalize collaboration between the CBD and the CMS, the primary MEA on issues related to ecological connectivity, and decision-making fora, such as IUCN, as far as possible, through joint work programmes, coordinated scientific guidance, information exchange, and interoperable reporting approaches.

5.3.6 Promote platforms and initiatives focusing on ecological connectivity, such as the Global Partnership on Ecological Connectivity, as critical sources to share knowledge and best practices on ecological connectivity and in supporting coherent and coordinated global action.

5.3.7 Encourage alignment with relevant global and regional frameworks addressing ecological connectivity.

Goal 5.4 - Develop standards, monitoring, and evaluation frameworks for ecological connectivity

Target. By 2030, Parties have developed and initiated the application of standards, indicators, and monitoring frameworks to assess ecological connectivity and its contribution to conservation effectiveness.

Suggested activities of the Parties

5.4.1 Apply science-based standards and best practice guidance for ensuring suitable timebound and measurable national and regional level connectivity indicators, including both structural and functional ecological connectivity, are established and monitored.

5.4.2 Integrate ecological connectivity indicators into national reporting and PA and OECM management effectiveness evaluations.

5.4.3 Compile and disseminate best practices and lessons learned about ecological connectivity, including transboundary and migratory connectivity approaches, through the clearing-house mechanism and related knowledge platforms.

5.4.4 Support the development of standardized metrics and reporting frameworks for infrastructure, agriculture, energy, and urban development projects or any other activities that may fragment the PA and OECM network, and incorporate them into environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks and relevant risk assessments.

Suggested supporting activities of the Executive Secretary

5.4.5 Coordinate the development, in collaboration with scientific bodies, Parties and relevant partners, of voluntary technical guidance and standards for the assessment of ecological connectivity.

5.4.6 Facilitate exchange among scientific and technical initiatives to promote harmonization of indicators for assessing structural and functional ecological connectivity across ecosystems.

5.4.7 Support the integration of ecological connectivity indicators into national reporting under the Convention and into evaluations of protected and conserved area management effectiveness.

Appendix 3

Appendix 3. Biodiversity credits: state of play, technical and scientific uncertainties, integrity considerations and issues for further examination.

Purpose and status

This document was submitted for information only. It does not propose a decision, recommend the establishment of a market or common unit, endorse international biodiversity offsetting, or prejudge any future deliberation by the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies.

Executive summary

Biodiversity credits are an emerging class of instruments intended to channel finance towards measurable positive outcomes for biodiversity. Their growing visibility is linked to Target 19(d) of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which encourages innovative schemes, including biodiversity offsets and credits, with environmental and social safeguards. Target 19 must, however, be read as a whole, in conformity with Article 20 of the Convention and alongside the full range of public, international, domestic, private and non-market approaches needed to close the biodiversity finance gap.

The market remains small, fragmented and at an early stage of development. Available commercial estimates suggest a global market of roughly US$90 million in 2025, around US$120 million in 2026 and approximately US$1.8 billion by 2036. These figures are indicative only: there is no standardized methodology for defining or measuring the market, and current volumes remain marginal in relation to global biodiversity financing needs.

Substantial technical, scientific, legal and institutional questions remain unresolved. There is no internationally agreed definition or unit; no consensus on metrics, baselines, additionality, permanence, monitoring, reporting and verification, claims, secondary markets or governance; and limited evidence on ecological effectiveness, distributional impacts and long-term demand. A central distinction from carbon markets is the low fungibility of biodiversity. Species, habitats, ecological functions, landscapes and associated cultural values are place-specific and cannot be treated as globally interchangeable. For that reason, international biodiversity offsetting is not considered ecologically credible. Positive outcomes in one country, biome or ecosystem cannot neutralize the loss of different biodiversity elsewhere.

Where biodiversity credit initiatives are developed at the national level, public regulation and high integrity requirements are essential. These include verified ecological outcomes, differentiated approaches to additionality, transparent baselines, robust and context-appropriate monitoring, traceability, prevention of double counting, integrity of buyer claims, safeguards for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and clear rules on interactions with existing instruments and legal obligations. Biodiversity credits should be understood, at most, as a complementary instrument. They cannot substitute for the obligations of developed countries under Article 20, international public finance, domestic environmental regulation, the duty to avoid and reduce impacts, territorial rights, enforcement, subsidy reform, or collective and non-market approaches to conservation and sustainable use.

1. Context and mandate under the Convention

Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for the mobilization of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from all sources, in an effective, timely and easily accessible manner, including domestic, international, public and private resources. The target is expressly framed in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention. Subparagraph 19(d) encourages the use of innovative schemes, including payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, and benefit-sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards. This reference provides a mandate to deepen understanding of such instruments, but it did not establish an international biodiversity credit market, define a unit, approve methodologies, authorize international offsetting or create common rules for monitoring and claims. The consideration of biodiversity credits should therefore remain embedded in the broader resource mobilization agenda. Innovative private finance may complement, but cannot replace, new and additional international public resources, official development assistance, the financial mechanism, domestic public expenditure, non-market approaches or the fulfilment of obligations by developed country Parties.

