Press Conference: Turning global biodiversity commitments into action, UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Thank you very much for being here. It is wonderful to see you all. My name is Adil Najem. I have the great honor and privilege to serve as the president of WWF International. And we are very grateful that you've taken the time today to be with us. I am joined here with four of my colleagues to give you a sense of our thoughts and concerns and ambitions and hopes as we embark on this COP and this important meeting. Let me just ask my colleagues to very, very quickly just introduce themselves. You'll hear a few thoughts from me after this, and then I'll go to my four colleagues to tell you more specifically thoughts on particular things. Let me start with you, Salim. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Adil. My name is Celine Beaulieu. I'm the thematic lead on resource mobilization and biodiversity finance.

Hello, everyone. I'm Kirsty Leong. I'm the thematic lead for WWF on the Global Review.

Hello, everybody. Guido Bruckhofer, head of multilateral policy, WWF International.

Hi, everyone. I'm Vishesh, Vishesh Uppal from WWF India. And I'm going to speak to you all about ABS and DSI. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all. You will hear from my colleagues. And as you can see, we bring to you multiple thoughts on multiple issues, but also from around the world. I will only highlight what you already know. You already know that we are at a very pivotal moment, once again. This moment remains pivotal and becomes even more important as every year passes. There is a sense, there should be a sense of urgency. There is a need of action. None of that is new. None of that is what you have not heard before. But the intensity of that thought continues to increase with every passing, not just year, but with every passing day. To give you just one more sense of how pivotal this moment is, WWF recently released its Living Planet Report. And the Living Planet Report once again finds that the slide in biodiversity continues, more than 70%, I think 73% at this point, loss in vertebrates has continued since 1970, so over a 50-year period, and that slide continues. However, however, I would highlight that that's not the news in the report, that you knew. The news in the report is our belief and our sense from our research that there may be what we call a science of hope that is emerging. Because while this continues, there is in fact a lot of important work being done by communities, by indigenous people, by governments, by corporations, by people across the world that have demonstrated that when there is the will, when there is the ambition, then change can be made. whether it is tigers more than doubling, whether it is sea turtles, whether it is in my own country, Pakistan, which is the blind dolphin that has tripled. We have demonstrated, people have demonstrated that change can be made. And the science of hope that we call is that there are signs of what things are needed to bring about that change at scale. At this point, therefore, it is not a moment to navel gaze or to look at what we should do. It is a moment when we should begin doing that. And that is why COP17 is so important. It is also important, and I'll make this the last point before I come to my colleagues, starting with Guido, it is also important because no COP, no COP, whether it's on biodiversity or climate or anything else, happens in isolation. It happens in a particular moment in time, and we are in a particularly fraught moment in time globally in terms of ecology, in terms of politics, in terms of economy, in terms of technology. No COP happens only on the issue that you are talking about. It happens in the context of all the other issues that we are talking about. And that is why the idea of whole of society and whole of government should not just be a slogan. It is an imperative. It is a need that we need to put not just meaning, but action on. So those are at least my thoughts on the moment we are in. But to elaborate them, let me start with my colleague and friend Guido to give you a little more context on this particular point.

Yeah, thank you, Adil, for setting the scene. And let me just begin by reiterating what you just said, that we must not resign ourselves to business as usual. The biodiversity crisis is real, but we have the solutions to address it and reverse biodiversity loss. So for us, the test for COP17 is straightforward. Will it change what governments do after they go home and leave Gerafan. So in order to achieve that, COP must turn the global review process into a course correction. It must agree clear actions on closing two gaps, the ambition gap between the national plans and the global biodiversity framework and its targets, and the implementation gap between these national plans and the action on the ground. And here, parties must agree to speed up and scale up transformative actions with a focus on the targets that are furthest off track, such as targets related to the drivers of nature loss, finance, and whole of society approaches. Secondly, environment ministers cannot deliver the framework alone, and parties need to decide that coordination mechanisms across the government are required. Biodiversity must shape budgets, incentives, policies across finance, agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, trade and development. Then thirdly, implementation requires money. COP17 should demonstrate a credible pathway towards achieving the 30 billion on international biodiversity finance annually by 2030 that was agreed in 2022. It must be accompanied with stronger resource mobilization at the domestic level and a broader contributor base. The Cali Fund also needs to be strengthened. Further, it makes no sense to fund conservation while continuing to reward destruction. Governments must also align financial flows with biodiversity goals and reform harmful incentives. And fourthly and finally, delivery must be rights-based, gender-responsive, just and inclusive. Indigenous peoples, local communities, they are the rights holders, they are leaders, custodians of biodiversity. Women and youth must also participate and lead, and finance must reach those delivering results on the ground. Now, when we have those four areas of actions on policies, institutions, finance and partnerships aligned, then change can become self-reinforcing. For example, reforming harmful incentives, agriculture incentives can create a snowball effect, unlocking progress across food systems, restoration, finance and sustainable production. And that's why governments agreed to repurpose harmful incentives by at least 500 billion a year by 2030. Finally, improved accountability must run through every outcome. Decisions here at COP must be clear, specific, and they must indicate how and when progress will be measured. They should also create opportunities to learn and exchange. Let me close by saying that I witnessed the negotiations during the difficult COVID years and the adoption of the Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022. So we do have the targets. We do have the solutions. We now need the decisions, institutions, resources and partnerships and the rights that are capable of changing implementation on the ground so that come 2030, we will be able to say that we have truly made history. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Kirsty.

