by Theiva Lingam (Sahabat Alam Malaysia – Friends of the Earth Malaysia)
At COP17, a central debate has emerged over biodiversity finance. Developing countries argue that before discussing new contributors, developed countries must fulfil their mandatory financial commitments under the Convention.
The concern is straightforward: The global biodiversity finance system is failing to provide the scale of support needed to achieve the KMGBF. Biodiversity-rich developing countries are expected to safeguard much of the world’s biodiversity while facing debt burdens, climate impacts and limited fiscal space.
Under Article 20, developed country Parties are required to provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing countries to implement the Convention. Developing countries accepted extensive conservation and sustainable use commitments, while developed countries accepted corresponding responsibilities for finance and technology transfer
For many developing countries, the debate also reflects broader questions of equity. Historical patterns of resource extraction, unequal consumption and environmental degradation have created significant imbalances, while many countries in the Global South continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of conserving globally important biodiversity.
Against this backdrop, some developed country Parties are advocating for the biodiversity-finance sovereign contributor base to be broadened including putting in place a process that may circumvent existing provisions for additional countries to make voluntary contributions. Developing countries argue that such discussions risk shifting attention away from the more immediate challenge of fulfilling existing obligations.
The issue proved contentious at SBI7 in Nairobi, where Parties were unable to reach consensus. It has now returned to COP17 through a revised non-paper that introduces several new options alongside Options A to D. During the Nairobi discussions, Option B, which proposed expanding the contributor base and amending the list by using the World Bank's high-income classification as a proxy while excluding UN-recognised Small Island Developing States, was firmly rejected by developing countries.
Options E and F instead focus on strengthening and securing existing commitments. Option E expresses concern over declining biodiversity finance, calls for increased funding through future replenishments of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and proposes closing discussions on broadening the contributor base in light of the continued lack of consensus. It is grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). Option F reaffirms the existing contributor list, while seeking more equitable burden-sharing amongst contributors, greater predictability in financing, and reforms to improve the speed and effectiveness of fund disbursement.
Options G and H seek to broaden and periodically revise the contributor base based on evolving national circumstances and capabilities, a shift that many developing countries view as inconsistent the provisions of Article 20 of the Convention. Option H goes further by proposing a formal process through which additional Parties could voluntarily assume contributor responsibilities and potentially be added to the contributor list through future COP decisions. This goes beyond the mandate of Decision 16/34, which did not call for the creation of a mechanism to expand or revise the list of contributors.
The debate is unfolding as key biodiversity funding commitments move in the wrong direction.
According to figures cited by developing countries, Official Development Assistance declined by 23.1% between 2024 and 2025. The 9th replenishment of the GEF is reportedly 27% lower than the previous replenishment, representing its weakest outcome in 16 years. Further, financial flows continue to move from the Global South to the Global North through mechanisms such as debt repayments and payments for intellectual property royalties, despite developing countries bearing a significant share of global biodiversity conservation costs.
COP17 should prioritise increasing and improving access to biodiversity finance for developing countries, rather than reopening debates on expanding the contributor base while existing commitments remain unmet.
Voluntary contributions can complement biodiversity finance, but they cannot dilute, defer or replace the obligations of developed-country Parties. The credibility of the CBD depends on delivery of those obligations, not on whether the burden can be shifted to developing countries.