2. Emerging landscape and scale

Biodiversity credit initiatives currently include voluntary pilot projects, domestic regulatory arrangements, conservation certificates, results-based units and other instruments using the term ‘credit’. They vary substantially in legal basis, ecological scope, methodology, buyer use, duration, claims and degree of public oversight. The diversity of existing initiatives reflects experimentation rather than convergence. Most operate in voluntary or pilot settings. A smaller number are linked to domestic regulatory systems, typically within specific national or subnational legal frameworks. Existing initiatives cannot be assumed to constitute a coherent global market. Commercial market-size projections should be treated cautiously. Definitions differ across analysts, many transactions are not public, and some estimates aggregate biodiversity certificates, offsets, habitat units and other instruments with distinct legal and ecological functions. The market’s present contribution to the biodiversity finance gap is therefore limited and uncertain.

3. Technical and scientific characteristics

3.1 No globally fungible unit

Unlike greenhouse-gas accounting, biodiversity does not have a single globally equivalent unit. Biodiversity encompasses genetic diversity, species, populations, habitats, ecosystems, ecological processes, landscape connectivity and the relationships between people and territories. A hectare, species count or composite score cannot, by itself, capture all relevant dimensions. Methodologies may legitimately differ according to ecosystem, biome, scale, conservation objective, type of intervention and national circumstances. Comparability may be possible within carefully defined ecological and methodological boundaries, but global interoperability or fungibility should not be presumed.

3.2 Metrics and monitoring, reporting and verification

Hundreds of metrics and composite approaches have been proposed. They may consider species richness, threatened species, habitat condition, ecological integrity, connectivity, ecosystem function, pressures, management quality or combinations of these elements. Ecosystem services may provide complementary information, but they are not a substitute for direct measures of biodiversity composition, structure, function and integrity. Monitoring approaches may combine field inventories, remote sensing, acoustic sensors, camera traps, environmental DNA and community-based monitoring. The appropriate mix depends on ecological context, cost, scale and the rights and knowledge systems of relevant communities. Methodologies should be scientifically robust, transparent and context-specific, rather than oriented towards a prematurely standardized global unit.

3.3 Additionality, durability and baselines

Additionality remains one of the most contested issues. It may refer to ecological, financial or regulatory additionality, which should not be conflated. A purely counterfactual approach can disadvantage Indigenous Peoples, local communities and land managers that have conserved biodiversity over long periods. At the same time, compliance with ordinary legal obligations should not automatically generate credits. Possible approaches may distinguish new ecological improvements, the maintenance of verified outcomes under demonstrated threat, and financing that is genuinely additional to existing public or legal commitments. Baselines, reference scenarios and durability periods need to reflect ecological dynamics and uncertainty, including climate change, without creating incentives to exaggerate threats or delay conservation action.

4. Uses, claims and non-fungibility

Existing initiatives use biodiversity-related units for different purposes. These include non-compensatory contributions to conservation outcomes, investments within value chains and, in some domestic systems, compliance with specific compensation obligations. These uses should not be conflated. Non-compensatory contributions may support verified positive outcomes without claiming that the purchaser has neutralized its own impacts. Even in this context, integrity requires accurate and bounded claims, transparency on the purchaser’s impacts and dependencies, and evidence that the purchase does not substitute for measures to avoid and reduce harm. International biodiversity offsetting is not considered acceptable. Biodiversity is local and non-fungible: the loss of a species, habitat, mature ecosystem, ecological function or culturally significant landscape in one place cannot be neutralized by a different outcome elsewhere. International tradability must not be interpreted as ecological equivalence. Domestic compensation arrangements, where they exist, are matters of national law and policy. Their existence should not be taken as support for an international offsetting system. Any domestic arrangement should remain subordinate to the mitigation hierarchy, strict ecological proximity and equivalence requirements, public enforcement and the exclusion of impacts that cannot credibly be compensated.

5. Public regulation and high-integrity conditions

Voluntary standards and private certification alone cannot ensure market integrity. Public authorities have a central role in defining eligibility, permitted uses, claims, monitoring, registration, transparency, liability and enforcement, in accordance with national circumstances and the objectives of the Convention. Where national initiatives are considered, recurrent integrity elements include: • real, measurable and verified positive biodiversity outcomes, using ecologically appropriate indicators; • transparent baselines and differentiated treatment of ecological, financial and regulatory additionality; • durability provisions, adaptive management and procedures for reversal or underperformance; • independent validation and verification, with proportionate costs and public oversight; • publicly accessible registries, unique identifiers, traceability and retirement rules where relevant; • prevention of double issuance, double use, double claiming and multiple remuneration of the same result; • clear separation between project-level outcomes and buyer-level claims; • prohibition of claims that credits erase, neutralize or justify avoidable biodiversity impacts; • transparent ownership, transaction and revenue information, including secondary-market arrangements; and • accessible grievance, remedy, fraud-prevention and accountability mechanisms.