Thanks. As we know from the Global Report on Progress, which was based on national reports from countries as well as scientific assessments, we are not on track to achieving the targets of the GBF. In fact, fewer than half of the national targets assessed by parties are on track. With overall progress insufficient, we also know that there are some significant gaps in particular areas. So, the purpose of this global review is not just to assess progress, but also to inform and drive stronger action in the next implementation cycle. The global review is the diagnosis not the end point. The critical question is how findings can be translated into strengthened implementation and follow-up action. So what's at stake here at COP? What do we need from the COP? What we need from COP17 is a strong response, and that comes in the form of a COP decision on the global review that provides clear guidance to countries. that after they leave Yerevan, they have important work to do. The COP decision needs to direct countries to focus on where the biggest gaps in ambition and efforts between the global targets and national targets are. These include the need for national targets to ensure that finance is, that the finance needed for action on the ground is available, as well as the sharing of technology and technical and scientific resources, to ensure that spatial planning and land use decision making takes biodiversity into account, to integrate biodiversity across key sectors, to address harmful incentives, and of course to ensure participation by those who have a critical stake in stewarding the world's biodiversity. The biggest risk to the global review process is a lack of follow-up action. COP also needs to put in place some measures to check on how countries are going with addressing the gaps. Things like regional dialogues can help to exchange learning on what works and what doesn't. Countries should also be encouraged to provide updates in the next round of national reports on what they've done differently after the global review. And so what do countries need to do after COP17? After COP17, delegates need to go home and adjust their national priorities, their targets and plans for biodiversity in light of the findings of the Global Review. They need to double down on the most important contributions that they can make towards implementing the GBF. For some, that will mean meeting biodiversity financing commitments, It might mean working to address the footprint of production and consumption that their country has on biodiversity globally. For others, it will mean increasing efforts to protect and restore nature in critical places and ensuring that indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth are fully involved. From all countries, we need a renewed sense of urgency and tangible action to course correct. After all, a global review that changes nothing is just another global report. Thank you.

Thank you, Kirsty. Celine.

