Pathways for transformative change in biodiversity politics: Examining the significance of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s ‘Considerations’

Abstract

This paper examines the ‘Considerations’ that are intended to underpin the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). With so little time to meet the 2030 mission of transforming conservation approaches and curbing biodiversity decline, we reflect on the opportunities the Considerations present for transformative governance in biodiversity conservation. We discuss how contrasting worldviews and foundations of knowledge shape the Considerations, and inform the Framework more broadly, and highlight where areas of ambiguity between anthropocentric and nature-centred approaches arise. We contend that if the global community is to meaningfully change the trajectory of species extinctions and biodiversity loss, transformative changes are needed in the values held and expressed towards nature in political, economic, and social spheres. We conclude by suggesting implementation tools and processes to help foster the meaningful integration of the more boundary-pushing Considerations in wider biodiversity governance and practice.

Full text

This is a pre-copyedited, author’s original manuscript. This is version 1 of this preprint.
Pathways for transformative change in biodiversity politics: Examining the significance of the Global
Biodiversity Framework’s ‘Considerations’
Keywords: Convention on Biological Diversity, ecocentrism, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework, Rights of Nature, transformative implementation.
Alison Hutchinson1*, Anthony Zito1, Philip JK McGowan1
1Newcastle University, UK
*Corresponding author: alison.hutchinson@newcastle.ac.uk
Abstract
This paper examines the ‘Considerations’ that are intended to underpin the implementation of the
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). With so little time to meet the 2030
mission of transforming conservation approaches and curbing biodiversity decline, we reflect on the
opportunities the Considerations present for transformative governance in biodiversity conservation.
We discuss how contrasting worldviews and foundations of knowledge shape the Considerations, and
inform the Framework more broadly, and highlight where areas of ambiguity between
anthropocentric and nature-centred approaches arise. We contend that if the global community is to
meaningfully change the trajectory of species extinctions and biodiversity loss, transformative
changes are needed in the values held and expressed towards nature in political, economic, and social
spheres. We conclude by suggesting implementation tools and processes to help foster the
meaningful integration of the more boundary-pushing Considerations in wider biodiversity
governance and practice.
Introduction
Background and context
Biodiversity is deteriorating at an unprecedented rate. It is well understood that species and
ecosystems exist in a delicate balance, with losses producing rippling impacts towards species’
population resilience, genetic diversity, and the wellbeing of living nature and humans alike. Humans
are creating significant devastation to the natural world. Anthropogenic pressures on climate,
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems are recognised to threaten approximately 42,000 species
(IUCN, 2022). When extrapolating from this number of documented threatened species, it is estimated
that around one million undescribed and uncatalogued species are also at risk of extinction (notably,
a conservative estimate) (IPBES, 2019, Purvis, 2019). In this growing and uneasy context of biodiversity

decline, and the degradation of natural landscapes, it is increasingly recognised that more-of-the-
same, business-as-usual policies, and growth-based economic systems are no longer tenable solutions
for planetary crises (Contestabile, 2021; Friedman et al., 2022; Guterres, 2022; Shin et al., 2019;
Turnhout et al., 2021); and transformative structural changes in technological, economic, and social
realms are urgently called for (IPBES, 2019; Fougères et al., 2022).
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)
Against this backdrop, and after a four-year negotiation period, the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) at
the 15th Conference of Parties (COP) in December 2022. The Framework is preceded by two CBD
decadal plans: the 2002-2010 Strategic Plan, and the 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets;
both of which are largely understood to have failed in many aspects of their implementation (CBD,
2020). Scholars have suggested that a lack of political will and co-ordination, power asymmetries,
indecisive agenda setting, and differing values and concepts surrounding nature and culture have
come into conflict and stalled implementation progress (Smallwood et al., 2022; Morgera &
Tsioumani, 2010). If this new Framework is to be effective, such tensions will need to be reduced.
The Framework is intended to mobilise and support the 196 Parties to the Convention (195 countries
and the European Union) in their effort to establish more sustainable and harmonious relationships
with nature and tackle the biodiversity-loss crisis collaboratively. To do so, it establishes four long-
term Goals that describe outcomes to be achieved by 2050 and twenty-three Targets that describe
actions to be implemented by 2030 (CBD, 2022). It also reasserts the CBD’s 2050 Vision of ‘living in
harmony with nature’ that was introduced in the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan. It has long been noted that
achieving a holistic interpretation of living in harmony with nature will require transformational
changes to the normative foundations in biodiversity governance (CBD 14/9, Agenda item 17). The
Framework differs from previous Strategic Plans by introducing eighteen ‘Considerations’, offering the
promise of meaningful transformations towards this vision of living in harmony with nature.
The KMGBF’s Considerations include a recognition of diverse values and worldviews and encourage a
greater recognition of holistic and ecocentric (nature-centred) perspectives for biodiversity
governance and management. Notably, and amongst increasing legal recognition of the Rights of
Nature (see: Kauffman et al., 2022), the Framework sets a precedent as the first international
agreement to articulate the Rights of Mother Earth, with the Considerations also including a
recognition that upholding the rights of nature and the rights of Mother Earth are integral to the
Framework’s success (the language here is nuanced and discussed below). Arguably, it is these

Considerations that have transformative potential, rather than those addressing more operational
issues such as calling for alignment with existing agreements and access to sufficient funding.
Given the increasing magnitude of challenges facing life across more-than-human
1
realms a genuine
engagement with, and systematic operationalisation of, the more transformative, diverse, and
boundary-pushing elements present in the ‘Considerations’ provides the opportunity to bridge
contrasting conceptual values and knowledge systems, and encourage greater equity in the
participation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the Framework. It is
important, therefore, that these Considerations are given every opportunity to influence and shape
the implementation of the KMGBF, as stated in Decision 15/4. To support this effort, we first describe
the development of the Considerations, before drawing on relevant research literature to illustrate
the opportunities and challenges they present for supporting transformative shifts in the
operationalisation of the Framework. We then highlight an extensive and increasing body of research
on the transformative potential of diverse worldviews and values that those involved in policy
formulation and implementation, as well as academics and practitioners, can draw upon to implement
and support holistic, progressive, and transformative approaches for biodiversity governance.
The Considerations underpinning the KMGBF
The development of the Considerations
The KMGBF’s ‘Considerations’ were largely negotiated over a ten-month period before COP15. The
need for a separate section that would become Section C: Considerations was first discussed in the 3rd
meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (OEWG)
(see CBD 2022a). At that time, the heading of the proposed section was suggested as Principles and
Approaches [Guidance] for the implementation of the framework, indicating the fundamental
1
The concept of ‘more-than-human' focusses attention on the interconnected relationships between all beings
and species (humans, nature, and the environment) that inhabit Earth (O’Gorman and Gaynor, 2020). This
language is gradually being recognised in policy and governance; in 2021 the CBD shared actions for the
protection of biodiversity that included ‘Actions by Environmental Peacebuilders’ and raised the importance of
adopting a more-than-human approach to better protect biodiversity. Additionally, a key message from the 2022
IPBES Values Assessment (see Chapter 2 – Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions
to people) centred on the need to consider diverse values for nature. The assessment emphasised that attention
toward, and prioritisation of, relational and intrinsic values that capture relationships with more-than-human
species are needed in political decision making. The concept has also influenced the development of the first
UK-based interspecies council, established by DEFRA Futures Policy Lab (UK) ‘Water Post 2043 – Exploring
divergent futures’.

importance of the content of this section, as it should underpin how the Framework is operationalised.
Once issues deemed by various Parties to be fundamental to the Framework were brought into a
single section, focus on that section increased (see supplementary information) and an informal
working group meeting between the 4th and 5th meetings of the OEWG produced draft text that
identified 17 issues that were classified as cross-cutting issues, principles or underlining premises (CBD
2022b). The use of the word ‘principles’ was discussed during this meeting along with potential legal
implications of its use. Also deliberated upon was the way that ‘common but differentiated
responsibilities (CBDR)’ was reflected in various multilateral agreements: CBDR is Principle 7 of the Rio
Earth Declaration (UN 1993) and has underlying concepts of fairness and equity, stating that ‘States
shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and
integrity of the Earth's ecosystem’. The supplementary information presents detail of the
development of Section C: Considerations, the final adopted text, and the recommendations adopted
by the Convention’s two subsidiary bodies, in advance of COP16, with links to all relevant documents.
The Considerations in focus
The Considerations reflect a repository for common concerns and principles that emerged during the
Framework’s drafting stages and provide a focal point on how the Framework is to be ‘understood,
acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated’ (CBD, 2022, Section C). Whilst numerous priorities
are raised in the Considerations, they can be broadly categorised by five core themes:
1. Full and far-reaching participation and effort (Considerations A, C, E).
2. Recognition of diverse worldviews and knowledge systems (Considerations B, L, O, R).
3. Practicalities for sustainable economic development and capacity (Considerations D, F, K, P).
4. Acknowledgment of rights, empowerment, and justice (Considerations G, H, N).
5. Consistency with internal and external governance and approaches (Considerations I, J, M, Q).
To develop how the Considerations presented in the Framework can support transformative changes
in governance and practice, we first assess in detail the eighteen Considerations (grouped by the
above core themes) in Table 1. Then, drawing on well-established debates and discussions in the
critical social and political sciences, we discuss how research focussed on underlying values and
knowledges provides opportunities to influence and shape implementation strategies. Finally, we
suggest pathways that may inform and increase the likelihood that the more transformative and
holistic elements introduced in the Considerations are maintained and strengthened as Parties
develop, implement, report, and evaluate actions to achieve the 2030 and 2050 ambitions in the
Framework.

