ECO 74(7) - Monday, 10 August 2026

Developed countries should repay their colonial and ecological debt

Third World Network - Discussions in the Contact Group on Resource Mobilization yesterday evening pivoted around the issue of “broadening the contributor base” to provide biodiversity finance, specifically in relation to sovereign contributors. Sharp divergences emerged over a joint proposal made by Canada on behalf of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, that Parties classified as “high-income” under the World Bank country income classification should be used to review and amend the list of Developed Country Parties and Other Parties that Voluntarily Assume the Obligations of Developed Country Parties, with the exclusion of Small Island Developing States.

Moving beyond disclosure: regulation for destructive sectors and drivers

Theiva Lingam, Friends of the Earth Malaysia - In the implementation of the KMGBF, a key but neglected aspect is the role of sectors, corporations, financial institutions, and supply chains driving biodiversity loss. The Global Review should explicitly name the activities of destructive sectors as root causes of ecological destruction. This issue is not sufficiently addressed in the Global Review, which mirrors the lack of ambition in Target 15.

DSI Database Study Requires Greater Scrutiny

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network - The study on DSI databases (CBD/SBI/7/INF/15) should not yet become the basis for policy decisions at COP17, without greater scrutiny, including through peer review. Decision 16/2 decided to explore tools and models, such as databases, for making DSI publicly available and accessible in a transparent and accountable manner “to all Parties”, and requested the Secretariat to commission a study to support this process. This work is central to the implementation of the CBD’s multilateral mechanism for fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of DSI, including the Cali Fund.

Solutions to the underlying causes of biodiversity loss

Alain Branchaud, SNAP Québec - The CBD Secretariat issued important messages to Partys in the draft global report on collective progress of the KMGBF, notably the significant gap identified in addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. This challenge is threatening the effective implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Are CRISPR genome edited trees GMOs? Yes, says the Forest Stewardship Council.

Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, Federation of German Scientists - The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international certifier for products derived from responsible forest management, excludes genetically modified trees from certification. Accordingly, a member company is [not permitted][prohibited] to grow GM trees for commercial purposes, both in certified and non-certified areas. The question arose, whether this would also cover trees that were genetically modified through the use of CRISPR/Cas – a method often referred to as gene editing. After consulting widely, FSC took a decision on the basis of received responses, including received scientific information, and publishing the outcome of their deliberations on 17 July, stating:

“Yes, the definition of Genetically Modified Organism covers also organisms in which the genetic material has been altered using modern, CRISPR-based gene editing technologies. The definition’s element of “altered in a way that does not occur naturally” is understood to refer both to the resulting genome change as well as to the process to induce it, hence any genetic engineering technology falls within the scope of the GMO definition.”