Thank you very much, Adil, Guido and Kirsty. You've said out why this moment matters and why change is still possible. I want to focus on what COP17 must deliver for WWF to call it a success on finance. Here in Yenneveran, The biodiversity finance debate should focus on the real question, whether finance is delivering what countries need to turn the global biodiversity framework from commitments into implementation. There can be no credible implementation agenda without a credible finance pathway. The latest OECD figures give us an important reality check. Global biodiversity finance is estimated at around 75 to 92 billion US dollars a year. And international public biodiversity finance is around 16 billion US dollars a year. So yes, finance is increasing, but the scale and quality of finance still have to match the ambition governments have agreed. The Paulson Institute's Financing Nature report estimates 274 to 742 billion US dollars per year in agricultural, fisheries, and forestry production subsidies that are potentially harmful to biodiversity. It makes the striking comparison that this is up to four times greater than total positive biodiversity finance flows. WWF has three clear messages. First, mobilize more finance. and connect finance to implementation. Governments need a credible pathway towards at least 200 billion US dollars a year from all sources by 2030, including at least 30 billion a year in international biodiversity finance. A position calls for resources not merely to be mobilized, but efficiently delivered and effectively used to implement the global biodiversity framework. Mobilizing money is not enough, though. Finance has to translate into implementation. Second, this cannot only be about raising new money. We have to change where existing money goes. We cannot finance nature with one hand and subsidize its destruction with the other. Here in Armenia, where mountains shape so much of the landscape, perhaps this is an appropriate analogy. We cannot accept to reach the summit If for every step we finance forward for nature, harmful subsidies take us a step back. That is why we need to do both, mobilize more finance for biodiversity and redirect the financial flows that are driving biodiversity loss. Governments need to reform harmful subsidies and align public and private financial flows with biodiversity objectives. That realignment is central to to our position. Third, the test is whether finance reaches the people delivering action. Finance needs to be predictable, effective, and accessible, particularly for developing countries, indigenous peoples, local communities, and other rights holders. WWF is calling for fairer and simpler access alongside strong safeguards, transparency, and accountability. judge biodiversity finance not only by what is being pledged, but by what reaches implementation. So to close, our three priorities are mobilize more and link finance to implementation, stop financing biodiversity loss by reforming harmful subsidies and aligning financial flows, and make finance effective and accessible to those delivering results. This is the credible pathway to advance the financial architecture that nature and people need now. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And finally, before we open up for questions, Rishikesh.

Thank you, Adilji. So now we come to the baby of the COP. The Cali Fund is just 20 months old, but the toddler still hasn't learned how to walk. And I think this COP is where we must ensure that everyone comes together and makes it like, you know, it is ensures that actually the Kali Fund starts working, it is implemented effectively, you know, and we also need to urge all parties. We are urging all parties to encourage or incentivize companies who are users of DSI from genetic resources to contribute to the fund. contribute meaningfully. We understand that there are some concerns, you know, about the fund, how it will work, all of that. But then the fact that biodiversity is at such a critical juncture, that should be a higher concern. So everyone should be responsible and they should actually commit to show that they are there to reverse nature loss and work together to build confidence about the governance and the ability of the fund to ensure fair sharing of benefits. I think it is very critical that biodiversity is custodians actually get the resources they need to conserve. They've been protecting these resources, but they also need resources. And Kali Fund is an amazing, innovative mechanism to just do that. So we need to make sure that it works. You know, half of the Kali Fund resources are intended for self-identified needs of IPLCs, right, including women and youth. So implementation must make that that promise actually is real and the funds are accessible. The fund has to work with fairness, transparency, certainty, all of that is a given, that is a given underlying thing. But parties and IPLCs also need to see confidence that benefits will actually be shared equitably. And we hope that positive steps are taken to allay concerns of companies and that companies as responsible entities also come forward and contribute meaningfully to the fund. COP17 should strengthen the full and effective implementation of the fund because it's really critical that we show progress now. You know, we've been talking about it since been a year and a half, but we really need to have some tangible actions and steps on the ground. So the test of the Cali Fund is simple, you know, do the benefits reach the people and the communities who safeguard biodiversity? If that happens, then we know that it's a success. Thank you so much.

All of you, we have very little time, but we do want to see if there are questions in the room and my colleagues can answer. If you have, please raise your hand. I believe there is someone with the mic who can come to you. Questions, thoughts?

Hello, this is a question from Regan Devine, TRT World, a Turkish broadcaster. Your report estimates that in 2024, around $7.3 trillion flowed into nature-harming activities, compared with just $220 billion towards protecting or restoring it. And that approximately $7.3 trillion includes approximately $4.9 trillion in private finance and $2.4 trillion in environmentally harmful public subsidies. Can you name the countries and/or organizations preventing more progress on the issue?

You will understand that, of course, WWF is not going to name and shame any country parties with respect to the necessary reforms that need to be embedded into national context. And what is fundamental is that it's a whole of government and all of society approach that every government is going to consider to really assess, first of all, where and which of the subsidies that are in implementation in that country are harmful to biodiversity. So that requires an assessment that could be supported by, for instance, the Biofin Initiative, and that there is a clear dialogue across ministries responsible and civil society and business to consider, of course, a credible pathway that will minimize the harmful impacts that redirecting financial flows and redirecting harmful subsidies could have on, for instance, producers of agriculture. So what is really important is, as highlighted in the global review, we see that there is little progress so far on this agenda. But there is also reason for hope, because there are a number of countries that are trying to embrace this agenda and trying to advance those reforms and try to learn from each other through dialogues and a coalition that is emerging and which is going to be quite vocal here. And I think there will be some announcements during the second week of the Conference of Parties, where we can learn from some progressive parties on what they are doing with reforming harmful subsidies. Thank you.