Table 1. Overview of the KMGBF’s Considerations and their potential scope for influencing the
interpretation and implementation of the Framework. Note: Considerations have been grouped by
core theme (categories 1-5 in text above), icons correspond with those in Figure 1.
Theme
Considerations
Opportunities and challenges
Full and far- reaching participation and effort
A. Contribution and rights
of indigenous peoples and
local communities
Respects the rights and
knowledge of Indigenous
People and local
communities and
encourages their full
participation.
These three Considerations extend responsibility
for action across the whole of government and
society, emphasising that responsibility does not
lie solely with individual Ministries or
Departments, but across all of government, civil
society, and business.
By encouraging collective effort and participation,
these Considerations emphasise the need to
improve the ability of less powerful and powerless
groups to participate in the Framework. This
builds on a recognition that delegates from the
Global South may be less able to participate in
negotiations effectively (Smallwood et al. 2022).
By acknowledging the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (and affirming an Indigenous right to life
and well-being), these considerations additionally
introduce an acknowledgement of non-market
based and nature-centred concepts of well-being
to the CBD table (Parks and Tsioumani, 2023).
These Considerations make it clear the
participation of Indigenous Peoples and local
communities will be central to the Framework’s
success. It is, therefore, important to ensure that
this participation is equitable and conscious of
power dynamics, so that engagement can move
beyond participation to the meaningful influence
and shaping of policy decisions (Parks &
Tsioumani, 2023).
C. Whole-of-government
and whole-of-society
approach
Encourages cooperation,
participation, action, and
implementation from all
(government and society).
E. Collective effort towards
the targets
Broad public support and
collective effort is made at
all levels.
Recognition of diverse worldviews
and knowledge systems
B. Different value systems
The diverse value systems
for nature and natures
contributions to people are
recognised.
These four Considerations encourage the
recognition of diverse values (human-centred,
nature-centred) and contrasting approaches to
knowledge (Western-scientific, traditional,
Indigenous). This allows for the joint
acknowledgement of natures’ goods and services
and natures’ gifts.
Scientific evidence and traditional knowledges are
intended to be considered in tandem. This is
innovative but may be challenging in practice
where ways of working are ingrained and
institutionalised.
L. Science and innovation
Implementation is informed
by scientific evidence,
traditional knowledge,
technology, and innovation.

O. Formal and informal
education
Transformative, innovative,
transdisciplinary, and
lifelong education is
championed, recognising
diverse worldviews and
knowledge.
By extending the scope of values and worldviews
underpinning the Framework (e.g. by introducing
holistic concepts surrounding the Rights of Nature
and Mother Earth and One Health approaches),
these Considerations are connected to non-
Western, Indigenous, and holistic perspectives
that allow for concepts of nature and wildlife to
expand beyond the economic and
anthropocentric foundations more typical in
international biodiversity governance and legal
apparatus. This encourages nature-centred,
socially, and ecologically just transformations in
biodiversity governance (see: Cariño & Ferrari,
2021; Hall, 2022; Parks & Tsioumani, 2023).
R. Biodiversity and health
Implementation is guided
by a One Health Approach
and other holistic
approaches, including
equitable access and
benefit sharing.
Economic development and capacity practicalities
D. National circumstances,
priorities and capabilities
Contributions may be made
according to national
circumstances, priorities,
and capabilities.
These four Considerations maintain an emphasis
on development and provide allowances in
accordance with national priorities. In doing so,
they demonstrate an attentiveness to the
differential power and wealth dynamics between
Parties and support low- and middle-income
countries to implement the Framework in
accordance with national developmental
priorities.
By maintaining connections between
developmental, economic, and business logics for
conservation, these Considerations are connected
to dominant Western and market-orientated
conservation approaches where nature can be
interpreted as a measure of the services and
economies it can provide (see: Dancer, 2021). In
practice, economic and development orientated
logics have the potential to co-opt and prohibit
progressive and transformative conservation
approaches (Spash, 2020). For example,
development initiatives (Considerations D, F, and
K) may focus on short-term priorities and
inadvertently encourage like-for-like
compensation rather than the prevention of
negative biodiversity impacts (Fajardo Del Castillo,
2021; Spash, 2015; Zu Ermgassen et al., 2022).
Similarly, systems of financial aid (Consideration
P) may not be fully locally informed, and thus lead
F. Right to development
Responsible sustainable
socioeconomic
development when
contributing to
conservation and
sustainable use.
K. Principles of the Rio
Declaration
Implementation should be
guided by the principles of
the Rio Declaration on
Environment and
Development.
P. Access to financial
resources
Adequate, predictable, and
easily accessible financial
resources.

to perverse outcomes (Duffy, 2010; Epstein, 2006;
Garland, 2008).
Acknowledge rights, empowerment, and justice
G. Human-rights based
approach
A human-rights based
approach, acknowledging
the right to a clean, healthy,
and sustainable
environment is
championed.
These three Considerations strengthen the
potential for socially just transformations in
biodiversity governance by encouraging decision-
making to engage with rights-based arguments
that also span generational divides.
The acknowledgement of human rights is a
significant addition which builds on a statement
from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights
in the run up to COP15 which acknowledged that
promoting human rights may provide a ‘catalyst
for the transformative change required for
humanity to survive and thrive in harmony with
nature’ (Türk, 2022).
As Parties have agreed to implement the KMGBF
with these concepts in mind, failing to prevent
biodiversity loss can be interpreted as an
infringement on human rights, especially if this
infringes on human and intergenerational rights to
a healthy environment and a standard of living
adequate for health and well-being. Note,
however, that the protection of the environment
for the protection of human rights (rather than
the protection of the environment for its own
sake) may inadvertently impact human rights,
especially those of future generations (for more
on this discussion see: Padilla, 2023).
H. Gender
Gender equality and the
empowerment of women
and girls is championed.
N. Intergenerational equity
Principles of
intergenerational equity are
mindful of the needs of
future generations and
encourage participation
from younger generations.
Consistency with internal and external governance and
practices
I. Fulfilment of the three
objectives of the Convention
and its Protocols and their
balanced implementation
Implementation aligns with
the CBD objectives.
These four Considerations strengthen relations
with CBD protocols, agreements, and norms and
prioritise multilateral cohesion with other
international biodiversity and climate
management agreements (e.g., UNFCCC, CMS,
UNCCD, CITES, CMS, BBNJ) and organisations (e.g.,
FAO, UNEP UNESCO, WHO).
By encouraging cooperation between biodiversity-
related agreements and organisations at regional,
national, and international levels, these
Considerations emphasise the importance of
coordinated strategies and mutually supportive
decision-making. A streamlining of efforts may
additionally support Parties with fewer resources,
as timeframes, ambitions, and actions are aligned
with a common set of goals.
By encouraging a streamlining of resources, these
Considerations may, however, inadvertently limit
the Framework’s ability to instigate
transformative changes. They may, for instance,
J. Consistency with
international agreements or
instruments
Implementation is cohesive
and consistent with
international obligations
and agreements.
M. Ecosystem approach
This approach, guided by a
focus on entire ecosystems
and biological communities,
is endorsed by the CBD.

Parties should use this
framework when
developing biodiversity
strategies and action plans.
lead to the reproduction of concepts of natural
capital and nature as a service provider (present
in other international Conventions), which
reinforce mainstream (non-transformative)
economic and market driven conservation
approaches and policies (Büscher & Fletcher,
2019; Dancer, 2021).
Q. Cooperation and
synergies
Implementation is cohesive
with CBD Protocols and
other biodiversity related
conventions and
agreements
(multi/inter/national,
sub/regional, national).
Untangling contrasting ideologies and approaches in the Considerations
Recognising diverging concepts underpinning the Considerations
The Considerations, and the Framework more broadly, are the result of negotiation and consensus
building; consequently, we can see contrasting rationales and perspectives emerging throughout. For
example, the vision of the Framework to live in harmony with nature can be interpreted in multiple
ways. Whilst, on one hand concepts of harmony and wellbeing speak to indigenous ecocentric
cosmovisions that are attentive to the interrelations between all living beings and nature (see: Wu
2020), they may also be considered through a Western dichotomous lens connected to concepts of
derived human benefits and development opportunities (see: Cariño & Ferrari, 2021; Hall, 2022;
Harrop, 2011). Similarly, contrasting ecocentric and anthropocentric logics appear throughout the
Framework. For example, the Framework refers to nature and biodiversity as ‘products’, ‘goods’ and,
especially ‘services’ echoing a firm anthropocentric position. However, we also see concepts of
Mother Earth introduced alongside ecocentric and ‘One Health’ approaches.
Whilst diverse ecocentric concepts are recognised in the Considerations section, they are done so in
a non-prescriptive way that is open for interpretation. For example, the rights of nature and Mother
Earth are introduced in Consideration B with the stipulation that such value systems may be
considered ‘for those countries that recognize them’. Although Mother Earth centric approaches do
appear throughout the wider framework (see Targets 16 and 19), they are less equally represented
and developed in the Targets which often align more firmly with the above noted anthropocentric and
market-orientated perspectives. There are no further mentions of One Health or holistic approaches
beyond Consideration R. This divergence between concepts and approaches demonstrates the
challenges of integrating ecocentric approaches into the wider operationalisation of the KMGBF.