6. Rights, equity and social safeguards

Biodiversity-rich territories are frequently inhabited, governed or sustainably used by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. These groups should not be treated merely as suppliers of environmental assets. They are rights holders, knowledge holders and central actors in biodiversity governance. At a minimum, national frameworks should address: • recognition and protection of rights to lands, territories, waters, resources, culture and traditional knowledge; • free, prior and informed consent, where applicable, and respect for community protocols and representative institutions; • full and effective participation in design, governance, monitoring and benefit arrangements; • fair and equitable monetary and non-monetary benefits, with transparent revenue-sharing and limits on intermediation; • independent legal and technical advice, understandable contracts and protection against abusive or predatory practices; • compatibility with customary and sustainable uses, and prohibition of unjustified restrictions, displacement or land grabbing; • community governance of data and protection of sensitive ecological and cultural information; and • independent, accessible and culturally appropriate grievance and remedy mechanisms. Benefits arising from biodiversity credit initiatives must not be confused with access and benefit-sharing obligations. Such initiatives cannot alter, substitute for, prejudice or reinterpret obligations under the Convention, the Nagoya Protocol, arrangements concerning digital sequence information on genetic resources, or rights related to traditional knowledge.

7. Interactions with existing instruments and risks of overlap

Biodiversity credits may overlap with payment for ecosystem services, forest and habitat compensation, carbon credits, REDD+, conservation easements, public subsidies, protected-area finance and other national instruments. Complementarity is possible only where the financed attributes, legal obligations, baselines, claims and beneficiaries are clearly distinguished. Key risks include: • double remuneration of the same hectare, action or ecological result; • double claiming by different purchasers or public programmes; • false additionality where the credited outcome is already legally required; • use of the same outcome to satisfy more than one compensation obligation; • substitution of private credits for public expenditure or international finance commitments; and • higher transaction and monitoring costs for smallholders, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Interoperable public registries and clear accounting rules are therefore important, but interoperability should not be confused with fungibility. Systems may exchange information to prevent duplication without making ecologically distinct units interchangeable.

8. Broader structural and policy considerations

The discussion of biodiversity credits should not displace structural measures that are indispensable for halting and reversing biodiversity loss. These include effective environmental regulation and enforcement, land and territorial rights, the elimination or reform of harmful incentives, sustainable production and consumption, public investment, technology transfer, capacity-building, scientific and technical cooperation, and support for collective and non-market action. Potential risks include greenwashing, regulatory capture, concentration of value among intermediaries and certifiers, dependence on volatile corporate demand, territorial conflict, the financialization of community territories and the imposition of metrics developed without adequate participation by megadiverse countries and rights holders. The effectiveness of any credit initiative should be assessed not only by the volume of finance mobilized, but also by verified ecological outcomes, additional resources reaching territories, distributional equity, transaction costs, respect for rights, durability and contribution to national biodiversity strategies and action plans.

9. Issues for further examination

The current evidence base supports continued exchange of information and national experience, but not the premature establishment of a global unit or international offsetting architecture. Future work, if undertaken by the Convention, could remain Party-led, exploratory and without prejudice to national approaches. Questions that may warrant further technical and scientific examination include: • How should biodiversity credits be distinguished from offsets, certificates, payment for ecosystem services and other results-based instruments? • What minimum information is required to demonstrate ecological outcomes without imposing a single global metric? • How can ecological, financial and regulatory additionality be distinguished in different national contexts? • What claims should be permitted or prohibited for purchasers, and how should buyer impacts and mitigation efforts be disclosed? • How can public registries prevent double counting and overlap while respecting data sovereignty and community rights? • How should costs, risks and revenues be distributed across project proponents, communities, intermediaries and buyers? • How can national systems prevent credits from substituting for legal obligations, public finance and international commitments? • What evidence is needed to assess long-term ecological effectiveness, social outcomes and demand stability? • How can scientific knowledge and Indigenous and local knowledge be brought together on an equitable basis?

10. Concluding observations

Biodiversity credits may provide a limited and complementary channel for finance in certain national contexts, but they are not a substitute for the full implementation of Target 19, Article 20 or the broader policy transformations required to achieve the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Given the low maturity of the market and the unresolved technical, scientific, legal and social issues, caution is warranted. Work under the Convention should avoid creating expectations of global fungibility, international offsetting or standardized units, and should preserve national sovereignty, national circumstances, the three objectives of the Convention and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Correspondence

Corresponding author: Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias ([e-mail])

Editorial responsibility

Ricardo Moratelli

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Oct 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  09 Sept 2026
• Accepted
  21 Sept 2026