Others, questions, parts, please.

Hello, my name is Anna Scott. I'm a reporter for Carbon Pulse. I also had a question about subsidies for the panel. I wondered whether you think there's a chance that subsidy reduction might be made mandatory here at COP17. Thank you. Yeah, of course. Do you think there's a chance that reduction of subsidies on a national level will be made mandatory here at COP17?

Well, if I may, I mean, this is actually not a mandatory decision that the Conference of Parties can make. There is a clear target, target 18, which is calling on all parties to consider how to reform and repurpose subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity. But I don't think we could call for additional strong and mandatory call for this to happen because it rests within the national context and really needs to be driven at that level. Thanks.

Hello. My name is Maini. I am from the Nordic Youth Biodiversity Network. We are the youth group here in COP. And as you address, as you acknowledge, youth is an important part for the KGBF success in the future. I would like to know how do you see youth paper in closing the gap between the framework and the implementation, how would you recommend our countries to address youth and youth tasks in the NBSAPs and how can we contribute to close that gap between implementation and the framework? Thank you.

My colleagues can join me. Young people are not just amongst, but the most important constituency, the most important constituency in our work on biodiversity and our work on conservation, because this is about the future and they are the future. I'm going to be here not very long. You're going to be here. So everything we do has to be focused on young people. Let me be more blunt than you are. There is clearly a sense of impatience amongst young people. And I think they are exactly right to be impatient. We think they are exactly right to be impatient. It is no longer time to just make promises about things we will do. It is time to tell what we have done on the promises we have made. Making a pledge is a very good thing, but a much better thing is saying we've kept the pledge. An even better thing is telling us how the pledge was spent. An even better thing is demonstrating what impact it had. So I think this is extremely important and it relates to youth, but I would also say that puts a lot of responsibility on young people themselves. Because my generation hasn't been able to do everything we wanted to do, Your generation has to take that mandate. Young people are not only young people, they are consumers, they are users, they are citizens, they are activists, and this has to be when we say whole of society. If you do not include young in that, then there's a big hole inside that whole of society. So I think it is absolutely, absolutely central on everyone, governments, business, civil society, to take what they are hearing from young people very seriously, but it is also central on young people themselves to see this planet as their responsibility just as it is of every other generation. So thank you very much. And do we have one very quick question, sir? Last question at the back. I think we are out of time, but you'll make it short and I'll promise to do that.

Hi, yeah, Mark Hillston from Reuters.

I just wondered what the panel thought in terms of concrete steps that need to be taken at this COP to prevent the Cali Fund from, I guess, disappearing altogether.

So I think there are two, three very concrete steps which this COP should take and I'm sure all of us have gathered here, all the parties have come here to actually do that. One is to remove this doubts and uncertainties about this double payment, right? You know, so the concerns of companies are that there could be double payments. You have to pay at the Cali fund and also pay nationally. So the fact that the certificate, the Cali certificates should be actually validated by national parties. I think that's something which, if can be resolved here, will be really good because that kind of, you know, clarifies or kind of removes that concern. Obviously, no one wants to, you know, pay double, right? That's very important. Second is, I think the allocation formula is there. Yes, it would make it probably will get refined further. So these are all baby steps we need to take, right? The process may not be perfect, but we need to have faith and implement the process. Funds have to come in. All parties have to urge commercial users, companies within their jurisdiction to actually contribute meaningfully. I mean, that's something which the parties should take steps. They should also set up mechanisms and systems to actually do that, whether it's any, you know, whichever measure they want to take. So I think these are some key steps which need to be taken so that we actually have money in the Kali fund so that then the disbursement can be thought about later, right? First it is that you need to fill up the the fund. The fund has to have good amount, you know, everyone has to contribute meaningfully. I think these are the things which this COP should, you know, take steps to for. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Put the money in. Put the money in. And I think this But what are we doing, what is being done? That should be the focus of this. I wish you all the very best in the next two weeks and wish ourselves the very best in the next two weeks because a lot depends on what happens here in that time. Thank you very much.

Thank you.