To bring together these conceptual differences, a critical reflection and collaborative dialogue on the
contrasting ideologies and approaches that have shaped the Framework are needed. We propose to
begin this process by grouping each Consideration by two overarching and contrasting positions
(presented in in Figure 1). Firstly, we suggest that existing values for nature are underpinned by either
anthropocentrism (ideologies revolving around human interests) or ecocentrism (ideologies revolving
around the interests of all living beings and nature). Secondly, we differentiate the Considerations by
their underpinning foundations of knowledge; we have aligned these to either Western traditions
(e.g., Western science, technology, and capitalist or market driven reasoning) or Indigenous/non-
Western schools of thought (e.g., holistic, relational, and intergenerational approaches and
worldviews).
Figure 1. Illustration of the KMGBF’s Considerations showing the weighting of underpinning values
and knowledge concepts. Note: Whilst there are gradients and shades of grey between these values
and knowledges, we attempt to categorise the Considerations by either human-centred
(anthropocentric) or nature-centred (ecocentric) values and align them with specific knowledge-
systems (Western or non-Western).

Pathways and opportunities for transformative change
The Considerations demonstrate substantial progress in the recognition of diverse worldviews and
values. Particularly prominent, is the introduction of ecocentric (nature-centred) and holistic
perspectives (Figure 1, right-hand side) which provide a counterpoint to dominant Western
perspectives that conventionally articulate anthropocentric and hierarchical values toward nature.
Ecocentric perspectives bring a recognition that humans are interrelated with, not separate from,
nature and reflect schools of Indigenous thought and Global South stewardship which remain
considerably under-represented in mainstream knowledge production (Ocampo-Ariza et al., 2023).
Broadly speaking, ecocentrism draws from Indigenous cosmologies and can be connected to the
Quechuan principle of Sumak Kawsay and concepts of Buen Vivir (living well and in harmony with
nature) (Erazo Acosta, 2022). Eco-centric perspectives are further reflected in diverse value systems
around the world; for example, the Bantu philosophy of Ubuntu found in many African countries, the
Japanese principle of Satoyama, and Maori concepts of Kaitiakitanga (McAllister et al., 2023; Pascual
et al., 2023). Whilst this ecocentric philosophy may not have explicitly filtered through the rest of the
Framework, it may have, at some point, influenced the development of the Framework’s, and indeed
the CBD’s, Vision. The renewed emphasis given to these nature-centred perspectives in the
Considerations is indicative of the potential for more socially and ecologically-just transformations in
biodiversity governance that could support genuine progress towards this harmonious vision.
The recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and diverse knowledge, worldviews, and values
(Considerations A, B, L, and O) demonstrates progress in addressing tensions in the CBD, specifically
relating to diverging worldviews and imbalances in influence and participation (see Hall, 2022;
Morgera & Tsioumani, 2010; Parks and Tsiomani, 2023; Reimerson, 2013; Zinngrebe, 2023). By
promoting diverse approaches, these nature-centred and holistic Considerations pave the way for an
expansion of knowledge and value systems and may offer opportunities to rebalance the prevalence
of Western science and epistemologies in the CBD policy landscape (Held, 2023; Domínguez & Luoma,
2020). For example, by promoting diverse approaches, the nature-centred perspectives introduce
concepts of non-commodification and non-market-based approaches to the CBD. Furthermore,
recognising Indigenous Peoples’ rights can prompt an expansion of mainstream concepts of wellbeing.
Many indigenous cosmologies (particularly Buen Vivir) view well-being in a community sense and
recognise the interconnected relationships and cultures
2
between humans and other species,
2
The importance of conserving animal culture and social knowledge is increasingly recognised as a means to
improve conservation outcomes and make global biodiversity conservation more effective (Brakes et al., 2021;

communities, ecosystems and the natural world. In this way, an Indigenous right for well-being
extends, by its definition, a focus to the natural world. This expanded and holistic concept of wellbeing,
protected through Indigenous rights, introduces the potential for socially and ecologically just
transitions in the way biodiversity governance is structured and performed.
Recognising areas of ambiguity in the Considerations and how these may influence implementation
The duality of approaches represented in Figure 1 illustrate a diversity of values and knowledges in
the Framework that may lead to tensions in implementation. The overall balance of perspectives
(judged by number of Considerations) appears weighted towards anthropocentric values and Western
knowledge (Figure 1, lower left-hand grid). These approaches reproduce economic and market driven
conservation logics, and revolve around science, technocracy, and innovation to solve current and
future conservation challenges. Such concepts, for the most part, are largely incompatible with
Indigenous, holistic, and ecocentric perspectives (Kopina et al. 2024; Piccolo et al. 2022). For example,
concepts of sustainable development and use (Considerations F and K, Sections D and K, Goal B,
Targets 9-13) will differ vastly depending on whether conceptual standpoints are informed by
anthropocentric or ecocentric values. An anthropocentric understanding of ‘sustainability’ promotes
concepts of natural capital and ties business orientated and economic logics to nature conservation
(Fajardo Del Castillo, 2021; Spash, 2015; Zu Ermgassen et al., 2022); such framings are not necessarily
sustainable or equitable for all (humans and nature) and fall short of broader ecocentric and holistic
perspectives (Blaustein et al., 2020; Heydon, 2019; McDonnell et al., 2020).
Anthropocentric and market-based sustainable development approaches may compromise the vision
and mission of the Framework; especially if, on a national scale, developmental priorities favour
economic expansion over environmental protection (Chan et al. 2019). This concern mirrors ongoing
discussions over the involvement of businesses and the financial sector in the CBD process, specifically
around concerns that businesses may shape biodiversity governance to suit their own short-term
interests and economic agendas (Blythe et al. 2018; Smallwood et al. 2022). In practice, market-
orientated approaches have the potential to lead to diluted or disingenuous action; for example, like-
for-like compensation and mitigation approaches that that do little to prevent biodiversity decline
(Maron et al., 2024; Milner-Gulland, 2022; Zu Ermgassen et al., 2022). Recognising the prevalence of
these logics in the KMGBF, and their potential for unintended socioecological harms, is an essential
Lappe-Osthege and Duffy, 2024). For example, the UN Convention on Migratory Species is the first global
convention to acknowledge non-human (animal) cultural diversity and recommend that '[animal] cultural
repositories and capacities should be integrated into the development of IUCN, CMS, and other conservation
strategies’ (UNEP-CMS, 2018, p2.).

first step when assessing the potential for transformative changes in biodiversity governance more
widely. If we are to instigate transformative changes meaningfully, it will be necessary to recognise
that the ecocentric and holistic perspectives articulated in the Considerations cannot be achieved
when ‘sustainability’ is conceptualized and enacted through a short-term, anthropocentric, and
market-driven lens that merely reconfigures the logic of the problem as the logic of the solution,
without addressing or fundamentally changing the root of the problem itself (Büscher and Duffy, 2023;
Martin, 2020; Sène, 2023).
Why a balanced weighting in values and knowledges is important
By untangling the weighting of underpinning knowledge and values in the Considerations (see Figure
1), we note an unequal representation of ‘non-traditional’ or ‘other’ forms of knowledge. This can be
recognised as a form of epistemic injustice (see: de Sousa Santos, 2016) where certain forms of
knowledge (i.e., those that align with Western scientific and political agendas) are dominant over
others which can lead to procedural unfairness in decision-making (Smallwood et al. 2022, Hall 2022).
Such an unequal divide in the balance of concepts, values, and knowledge foundations runs the risk
that the emerging science-policy outcomes may inadvertently endorse or prioritise the worldviews of
cultural and political centres of power; with Western knowledge production and rationality becoming
the designated objective, irrespective of other heterogeneous ways of knowing (see: de Sousa Santos,
2016; Goyes, 2018). Transformative shifts from anthropocentric to ecocentric approaches have been
repeatedly called for (Eckersley, 1990; Taylor et al. 2020; Kok et al. 2022); and, notably, the Global
Biodiversity Outlook 5 (2020) championed a ‘humans with nature’ (ecocentric) approach to leverage
transformative change.
Whilst holistic values and worldviews are prominent in the Considerations (and the broader Vision of
the Framework), Western-orientated and anthropocentric perspectives appear to have strongly
influenced the shaping of the Framework’s Goals and Targets. These are frequently orientated
towards Western and anthropocentric perspectives that emphasise measurable, data dependent
outcomes, and view sustainability and harmony through a human lens. For example, the 30 by 30
initiative to restore 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, and marine areas by 2030 established
through Targets 2 and 3 suggests a ranking of biological importance and ecosystem function (namely,
by encouraging the conservation of high-priority sites based on select attributes). This reliance on
quantification follows an anthropocentric mindset (repeating problems of Aichi Target 11) and may
fail to capture the broader, holistic needs of biodiversity conservation. In practice, there is evidence
that quantitative ambitions for area-based conservation reinforce inequalities, produce scientific
expertise devoid of social context, and shape directionality to serve the interests of powerful groups
(Turnhout et al., 2020; White, 2010). Progress has been made in the policy landscape to move to a

