1.The biodiversity funding architecture has evolved differently from the climate funding architecture. Climate funding works through the combined action of the GEF, the GCF, and other specialized funds, with the GEF as the main financial mechanism for biodiversity and CBD implementation. The proposal to create an ad hoc biodiversity fund raises questions, specifically about value added as well as about complexities that may arise for recipient countries. Experience also shows that it takes several years from having the idea of creating a fund to actually establishing it and making it operational. Creation of such a fund would not therefore realistically provide rapid and effective support for implementing the post-2020 global framework.

2.Negotiations over the 8th GEF replenishment have just led to record funding for biodiversity. Despite acknowledged successes and a capacity for reform responsive to needs, it remains for the GEF to ensure greater support for the most vulnerable countries. Furthermore, while the calculation method, which is based on incremental costs and benefits for the global environment, is pragmatic in calculating the additionality of biodiversity funds, it slows funding for transformative change. Such change will have to rely on funding for key sectors, considering benefits for both development and biodiversity while accounting for local priorities and requirements. The role of multilateral development banks to achieve this is crucial.

3.Effective implementation of the future Global Biodiversity Framework must necessarily be based on identifying priorities and needs but also on developing or strengthening catalytic tools and mechanisms such as national biodiversity finance plans and existing multilateral funds. However, this principle should not obscure the imperative need to mobilize more funding for biodiversity.