The Draft Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (draft global report), was the basis for discussion at the Kunming Dialogue on 7–9 September. The draft finds the Global Biodiversity Framework has sparked unprecedented engagement since it was adopted in 2022. It also finds that fewer than half of reporting Parties say their national targets are on track to meet the global targets by 2030.

The Kunming Dialogue was an informal, technical space convened by the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat and co-chaired by China and Canada. Its job was to help Parties, experts, and stakeholders understand why progress is lagging and what could speed it up. The Dialogue is a preparatory step for the formal global review at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the CBD, which will draw on the draft global report and national reports. The NBSAP Accelerator Partnership took part in the conversation and was named by participants among the existing initiatives that can help strengthen and speed up the implementation of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) where it continues to be delayed.

The Kunming Dialogue was organized around five topics that mirror the key messages of the draft global report. Across the tables the Accelerator joined, the diagnosis was consistent:

• Scope and coverage: National targets do not yet cover the full scope of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s global targets, and action remains uneven across Parties.
• Action and implementation: Pace is the central concern, with strong calls for political will and urgency but few specific mechanisms.
• Means of implementation: There was broad agreement that finance, capacity-building and technology are not available at the scale needed. Short-term, project-based funding was flagged as a structural barrier to long-term planning.
• Whole-of-government and whole-of-society: The focus was on translating terminology into plain language for non-specialist audiences. Reforming harmful subsidies and strengthening institutional architecture across the three Rio Conventions (biodiversity, climate change and desertification) were also raised as ways to connect sectors and ministries, and unlock finance.
• Data and knowledge: Participants called for better reporting alignment across the Rio Conventions.

The informal format worked. Participants spoke openly, and the discussions were frank about what is not working. The same challenges kept resurfacing: funding, capacity development, technology transfer, participation and inclusion, mainstreaming, and private sector engagement. Most proposals amounted to more funding, more training, or more coordination meetings. Fewer explored how implementation could be done differently. Innovation and solutions remained relatively scarce compared to the volume of diagnosis. That leaves an innovation gap: plenty of diagnosis, but few tested ways to do things from a new approach.

Despite the innovation gap, the wider dialogue surfaced several ideas already in motion that are worth focusing on and building on. According to the Kunming Dialogue summary from IISD these include:

• Direct allocation of resources, with the Cali Fund cited as an example of moving beyond traditional project-based funding.
• Innovative instruments such as biodiversity credits and debt-for-nature swaps, and long-term funding linked to local priorities.
• A shared online reporting tool for the three Rio Conventions, and a potential role for AI, satellite data and eDNA in monitoring.
• Coalitions of the willing to raise ambition, and a focus on transformative targets, including those on harmful subsidies (Target 18) and finance (Target 19).

Participants also cautioned against creating new coalitions where effective ones already exist. The priority, they said, is to map existing initiatives and match them to needs on the ground.

That combination of a clear diagnosis, a shortage of tested solutions, and a preference for building on what already exists points to a role for the Accelerator:

• Fill the innovation gap and offer a safe space to pilot. As a country-led initiative, the Accelerator can work with willing countries to test new ideas and bring solutions to the table, not only diagnoses.
• Test practical solutions and show what moving faster looks like. The Accelerator can pair pilots with the support countries already draw on: in-country facilitators, knowledge resources like the Accelerants Framework, and the MatchMaking Mechanism, which connects country-defined requests for support with technical and financial partners. Resources like these give countries a concrete pathway from identifying a need to acting on it.
• Connect the finance message to resource mobilization. The Kunming Dialogue confirmed that ambition depends on predictable, accessible resources and support. The Accelerator is bringing that message forward.

The Kunming Dialogue Co-Chairs will publish a report in the coming weeks with specific suggestions and practical options for further action, and the outcomes will feed directly into the global review at COP17. With about a month to go, there is little time to spare and a lot of room to act.

The Accelerator is adjusting its COP17 programme to reflect what Kunming Dialogue revealed, with the innovation gap and the need for practical solutions as a central theme. The aim is to move from restating the gaps to testing ways to close them, with countries in the lead.

Join us: Learn more about the Accelerator at nbsapaccelerator.org, read the full Kunming Dialogue summary from IISD, and follow preparations for COP17. To explore a pilot or partnership, get in touch with us.