‘people and nature’ rather than a ‘people apart from nature’ paradigm, and implementation and
operationalisation efforts may be further enhanced significantly if thought is given to how power
dynamics can reinforce poor practices relating to rights, access, and control (Büscher & Ramutsindela,
2015; Domínguez & Luoma, 2020; Lee, 2023; Mahalwal & Kabra, 2023). At a time when transformative
and system-wide changes are called for, it is important to reflect on whether more of the same will
produce meaningful change.
In a similar vein, reconciling anthropocentric and ecocentric positions reflect a conceptual impasse
that is yet to be resolved. For instance, a focus of Goal A to halt the ‘human-induced extinction of
known threatened species’ suggests a reliance on documented extinction risk of species, which is
supported by inter/national Red Lists, databases, and scientific monitoring efforts. There are
substantial challenges in maintaining these resources, they are not as representative as they need to
be, with, for example a bias towards higher vertebrates
3
and may additionally be incompatible with
indigenous and holistic perspectives (Piccolo et al. 2022). To borrow from Turnhout and Purvis (2020,
p. 675): ‘there is the risk of mistaking what is easily counted for what counts, and overlooking what is
not counted’. We simply do not know how human actions and inactions are impacting the health and
survival of the vast majority of the estimated 8.7 million species with whom we share this planet (Mora
et al., 2011; IUCN, 2022). This challenge has long been recognised with Stuart et al. (2010) drawing
attention to the need for a representative ‘barometer of life’ and the need for assessments for be
representative of biodiversity, including geography stated in the IUCN Red List Strategi Plan for 2021-
2030 (IUCN 2021). Notably, the clause in Goal A concerned with increasing the abundance of wild
species to healthy and resilient levels (irrespective of their conservation status) is much more explicitly
attuned to an ecocentric and holistic mindset, but effective approaches to address this are yet to be
developed. Ultimately, anthropocentric and technocratic approaches to biodiversity and
environmental governance can fail to address broader notions of social, multi-species, planetary, and
intergenerational justice
4
(Biermann, 2021; Celermajer et al. 2020) which will undoubtedly produce
challenges for the effective and just implementation of the Framework.
3
Notably, only 2 percent of invertebrates, 8 percent of fungi and protists, and 17 percent of plants have been
evaluated on the IUCN Red List, compared to 84 percent of described vertebrates (accurate as of June 2024 –
see IUCN Red List version 2024-4 Table 1a).
4
For more on expansive concepts of justice see: Biermann, 2021; Celermajer et al. 2020; Lerner & Berg, 2017;
Washington et al., 2018; Washington & Maloney, 2020.

Implementation tools for transformative changes in biodiversity governance
The conflicts and diverging viewpoints highlighted in the above discussion introduce the potential for
some of the more holistic (and demanding) elements in the Framework to be sidelined, especially
considering the challenges and constraints facing many Parties (i.e., political will and agenda-setting,
a lack of knowledge and implementation capacity, and unequal power and representation in
international fora). Additionally, whilst there is a general consensus on the urgent need to prevent
further biodiversity losses, there remains a considerable implementation gap between research and
on-the-ground action (namely, knowing what needs to be done and implementing appropriate
actions). This implementation gap is widened further when we consider previous failures in achieving
global biodiversity targets related to discrepancies between what Parties acknowledge they must do
(what changes are needed to live in harmony with nature) and the practicalities of delivering and
implementing these changes to safeguard biodiversity (see Friedman et al 2002; Koh et al 2021; Knight
et al 2008). Without coherent integration of these more holistic Considerations, continuation of
business-as-usual approaches remains a strong possibility.
The challenge then, for implementation, is how to respond to contrasting and often conflicting
perspectives and approaches to provide the best combined outcomes for nature, biodiversity, and
people. This, we suggest, can take two forms. Firstly, a recognition that anthropocentric framings have
not only established the underpinning conditions for the biodiversity crisis but continue to perpetuate
harms and injustices toward all species and the environment. Secondly, to motivate normative changes
in the implementation of the KMGBF, a reframing of the holistic and ecocentric values introduced in
the Considerations as fundamental to implementation mechanisms (e.g. National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans - NBSAPs) to value, at their core, expansive concepts of ecological, multi-
species, epistemic and social justice. To begin this learning process, the following questions may help
inform the transition to ecocentric approaches when implementing the Framework into national policy
and decision making:
• Are the Rights of Nature, Indigenous Peoples, and future generations integrated into national
biodiversity planning (NBSAPs and reporting)? This would involve representatives for, and
participation of, these groups to influence the target setting, decision-making, reflection, and
evaluation stages of CBD processes (COP, SBSTTA, SBI, working and advisory groups and other
meetings); and to expand, recognise, and reinforce holistic concepts of justice (such as, but
not limited to: Indigenous, social, ecological, and multi-species justice).
• Are there targets, indicators, management, and reporting mechanisms in place to track the
integration of ecocentric, Indigenous, socially, and ecologically just values and practices in

broader governance, planning, and policy? This would involve coordinated implementation
beyond biodiversity related planning (e.g. NBSAPs) to encompass a whole-of-government and
whole -of-society approach, ensuring that strategies are developed to continually motivate
transformative shifts in thinking and doing to break free from business-as-usual, technocratic,
and anthropocentric approaches.
• Are the Rights of Nature, Indigenous Peoples, and future generations recognised in regional,
national, and international legislation? Are protections effectively implemented? This would
involve ensuring that policy and legislation frameworks are strengthened to protect and
promote these rights. Substantively, human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples must
clearly intersect with the wellbeing of nature and the natural world.
Ensuring that the Considerations matter – from soft-law to transformative shifts in governance
Although the CBD is a hard law instrument, it has adopted a soft law and flexible framework approach,
allowing Parties extensive discretion in implementation (Harrop and Pritchard, 2011). Despite this
flexibility, Parties are legally bound to implement the Convention in good faith and have a legal
obligation to implement the agreed KMGBF, as this constitutes a legal clarification on the Convention
itself (Ekardt et al., 2023). The Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice
(SBSTTA) Secretariat have also put forward a recommendation that Parties indicate how the
Considerations have informed actions towards the Mission, Targets, Vision, and Goals (SBSTTA/25/3,
footnote 2). SBSTTA have additionally encouraged that the Considerations are incorporated into the
implementation of the Framework; implementation success should not just be a measure of progress
towards Targets, but should also assess progress towards the overall Mission, the Considerations
(section C) and sections I, J and K (see SBSTTA/25/13, and our supplementary information). This
highlights the underlying intent that the Considerations are integral to the implementation, reporting
and evaluation of the KMGBF.
In light of SBSTTA’s efforts to ensure that the Considerations are duly incorporated, we now describe
how a combined process of practice and learning may support the ecocentric, holistic, and
collaborative positions described in the Considerations to ensure that these positions are integrated
meaningfully into the Framework’s implementation. Given that principles of soft law and an iterative
process have informed the evolution of the CBD’s governance so far (Harrop and Pritchard, 2011), the
integration of the more transformative and ecocentric perspectives into practice would benefit from
explicit highlighting in all stages of each the CBD process (COP, SBSTTA, SBI, working groups etc.,). As
the implementation of the Convention is a Party led process, Parties often have to work within CBD
institutional norms and expectations to gain acceptance by the Parties, resources for incorporative

reviews, knowledge exchange, training, and benchmarking would further support a ‘learning by doing’
approach to the integration of Considerations, emphasising non-binding measures, which can help
build the potential for dialogue and consensus-building (Victor, 1998; Mewes and Unger, 2021).
In addition to a learning by doing approach, some form of ratcheting mechanisms that give space for
learning as well as encouraging and facilitating actors to increase commitments, for example at each
COP, could be designed, such as seen in the climate process (Levy, 1993). If we consider each CBD COP
as an individual step in an ongoing governance process, the integration of the Considerations and their
new ecocentric and holistic dimensions may be expedited by a two-strand normative expansion and
incorporation process following the suggestions of Tengö et al. (2017) and Jordan and Lenschow
(2010). First, bridges between diverging knowledge and value systems can be established following
Tengö et al. (2017) facilitating knowledge exchange and learning frameworks to mobilise, translate,
negotiate, synthesise, and apply multiple perspectives into biodiversity decision making and practice.
In tandem with this bridging process, the integration of ecocentric policies into CBD governance
structures and routine political practices may be strengthened and enhanced through four distinct
stages of the policy-making process (see Jordan & Lenschow, 2010). We illustrate this two-strand
process in Figure 2 and describe this process in more detail next.
This two-strand approach represents a process of learning and exchange over time and should support
and enhance the genuine integration of ecocentric perspectives throughout the development and
implementation of the KMGBF. Incorporating holistic and ecocentric values into biodiversity
governance and national implementation processes will require conscious reinforcement of these
values both within and beyond the implementation of the KMGBF. To begin with mobilisation and
priority setting (Strand 1-a, Figure 2), the integration process would benefit from further embedding
community and Indigenous voices both in the formal meetings and informal dialogue and networking
of the CBD process (Domorenok and Zito 2021). This may, for example, include making space for and
expanding the involvement of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) to strengthen
the ability of less powerful and marginalised groups to shape and inform decision making (see Zafra-
Calvo, 2020). Whilst recognising and supporting such perspectives in the formal CBD meetings will be
important, equally critical will be the creation of informal and formal multilateral networks that enable
non-Western thinkers to engage with other non-Western, ecocentric practitioners and viewpoints as
well as with those practitioners who adhere to the more Western, anthropocentric perspectives.

