Key Details
State of Biodiversity Action, published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), is the first global assessment of progress under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. That framework sets 23 targets for 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. The report informed the first collective review at COP-17; the Yerevan Pathway is the governments’ subsequent response.
Commitments have spread: Nearly 90% of CBD parties have established national biodiversity targets, and more than 70% have submitted national reports.
Delivery lags: Fewer than half of national targets assessed by countries were reported as on track. Across the 23 global targets, the review found negative indicator trends more often than positive ones.
Ambition is incomplete: National targets address an average of 22 of the 23 global targets, but often cover only part of what each target requires. Commitments on reducing biodiversity-harming subsidies are particularly weak.
Evidence is uneven: For 19 of the 23 targets, fewer than half of reporting countries supplied quantitative indicator data. Missing data limits how conclusively collective progress can be measured.
COP response: The identifies priorities through 2030, including finance and technical support, reform of harmful incentives, integration of biodiversity into economic decisions, and stronger monitoring.
National Targets Have Not Yet Become Sufficient Action
The framework has prompted countries to set goals across conservation, restoration and sustainable use. But the global review finds a gap between adopting targets and meeting them. Even countries’ own assessments place fewer than half of assessed national targets on track. The findings point to especially slow progress where biodiversity policy depends on decisions outside environment ministries — such as business practices, consumption, subsidies and public finance.
The distinction between the number and scope of targets matters. A national plan can refer to a global target without addressing all its elements. The review highlights harmful subsidies as an example: setting positive incentives for conservation does not necessarily mean removing incentives that damage nature.
Weak Monitoring Makes the Delivery Gap Harder to Pin Down
Countries have taken action across all 23 targets, yet gaps in national data prevent a complete global accounting. The COP review notes that 129 parties’ reports arrived in time to inform the global report, while some countries’ experiences were less well represented. A lack of reported data must not automatically be read as a lack of action; it does mean progress cannot always be demonstrated or compared reliably.
India Has a National Baseline for the Global Review
India submitted its seventh national report in February 2026, using 142 indicators to track 23 National Biodiversity Targets. As TPE’s earlier coverage noted, India reported all 23 as on track. That is India’s national self-assessment; it should not be confused with a finding that the global stocktake independently verified every Indian outcome.
The Yerevan Pathway does not replace national plans. It responds to the collective review by pressing for stronger implementation, accessible finance and technical support, and better evidence of results through 2030.
What Are the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Yerevan Pathway?
In 2022, countries adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as a shared plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It sets 23 targets for 2030, covering the protection and restoration of ecosystems, sustainable use of nature, biodiversity finance and the reform of harmful subsidies. Countries are expected to turn these global goals into national targets and plans.
The first global review then examined how far countries had progressed. It found that national commitments had spread widely, but implementation was too slow to meet the 2030 targets. In response, governments adopted the Yerevan Pathway in 2026 to guide faster action over the remaining years — particularly on finance, economic policies and monitoring.
To summarise, the framework sets the goals; the review assesses progress; and the Yerevan Pathway sets priorities for closing the gaps. It does not replace the framework or India’s national biodiversity targets.
Policy Relevance
India’s submitted targets and indicators provide a basis for examining where reported progress reflects measurable ecological change, and where stronger monitoring is needed. The global review also makes biodiversity a question for budgets, agriculture, infrastructure and business policy, not only protected-area management.
For policymakers, the useful test next is target-specific: whether resources reach implementation, whether incentives that harm biodiversity are being addressed, and whether indicators capture the condition of ecosystems — not just the existence of schemes or designated areas. The global report identifies these as collective challenges; India’s answers must be assessed against its own national evidence.
Follow the Full Report Here: State of Biodiversity Action: The Global Report on Collective Progress
Follow the COP-17 Outcome Here: Yerevan Pathway and Global Review