The latest meetings of the Convention on Biological Diversity show that implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework is under way, but not fast enough. Behind this implementation gap lies a practical evidence challenge: countries need connected monitoring systems, operational indicators and research that can be applied in decisions.
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity met in Nairobi for SBSTTA 28, from 27 July to 1 August 2026, followed by SBI 7, from 4 to 12 August. A major focus shared by both meetings was the revised draft of State of Biodiversity Action, which will support the first review of collective progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) at COP 17.
What the global review shows
The draft global report recognises that governments and other actors are taking action across all 23 targets. However, no target presents a fully positive picture. For every global target, fewer than half of reporting Parties assessed their corresponding national targets as on track. National commitments do not yet cover the full scope and ambition of the Framework, while implementation remains uneven. Progress is particularly limited on some of the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, including unsustainable production and consumption, harmful incentives, biodiversity finance and the integration of biodiversity across economic sectors. National commitments also give less coverage to marine, coastal and inland-water ecosystems than to terrestrial ecosystems.
SBSTTA 28 developed scientific and technical recommendations in response to these findings, including on the monitoring framework. SBI 7 addressed capacity-building, knowledge management, resource mobilisation and other conditions for implementation. Both meetings prepared the ground for COP 17, but important disagreements remain, particularly around finance. Several recommendations still contain unresolved language that Parties will need to negotiate in Yerevan.
Implementation also depends on usable evidence
No Party reported on every headline indicator, and methodologies remain non-operational for two. For many indicators, comparable time series are missing, while available data are insufficiently disaggregated by ecosystem, species, sector or social group. Parties also report fragmented data systems, inadequate technical infrastructure, limited institutional coordination and human capacity, and unstable funding.
These are not only reporting problems. Without adequate baselines and comparable evidence, countries may struggle to identify priorities, target resources or determine whether interventions are working. Monitoring therefore needs to function as a connected system, linking observations, methods, data infrastructures, expertise, governance and decision-making. More data alone will not solve the problem if they remain fragmented, difficult to compare or disconnected from policy needs.
How Biodiversa+ contributes
Biodiversa+ works to strengthen transnational biodiversity monitoring by connecting national and regional schemes, supporting alignment on priorities, methods and data standards, and testing common approaches through pilots. Its recent work on monitoring governance examines how coordination can be strengthened across countries and monitoring communities. The Biodiversity Monitoring Week 2026 also explored how monitoring can become more representative, scalable and useful for policy.
Research and innovation complement this coordination by developing and testing indicators, harmonising methods and making emerging technologies usable within national monitoring systems. Involving policymakers, monitoring agencies and other users can help ensure that the resulting tools respond to practical needs. The Biodiversa+-funded GINAMO project illustrates this role by developing science-based guidance and workflows for assessing genetic diversity under the KMGBF. The draft global report finds that information submitted by Parties is insufficient to assess progress towards the long-term maintenance of genetic diversity and identifies GINAMO as an initiative that can support implementation of the relevant headline indicator.
The need for usable evidence extends to business and finance. The global report identifies limited progress in reducing negative business impacts on biodiversity and integrating biodiversity dependencies, impacts and risks into economic decisions. SBSTTA 28 also considered the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment and its implications for implementing the Framework. Biodiversa+ is addressing this interface through its Business & Biodiversity Toolkit, which provides practical guidance on understanding, using and sharing biodiversity data, and through its work on nature-related risks and financial decision-making.
COP 17 will determine how Parties respond politically to the findings and recommendations developed in Nairobi. Beyond the negotiations, implementation will depend on the monitoring capacity, usable research and science-policy connections that Biodiversa+ works to strengthen.