Figure 2. Proposed two-strand normative expansion process to support a practice of learning and
review both in global biodiversity governance and everyday political practices. Stages adapted from
Tengö et al. (2017) and Jordan & Lenschow (2010) shown in green and yellow respectively.

To support the translation of knowledge and values into appropriate formats (Strand 2-b, Figure 2),
efforts for policy, organisational, and instrumental learning would need to develop financial support
tools to enable the broad discussions and pluralist dialogue between state, substate, non-state, and
interested parties in meetings and more informal networking events. Additionally, the development
of tools to support reflexive learning will be necessary; for example, developing knowledge sharing
templates, training materials, benchmarking instruments, and collaborative networks that can assist
the co-production of common understandings between contrasting perspectives (e.g., between
anthropocentric norms, and transformative ecocentrism).
To enable negotiation, synthesis and facilitated dialogue (Strand 3 and 4-c, Figure 2), platforms for
learning and reflection about diverse values will need to be developed and strengthened. The
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may
provide guidance and support in this direction as their current programme of work includes a
transformative change assessment as well as a focus on facilitated access to expertise and information
and approaches to strengthen knowledge foundations (see: Decision IPBES 1/3). Information events
and other vehicles for exchange will support the negotiation of converging and complimentary
perspectives and create opportunities for synthesis. For example, this could involve the systematic
development of training and knowledge sharing across the width of CBD (at COP, SBSTTA, SBI, Global
Partnership Meetings, and across working groups and other events) and the broader policy landscape
(IPBES, national institutions, governing bodies, NGOs, local and community groups etc.).
Finally, for application and evaluation (Strand 5-d, Figure 2), reporting and evaluating mechanisms that
set benchmarks for how biodiversity plans incorporate these new perspectives as well as tools that
allow Parties to present their own measures and experiences and learn from those of others will be
essential to measure and understand progress. Creating learning forums, networks, and other
platforms will support the CBD community experiment and share experiences of integrating
ecocentric, holistic, and non-economic values into the Framework and broader policymaking, as well
as providing avenues to reconcile some of the tensions inherent in current efforts. These networks
and forums will generate pools of practical knowledge on successful local experiences and efforts. By
comparing a Party’s own progress and experiences with that of others, certain Parties may be
encouraged and emboldened to be more ambitious in their approach for the next COP. Before and
during negotiations, negotiators would benefit from various events and other platforms that create a
‘learning forum’ dynamic where shared experiences and interaction might encourage and persuade
Parties to change their thinking and integrate new perspectives (Rietig, 2019).

Final remarks
The political negotiations underpinning the KMGBF speaks volumes towards the prevalent values held
towards nature and the prioritisation of actions and responses to safeguard biodiversity. A track
record of poorly performing and ineffective Strategic Plans, and calls for transformative change in the
values, goals, and paradigms underpinning biodiversity governance (IPBES, 2019) highlight how
business-as-usual responses are no longer an option if we are to seriously address species loss and
biodiversity decline. Issues around the marginalisation of people and nature and the combined issues
of human, gender, intergenerational, and ecological injustice have been under-established in
environmental-policy discourse (Francis, 2020). Whilst we acknowledge that political will and
constraints in both time and capacity will influence the implementation of the Framework, a
fundamental shift in approaches will be essential to meet the ambitions outlined in the Framework.
To support the expansion of effective, justice-informed, and holistic implementation approaches, this
paper has teased out the juxtapositions and tensions between the Considerations and has suggested
pathways for more holistic implementation efforts. We maintain that the ecocentric approaches
introduced in the Considerations provide areas to foster growth and transformative change in
biodiversity governance by extending legal, procedural, and policy dimensions to recognise and
uphold the rights of - and justice for - nature and biodiversity. We encourage all Parties, practitioners,
academics, local community and interest groups to reflect on how underpinning knowledges and
values may influence their contributions to achieving the KMGBFs Vision of living in harmony with
nature; and encourage the meaningful and authentic integration and adoption of the holistic and
ecocentric practices that have been introduced in the Considerations.
References
Biermann, F. (2021) ‘The future of “environmental” policy in the Anthropocene: time for a paradigm
shift’, Environmental Politics, 30(1–2), pp. 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1846958.
Blaustein, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K., Pino, N.W. & White, R. (2020) ‘The Nexus between Crime, Justice and
Sustainable Development’, in Jarrett Blaustein, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Nathan W. Pino, & Rob
White (Eds.) The Emerald Handbook of Crime, Justice and Sustainable Development, Emerald
Publishing Limited. pp. 3–24.
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N.J., Moore, M.L., Morrison, T.H. and Brown, K.
(2018) ‘The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability
discourse’, Antipode, 50(5), pp. 1206-1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405.

Brakes, P., Carroll, E.L., Dall, S.R., Keith, S.A., McGregor, P.K., Mesnick, S.L., Noad, M.J., Rendell, L.,
Robbins, M.M., Rutz, C. and Thornton, A. (2021) ‘ A deepening understanding of animal
culture suggests lessons for conservation’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1949),
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2718.
Büscher, B. & Ramutsindela, M. (2015) ‘Green violence: Rhino poaching and the war to save
Southern Africa’s peace parks’, African Affairs, 115(458), pp.1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adv058.
Büscher, B. & Fletcher, R. (2019) ‘Towards Convivial Conservation’, Conservation & Society, 17(3), pp.
283–296. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_75.
Büscher, B., and Duffy, R. (2023) ‘Biodiversity Breakthrough or time to stop global environmental
meetings altogether?’ Undisciplined Environments,
https://undisciplinedenvironments.org/2023/01/10/biodiversity-breakthrough-or-time-to-
stop-global-environmental-meetings-altogether-2/.
Cariño, J. and Ferrari, M.F. (2021) ‘Negotiating the futures of nature and cultures: Perspectives from
Indigenous peoples and local communities about the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework’, Journal of Ethnobiology, 41(2), pp.192-208.
https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.192.
CBD (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal.
https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf.
CBD (2022) Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Montreal
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf.
Celermajer, D., Chatterjee, S., Cochrane, A. et al (2020) ‘Justice Through a Multispecies Lens’,
Contemporary Political Theory 19, 475–512, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-020-00386-5.
Chan, K. M. A., Agard, J., Liu, J., Aguiar, A.P.D., Armenteras, D., Boedhihartono, A. K., Cheung, W. W.
L., Hashimoto, S., et. al (2019) ‘Chapter 5. Pathways towards a Sustainable Future. In: Global
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services’, Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H. T. (Eds). IPBES secretariat,
Bonn, Germany. 108 pages https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3832099.

CMS (2018) ‘Report of the CMS Workshop on conservation implications of animal culture and social
complexity’. https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_ga-
mop3_pre.20.1_animal_culture_conservation.pdf.
Contestabile, M. (2021) ‘Joined-up action for biodiversity’, Nature Sustainability, 4(8), pp. 660–661.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00717-3.
Dancer, H. (2021) ‘Harmony with Nature: towards a new deep legal pluralism’, The Journal of Legal
Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 53(1), pp. 21–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2020.1845503.
de Sousa Santos, B. de S. (2016) Epistemologies of the South: justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
Domínguez, L. & Luoma, C. (2020) ‘Decolonising Conservation Policy: How Colonial Land and
Conservation Ideologies Persist and Perpetuate Indigenous Injustices at the Expense of the
Environment’, Land, 9(3), p. 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030065.
Domorenok, E. and Zito, A. (2021) 'Engines of learning? Policy instruments, cities and climate
governance', Policy Sciences, 54(3), pp. 507-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-
09431-5.
Duffy, R. (2010) Nature crime: how we’re getting conservation wrong. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Eckersley, R. (1990) ‘Habermas and green political thought: Two roads diverging’, Theory and
Society, 19, pp.739-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00191896.
Ekardt, F., Günther, P., Hagemann, K., Garske, B., Heyl, K. & Weyland, R. (2023) ‘Legally binding and
ambitious biodiversity protection under the CBD, the global biodiversity framework, and
human rights law’, Environmental Sciences Europe, 35(1), p. 80.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00786-5.
Epstein, C. (2006) ‘The Making of Global Environmental Norms: Endangered Species Protection’,
Global Environmental Politics, 6(2), pp. 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2006.6.2.32.
Erazo Acosta, E. (2022) ‘Sumak Kawsay—Alli Kawsay-Buen Vivir, Epistemology in the Indigenous
Communities of Ecuador and Colombia, an Opportunity for Environmental Justice and
Rethinking the Global Community’. In: Dalei, N.N., Gupta, A. (Eds.) Economics and Policy of

Energy and Environmental Sustainability. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-19-5061-2_15.
Fajardo Del Castillo, T. (2021) ‘Principles and Approaches in the Convention on Biological Diversity
and Other Biodiversity-Related Conventions in the Post-2020 Scenario’, in Mar Campins
Eritja & Teresa Fajardo Del Castillo (Eds.) Biological Diversity and International Law. Cham:
Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72961-5_2.
Fougères, D., Jones, M., McElwee, P.D., Andrade, A. & Edwards, S.R. (2022) ‘Transformative
Conservation of Ecosystems’, Global Sustainability, pp. 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.4.
Francis, R. (2020) ‘The Tyranny of the Coloniality of Nature and the Elusive Question of Justice’, in
Everisto Benyera (Ed.) Reimagining Justice, Human Rights and Leadership in Africa. Advances
in African Economic, Social and Political Development. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. pp. 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25143-7_3.
Friedman, K., Bridgewater, P., Agostini, V., Agardy, T., Arico, S., Biermann, F., Brown, K., Cresswell,
I.D., Ellis, E.C., Failler, P., Kim, R.E., Pratt, C., Rice, J., Rivera, V.S. & Teneva, L. (2022) ‘The CBD
Post‐2020 biodiversity framework: People’s place within the rest of nature’, People and
Nature, 4(6), pp. 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10403.
Garland, E. (2008) ‘The Elephant in the Room: Confronting the Colonial Character of Wildlife
Conservation in Africa’, African Studies Review, 51(3), pp. 51–74.
https://doi.org/10.1353/arw.0.0095.
Goyes, D.R. (2018) ‘Green Criminology as Decolonial Tool: A Stereoscope of Environmental Harm’, in
Kerry Carrington, Russell Hogg, John Scott, & Máximo Sozzo (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of
Criminology and the Global South. [Online]. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp.
323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65021-0_17.
Guterres, A. (2022) ‘Secretary-General’s remarks at the UN Biodiversity Conference – COP15’. United
Nations. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2022-12-06/secretary-generals-
remarks-the-un-biodiversity-conference-%E2%80%94-cop15.
Hall, I. (2022) ‘Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide: The Ontological Diplomacy of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities at the CBD’, In Biocultural Rights, Indigenous Peoples and
Local Communities (pp. 112-140). Routledge.

Harrop, S.R. (2011) ‘‘Living in harmony with nature’? Outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya Conference of
the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Journal of Environmental Law, 23(1), pp.117-128.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqq032.
Harrop, S.R. and Pritchard, D.J. (2011) ‘A hard instrument goes soft: The implications of the
Convention on Biological Diversity's current trajectory’, Global environmental change, 21(2),
pp.474-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.014.
Held, M. (2023) ‘Decolonizing Science: Undoing the Colonial and Racist Hegemony of Western
Science’, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(44) pp.88-101.
https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i44.785
Heydon, J. (2019) Sustainable development as environmental harm: rights, regulation, and injustice
in the Canadian oil sands, Crimes of the powerful. New York: Routledge.
IPBES (2019) Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673.
IPBES (2022) Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522.
IUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List 2021-2030 Strategic Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/resources/files/1630480299-
IUCN_Red_List_Strategic_Plan_2021-2030.pdf
IUCN (2022) IUCN Red List version 2022-2: Table 1a.
https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/content/attachment_files/2022-2_RL_Stats_Table_1a.pdf.
Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A. (2010) 'Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review',
Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), pp. 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539.
Kauffman, C., Bajpai, S., Leonard, K., Macpherson, E., Martin, P., Pelizzon, A., Putzer, A., Sheehan, L.
(2022) ‘Eco Jurisprudence Tracker’, V1, distributed by the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor,
https://ecojurisprudence.org/dashboard.
Kok, M.T., Tsioumani, E., Bliss, C., Imovilli, M., Keune, H., Morgera, E., Rüegg, S.R., Schapper, A., et. al
(2022) ‘Enabling transformative biodiversity governance in the Post-2020 era’, in IJ Visseren-

Hamakers & MTJ Kok (Eds.), Transforming Biodiversity Governance . Cambridge (pp. 341-
360). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856348.
Koh NS, Ituarte-Lima C, Hahn T. (2021) ‘Mind the Compliance Gap: How Insights from International
Human Rights Mechanisms Can Help to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity’,
Transnational Environmental Law, 11(1):39-67.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102521000169.
Lappe-Osthege, T. and Duffy, R. (2024) ‘International relations and the non-human: exploring animal
culture for global environmental governance’, Review of International Studies. 9. pp.1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210524000366.
Lee, J. (2023) ‘The Human Cost of Conservation: How the world’s favorite conservation model was
built on colonial violence’. Grist. https://grist.org/indigenous/30x30-world-conservation-
model-colonialism-indigenous-peop/.
Lerner, H. & Berg, C. (2017) ‘A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health,
EcoHealth, and Planetary Health’, Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4p. 163.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00163.
Levy, M. (1993) 'European acid rain: the power of tote-board diplomacy', in P. Haas, R. Keohane and
M. Levy (Eds.) Institutions for the earth: sources of effective international environmental
protection. Cambridge MA and London: the MIT Press. pp.75-132.
Mahalwal, S. and Kabra, A. (2023) ‘The slow violence of fortress conservation creates conditions for
socially unjust ‘voluntary’ relocation’, Biological Conservation, 286, p.110264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110264.
Martin, A. (2020) ‘Biodiversity: Crisis, conflict and justice’, In Brendan Coolsaet (Ed.), Environmental
Justice (pp. 132-147). Routledge.
Mewes, C. and Unger, C. (2021) ‘Learning by doing: co-benefits drive national plans for climate and
air quality governance’, Atmosphere, 12(9), p.1184.
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091184.
Maron, M., Quétier, F., Sarmiento, M., Ten Kate, K., Evans, M.C., Bull, J.W., Jones, J.P.G., Zu
Ermgassen, S.O.S.E., et. al (2024) ‘“Nature positive” must incorporate, not undermine, the

mitigation hierarchy’, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 14–17.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02199-2.
McAllister, T., Hikuroa, D. & Macinnis-Ng, C. (2023) ‘Connecting Science to Indigenous Knowledge:
kaitiakitanga, conservation, and resource management’, New Zealand Journal of Ecology,
47(1), 1-13.
McDonnell, J.E., Abelvik-Lawson, H. & Short, D. (2020) ‘A Paradox of “Sustainable Development”: A
Critique of the Ecological Order of Capitalism’, in Jarrett Blaustein, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Nathan
W. Pino, & Rob White (Eds.) The Emerald Handbook of Crime, Justice and Sustainable
Development. Emerald Publishing Limited. pp. 439–463.
Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2022) Don’t dilute the term Nature Positive. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 1243–1244,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01845-5.
Morgera, E. & Tsioumani, E. (2010) ‘Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Looking Afresh at the
Convention on Biological Diversity’, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 21(1), pp.
3–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvr003.
Ocampo-Ariza, C., Toledo-Hernández, M., Librán-Embid, F., Armenteras, D., Vansynghel, J.,
Raveloaritiana, E., Arimond, I., Angulo-Rubiano, A., et. al (2023) ‘Global South leadership
towards inclusive tropical ecology and conservation’, Perspectives in Ecology and
Conservation, 21(1), pp.17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2023.01.002.
Padilla, M.A. (2023) ‘Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Peoples' Rights: The Key to
Developing International Environmental Laws That Promote Harmonious Relationships with
Nature’, California Western International Law Journal, 54, p.1.
Parks, L. and Tsioumani, E. (2023) ‘Transforming biodiversity governance? Indigenous peoples'
contributions to the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Biological Conservation, 280,
p.109933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109933.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Anderson, C.B., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Christie, M., González-Jiménez, D.,
Martin, A., Raymond, C.M. et al. (2023) ‘Diverse values of nature for sustainability’, Nature,
620(7975), pp. 813–823.

Piccolo, J.J., Taylor, B., Washington, H., Kopnina, H., Gray, J., Alberro, H. and Orlikowska, E. (2022)
‘“Nature's contributions to people” and peoples' moral obligations to nature’, Biological
Conservation, 270, p.109572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109572.
Purvis, A. (2019) ‘How did IPBES Estimate ‘1 Million Species At Risk of Extinction’ in
#GlobalAssessment Report’, IPBES Explanatory Note, https://www.ipbes.net/news/how-did-
ipbes-estimate-1-million-species-risk-extinction-globalassessment-report.
Reimerson, E. (2013) ‘Between nature and culture: exploring space for indigenous agency in the
Convention on Biological Diversity’, Environmental Politics, 22(6), pp.992-1009.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.737255.
Rietig, K. (2019) 'Leveraging the power of learning to overcome negotiation deadlocks in global
climate governance and low carbon transitions', Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
21(3), pp. 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1632698.
Sène, A.L. (2023) ‘Justice in nature conservation: Limits and possibilities under global capitalism’,
Climate and Development, https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2274901 pp.1-10.
Shin, Y. J., Arneth, A., Roy Chowdhury, R., Midgley, G.F., Leadley, P., Agyeman Boafo, Y., Basher, Z.,
Bukvareva, E., et. al (2019) ‘Chapter 4: Plausible futures of nature, its contributions to people
and their good quality of life’, in ‘Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S.,
Ngo, H. T. (Eds.), IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 168 pages.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.383207.
Smallwood, J.M., Orsini, A., Kok, M.T., Prip, C. and Negacz, K.K. (2022) ‘Global biodiversity
governance: what needs to be transformed?’, In ‘Transforming biodiversity governance’ (pp.
43-66). Cambridge University Press.
Spash, C.L. (2015) ‘Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in Nature’,
Biological Conservation, 192, pp.541-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.037.
Stuart, S.N., Wilson, E.O., McNeely, J.A., Mittermeier, R.A. and Rodriguez, J.P. (2010) The barometer
of life. Science 328, p177.

Taylor, B., Chapron, G., Kopnina, H., Orlikowska, E., Gray, J. and Piccolo, J.J. (2020) ‘The need for
ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation’, Conservation Biology, 34(5), pp.1089-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13541.
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T. and Folke,
C. (2017) ‘Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for
sustainability’, Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 26, pp.17-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
Türk, V. (2022) ‘Open letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the
post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework’, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-
12/HC-Open-Letter-Post-20-Global-Biodiversity-Framework_0.pdf.
Turnhout, E., & Purvis, A. (2020). ‘Biodiversity and species extinction: categorisation, calculation, and
communication’, Griffith Law Review, 29(4), 669–685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204.
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. (2020) ‘The politics of co-production:
participation, power, and transformation’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
42, pp. 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
Turnhout, E., McElwee, P., Chiroleu‐Assouline, M., Clapp, J., Isenhour, C., Kelemen, E., Jackson, T.,
Miller, D.C., et. al (2021) ‘Enabling transformative economic change in the post‐2020
biodiversity agenda’, Conservation Letters, 14(4), p. e12805.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12805.
UNEP-CMS (2018) 1st CMS Workshop on conservation implications of animal culture and social
complexity. Parma, Italy. https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_scc-
sc3_inf.8_animal-culture-workshop-2018-report_e.pdf.
Victor, D. (1998) 'Learning by doing in the nonbinding international regime to manage trade in
hazardous chemicals and pesticides', in D, Victor, K. Raustiala & E. Skolnikoff (Eds.) The
implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: theory and
practice. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. pp. 221-281.
Washington, H., Chapron, G., Kopnina, H., Curry, P., Gray, J. & Piccolo, J.J. (2018) ‘Foregrounding
ecojustice in conservation’, Biological Conservation, 228, pp. 367–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.011.

Washington, H. & Maloney, M. (2020) ‘The need for ecological ethics in a new ecological economics’,
Ecological Economics, 169, p. 106478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106478.
White, S.C. (2010) ‘Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation’, Development
in Practice, 6(1), pp. 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564.
Wu, J. (2020) ‘Rights of Nature and Indigenous Cosmovision: A Fundamental Inquiry’, Ossa 12.
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA12/Thursday/7/.
Zafra-Calvo, N., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Merçon, J., Martín-López, B., Van Noordwijk, M.,
Mwampamba, T.H., Lele, S., et al. (2020) ‘Plural valuation of nature for equity and
sustainability: Insights from the Global South’, Global Environmental Change, 63p. 102115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115.
Zinngrebe, Y. (2023) ‘Planning for Implementation: Shifting the Focus of National Biodiversity
Strategies to Local Narratives, Existing Institutional Settings and Social Capital’,
Sustainability, 15(12), p. 9774. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129774.
Zu Ermgassen, S.O.S.E., Howard, M., Bennun, L., Addison, P.F.E., Bull, J.W., Loveridge, R., Pollard, E.
& Starkey, M. (2022) ‘Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering
“nature-positive” outcomes? A review of “nature-positive” definitions, company progress
and challenges’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 379p. 134798.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134798.

Supplementary Information
Development of Considerations in the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework
ZERO DRAFT OF THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK
Open-Ended Working Group 2 Rome 24-29 February 2020
CBD/WG2020/2/3 6 January 2020
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/da8c/9e95/9e9db02aaf68c018c758ff14/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf
Section B: Purpose contains three paragraphs, each starting with the words: “The Framework aims
to …” or “The Framework will …”
UPDATED ZERO DRAFT OF THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK
CBD/POST2020/PREP/2/1 17 August 2020
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf
Unchanged from the Zero Draft
FIRST DRAFT OF THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK
Open-Ended Working Group 3 Online, 23 August – 3 September 2021
CBD/WG2020/3/3 5 July 2021
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/914a/eca3/24ad42235033f031badf61b1/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf
Section B: Purpose contains two paragraphs, each starting with the words: “The Framework aims to
…”
The third paragraph from the Updated Zero Draft was put in Section C: Relationship with 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development
REPORT OF THE OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY
FRAMEWORK ON ITS THIRD MEETING
Open-Ended Working Group 3 (part II) Geneva, Switzerland, 14–29 March 2022
CBD/WG2020/3/7
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/50c9/a685/3844e4030802e9325bc5e0b4/wg2020-03-07-en.pdf
The report of the meeting included an appendix containing a proposal from the Co-Chairs for a new
section (B.bis) of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, presented in document
CBD/WG2020/3/6, together with submissions from delegates for changes to or additional elements
to this new section. The elements were included as submitted and were not discussed in contact
group 1. Some Parties and observers expressed the view that Section B.bis should not result in
removal of important principles and standards (such as rights-based approaches, rights of
indigenous peoples and local communities, and gender and youth) from the goals, targets and other
sections of the framework, as appropriate.
Section B.bis began [alternative wording suggested in []
[title:] B.bis Principles and Approaches [Guidance] for the implementation of the framework
[chapeau:] The following principles and approaches were [guidance was] used in the development of
the global biodiversity framework and should guide and underpin its implementation:
REPORT OF THE OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY
FRAMEWORK ON ITS FOURTH MEETING
Open-Ended Working Group 4 Nairobi, 21–26 June 2022
CBD/WG2020/4/4 21 June 2022
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3303/d892/4fd11c27963bd3f826a961e1/wg2020-04-04-en.pdf

Section B.bis in a separate Section, indicating that there should be some notion of principles or
underpinning perspectives to the implement of the Framework. The potential titles and introduction
(chapeau) were proposed as follows.
[Section B Bis [Principles and] [Approaches] [Guidance] for the implementation of the framework
7. The following [principles and] [approaches] [guidance] should underpin the implementation of the
framework:
OUTCOMES OF THE WORK OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY
FRAMEWORK
Informal Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Montreal, Canada, 26-30
September 2022
CBD/WG2020/5/2 https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/dfeb/e742/b936c09eae9dd558c1310b5b/wg2020-05-
02-en.pdf
Considered Section B.bis in detail and what its purpose may be, viz: The Group agreed that this
section could provide very important context and foundational elements for the entire framework,
including on how it should be implemented. In this context some suggested that the formulation of
the section should provide an unambiguous articulation of the specific purpose and intended content
of this section.
There was discussion over the title of the section, perhaps referring to ‘principles’ for the
implementation of the Framework. There was, however, concern about the potential legal nature of
‘principles; and so ‘premises’ or ‘guidance’ were suggested. There was discussion about the
reflection of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in various multinational agreements and
in the context of the Convention. A list of 17 issues were identified as such cross-cutting issues,
principles or underlining premises.
As a result the Co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group developed text for 13 ‘fundamental
premises for the implementation of the framework’, which formed the basis of discussion at OEWG
5.
RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED BY THE WORKING GROUP ON THE POST-2020 GLOBAL
BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK
Open-Ended Working Group 5 Montreal 3-5 December 2022
CBD/WG2020/REC/5/1 5 December 2022 https://www.cbd.int/doc/recommendations/wg2020-
05/wg2020-05-rec-01-en.pdf
Section Bbis was only partially discussed by the contact group at OEWG 5 and much of the text
remained in square brackets (ie not agreed by consensus). Importantly, it states that the Framework
is to be acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with these ‘principles/
premises/guidelines and approaches’. In other words, they should inform every stage of action
concerning the KMGBF.
Their recommendation for this section began:
Section B bis. [The fundamental [premises]/[principles]/[guidelines and approaches] for the
implementation of the framework*

[8. The implementation of the framework, including its Goals and Targets, is underpinned by
fundamental [premises]/[principles]/[guidelines and approaches] that are key for its success [and
are to be considered at all stages[, including planning, monitoring, reporting, and review]. [The
comprehensive implementation of the framework includes consideration of these
[premises]/[principles]/[guidelines and approaches] at all stages. In that regard, the Goals and
Targets are to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with
the followings]]:]
There then follows 13 suggested issues, and a further eight drawn from the report of OEWG4.
DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY 15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
CoP 15 Part II Montreal, Canada, 7-19 December 2022
CBD/COP/DEC/15/4 19 December 2022 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-
en.pdf
Section C. Considerations for the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework
7. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including its Vision, Mission, Goals
and Targets, is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated, consistent with
the following:
Contribution and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
(a) The Framework acknowledges the important roles and contributions of indigenous
peoples and local communities as custodians of biodiversity and as partners in its conservation,
restoration and sustainable use. The Framework’s implementation must ensure that the rights,
knowledge, including traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity, innovations, worldviews,
values and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities are respected, and documented
and preserved with their free, prior and informed consent,1 including through their full and effective
participation in decision-making, in accordance with relevant national legislation, international
instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,2 and
human rights law. In this regard, nothing in this framework may be construed as diminishing or
extinguishing the rights that indigenous peoples currently have or may acquire in the future;
Different value systems
(b) Nature embodies different concepts for different people, including biodiversity,
ecosystems, Mother Earth, and systems of life. Nature’s contributions to people also embody different
concepts, such as ecosystem goods and services and nature’s gifts. Both nature and nature’s
contributions to people are vital for human existence and good quality of life, including human well-
being, living in harmony with nature, and living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth. The
Framework recognizes and considers these diverse value systems and concepts, including, for those
countries that recognize them, rights of nature and rights of Mother Earth, as being an integral part
of its successful implementation;
Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach
(c) This is a framework for all - for the whole of government and the whole of society. Its
success requires political will and recognition at the highest level of government and relies on action
and cooperation by all levels of government and by all actors of society;
National circumstances, priorities and capabilities
(d) The goals and targets of the Framework are global in nature. Each Party would
contribute to attaining the goals and targets of the Framework in accordance with national
circumstances, priorities and capabilities;
Collective effort towards the targets

(e) The Parties will catalyse implementation of the Framework through mobilization of
broad public support at all levels;
Right to development
(f) Recognizing the 1986 United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development,3 the
Framework enables responsible and sustainable socioeconomic development that, at the same time,
contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
Human rights-based approach
(g) The implementation of the Framework should follow a human rights-based
approach, respecting, protecting, promoting and fulfilling human rights. The Framework
acknowledges the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment;4
Gender
(h) Successful implementation of the Framework will depend on ensuring gender equality
and empowerment of women and girls, and on reducing inequalities;
Fulfilment of the three objectives of the Convention and its Protocols and their balanced
implementation
(i) The goals and targets of the Framework are integrated and are intended to contribute
in a balanced manner to the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Framework
is to be implemented in accordance with these objectives, with the provisions of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access
and Benefit-sharing, as applicable;
Consistency with international agreements or instruments
(j) The Framework needs to be implemented in accordance with relevant international
obligations. Nothing in this Framework should be interpreted as agreement to modify the rights and
obligations of a Party under the Convention or any other international agreement;
Principles of the Rio Declaration
(k) The Framework recognizes that reversing the loss of biological diversity, for the
benefit of all living beings, is a common concern of humankind. Its implementation should be guided
by the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development;5
Science and innovation
(l) The implementation of the Framework should be based on scientific evidence and
traditional knowledge and practices, recognizing the role of science, technology and innovation;
Ecosystem approach
(m) This Framework is to be implemented based on the ecosystem approach of the
Convention;6
Intergenerational equity
(n) The implementation of the Framework should be guided by the principle of
intergenerational equity which aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs and to ensure meaningful participation of
younger generations in decision-making processes at all levels;
Formal and informal education
(o) Implementation of the Framework requires transformative, innovative and
transdisciplinary education, formal and informal, at all levels, including science-policy interface studies
and lifelong learning processes, recognizing diverse world views, values and knowledge systems of
indigenous peoples and local communities;
Access to financial resources
(p) The full implementation of the Framework requires adequate, predictable and easily
accessible financial resources;
Cooperation and synergies
(q) Enhanced collaboration, cooperation and synergies between the Convention on
Biological Diversity and its Protocols, other biodiversity-related conventions, other relevant
multilateral agreements and international organizations and processes, in line with their respective

mandates, including at the global, regional, subregional and national levels, would contribute to and
promote the implementation of the Framework in a more efficient and effective manner;
Biodiversity and health
(r) The Framework acknowledges the interlinkages between biodiversity and health and
the three objectives of the Convention. The Framework is to be implemented with consideration of
the One Health Approach, among other holistic approaches that are based on science, mobilize
multiple sectors, disciplines and communities to work together, and aim to sustainably balance and
optimize the health of people, animals, plants and ecosystems, recognizing the need for equitable
access to tools and technologies including medicines, vaccines and other health products related to
biodiversity, while highlighting the urgent need to reduce pressures on biodiversity and decrease
environmental degradation to reduce risks to health, and, as appropriate, develop practical access and
benefit-sharing arrangements.
POST COP15
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical And Technological Advice 25 Nairobi 15–19 October 2023
CBD/SBSTTA/25/13 19 October 2023
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/698b/dca4/dadb1b93ace9acae10f1bb04/sbstta-25-13-en.pdf
I Recommendations adopted by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice
25/1. Monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice …
9. Encourages the Expert Group to take section C of the Framework into consideration when
addressing the gaps in the monitoring framework in preparation for the twenty-sixth meeting of the
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice;
25/2. Scientific, technical and technological inputs that should inform the global review of collective
progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice ….
1 Decides that the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-
Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be a process comprising several elements, including a
global report focussed primarily on assessing progress in the implementation of the Framework and
containing the following elements in its structure:
….
c A review of collective progress in the implementation of the Framework, including a target-
by-target assessment of progress towards the 23 targets, the 2030 Mission and other elements of
the Framework, including sections C, I, J and K;
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical And Technological Advice 26 Nairobi 13–18 May 2024
Recommendation adopted by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
on 18 May 2024 18 May 2024 https://www.cbd.int/doc/recommendations/sbstta-26/sbstta-26-rec-
02-en.pdf

26/2. Scientific and technical needs to support the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice …
2. Concludes that most of the guidance that has been developed under the Convention on Biological
Diversity is relevant and that there is a wealth of tools and guidance developed through other
processes that also support the implementation of the Framework and the potential to work with
them to mainstream the considerations for the implementation of the Framework7 into their
activities, and that access to guidance, adequate financial resources, capacity-building and
development, and technical and scientific cooperation are needed by Parties for the implementation
of the tools and guidance;
6. Recommends that, at its sixteenth meeting, the Conference of the Parties consider adopting a
decision along the following lines, noting that complementary recommendations may be elaborated
by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation:
The Conference of the Parties …
Welcoming the establishment of the regional and subregional technical and scientific cooperation
support centres and the global knowledge support service for biodiversity,
1. Recognizes:
(d) That there is an opportunity to mainstream the Framework into the work undertaken under
other relevant intergovernmental agreements and processes and by international organizations, the
private sector and other stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, women
and youth, and into capacity-building and development initiatives, with a view to integrating the
considerations for the implementation of the Framework68 into tools and guidance developed
through such processes and initiatives, so that they support biodiversity-inclusive actions and
outcomes;
4. Requests the Secretariat, subject to the availability of resources: …
(b) To continue to facilitate the development of further tools [and exchange of good practices][and
guidance and updating of existing guidance, ]where needed, to address gaps identified [by Parties]
[in annex III to document CBD/SBSTTA/26/2, section IV.B of and the annex to document
CBD/SBSTTA/26/3 and document CBD/SBSTTA/26/INF/15], in cooperation with relevant multilateral
environmental agreements, [other competent intergovernmental organizations,] [the regional and
subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centres and the global knowledge support
service for biodiversity], relevant processes and organizations, [avoiding duplication of tools and
guidance,] and in consultation with Parties, other Governments, indigenous peoples and local
communities, women and youth organizations and relevant stakeholders, and, where appropriate,
[and in line with their respective mandates,] to work with such relevant processes and organizations
to integrate the considerations for the implementation of the Framework into tools and guidance
being developed under those processes and by those organizations in order to support biodiversity-
inclusive actions and outcomes;
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE SUBSIDIARY BODY ON IMPLEMENTATION
Subsidiary Body on Implementation 4 Nairobi 21–29 May 2024
CBD/SBI/REC/4/1 29 May 2024

Recommendation adopted by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation on 29 May 2024
CBD/SBI/REC/4/1 29 May 2024 https://www.cbd.int/doc/recommendations/sbi-04/sbi-04-rec-01-
en.pdf
4/1. Review of implementation: progress in the preparation of revised and updated national
biodiversity strategies and action plans and the establishment of national targets in alignment with
the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
The Subsidiary Body on Implementation ….
1. Urges Parties to revise or update their national biodiversity strategies and
action plans in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity,9 as
requested in paragraph 6 of decision 15/6 of 19 December 2022, taking section C of the
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework10 into account;
Recommendation adopted by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation on 29 May 2024
https://www.cbd.int/doc/recommendations/sbi-04/sbi-04-rec-02-en.pdf
4/2. Mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review
The Subsidiary Body on Implementation ….
[Annex II Reporting of commitments by non-State actors11
26. Potential ways to address challenges and opportunities in achieving effective
implementation of the commitment and its contribution to the Framework, including its section C
and its targets and goals, and other decisions (e.g. Gender Plan of Action (2023–2030)).12 (optional)