On Monday, 19 October, the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will start in Yerevan, Armenia. Four years after the adoption of the Global Biodiversity Framework, Parties will take stock of the collective action: have the commitments made in Montreal been translated into action? Are those actions enough to achieve the 2030 targets? Four years before the deadline, it will not simply be a matter of measuring the progress made, but also of highlighting any shortfalls, so that concrete measures can be agreed upon to accelerate action. The ocean, which is still too often sidelined in biodiversity policies, must be given its rightful place in the decisions that follow.
The first Review of the Global Biodiversity Framework: what can we expect for the ocean?
Adopted in 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) sets out 23 targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. To ensure their effective implementation, countries recognised the need to strengthen monitoring and review mechanisms. The failure to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets highlighted the consequences of insufficient monitoring of international commitments. To prevent history from repeating itself, countries equipped the new framework with a stronger monitoring and review mechanism, the Global Review, designed to better document progress and strengthen accountability. Two reviews are planned: the first this year and the second in 2030.
These reviews, however, will go beyond taking stock. They also serve a political purpose: identifying priorities for action, highlighting any gaps in progress towards the targets and guiding countries as they adjust their national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
This is particularly important for marine and coastal biodiversity. The CBD’s mandate covers all life on Earth, without distinguishing between marine and terrestrial ecosystems. The Global Biodiversity Framework therefore takes a cross-cutting approach, with no target devoted exclusively to marine biodiversity. As a result, marine biodiversity risks receiving less political attention than it needs. Preliminary analyses for the Global Review confirm this concern: national efforts on marine biodiversity are under-represented across all relevant targets of the framework.
Following these initial technical findings, the question is now whether the ocean will be adequately reflected in the political conclusions of the Global Review, to be adopted at COP17 to guide countries as they revise their national biodiversity strategies. Without this recognition, the specific needs of marine and coastal ecosystems risk remaining insufficiently addressed in national priorities and measures. The Global Review must provide an opportunity to reaffirm the ocean’s place in the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and send a strong political signal in favour of stepping up action for marine and coastal biodiversity.To inform discussions on the framework’s implementation, the Ocean & Climate Platform (OCP) will present findings from the Ocean Breakthroughs Dashboard, highlighting progress and gaps across five key sectors: marine conservation, aquatic food, ocean renewable energy, shipping and coastal tourism. Beyond informing governments, these findings will also help mobilise civil society around a shared goal: accelerating ocean action by 2030.
Hopes and threats : Protecting the ocean from emerging pressures
Protecting the ocean cannot rely on conservation and restoration alone: it requires addressing all the pressures threatening marine biodiversity, including climate change. This means anticipating and responding to emerging pressures, such as marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) technologies, which aim to enhance the ocean’s natural capacity to absorb or store atmospheric CO₂.
As the climate emergency intensifies, interest in these technologies continues to grow. Yet, as a group of scientists emphasise in the article “Three challenges to marine carbon dioxide removal”, published in Nature, significant uncertainties remain about their effectiveness and potential impacts on ecosystems and societies. At present, mCDR technologies cannot therefore be considered proven climate mitigation solutions, particularly given the major uncertainties surrounding their effectiveness and environmental and social impacts. . Continued research may help assess its potential contribution and the risks it could create. However, research must be supported by responsible, transparent governance and robust safeguards, particularly to prevent premature deployment.
At this time, mCDR governance remains inadequate and fragmented. There is a risk that actors will turn to conventions with the least stringent environmental requirements. In this context, the priority is to reaffirm the CBD’s critical role in safeguarding biodiversity in the governance of mCDR , ensuring that environmental risks are fully considered and that the commitments already adopted by countries are effectively implemented.
As early as 2010, countries agreed that “no climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities”, a decision reaffirmed in 2024. Yet implementation remains limited, and the decision is often overlooked in other international fora, particularly under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.
Climate action must not come at the expense of ecosystems and the people who depend on them. Delays in reducing emissions cannot justify actions that could compromise the ecological integrity of ecosystems or weaken environmental requirements. Drawing on its policy brief Navigating Hopes and Threats, OCP will reiterate that the priority for protecting the ocean is to reduce our emissions rapidly and substantially, because safeguards must be strongest when the stakes are highest.
One ocean, three COPs: Weaving a “blue thread” across governance frameworks
For climate action to contribute fully to biodiversity protection, and vice versa, policies in these two areas must be coherent and complementary. Although countries increasingly call for stronger synergies between the three Rio Conventions, which address climate change, biodiversity and desertification respectively, these ambitions have yet to translate fully into concrete action. At the intersection of these issues, ocean-based solutions can provide a powerful means of bringing these agendas together. Yet they remain largely absent from discussions on synergies, risking being sidelined or even overlooked altogether. This risk is particularly acute given the limited space afforded to them by the mandate of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
COP17 offers an opportunity to weave this “blue thread”. Building on the work initiated by countries at COP16, which tasked the CBD Secretariat with exploring ways to strengthen coherence between the Rio Conventions, a roadmap is expected to guide these synergies. Informed by technical exchanges and a mapping of existing policies and coordination mechanisms, it is intended to identify short-, medium- and long-term actions to better coordinate implementation. The ocean must be given its rightful place in this roadmap so that it can contribute fully to joint efforts for climate and biodiversity.
This coherence must also be built on the ground by aligning national biodiversity strategies and action plans with nationally determined contributions (NDCs) on climate change. Aligning these strategies could improve policy coherence and amplify their impact, particularly by maximising co-benefits and minimising trade-offs. At the heart of the interactions between climate and biodiversity, the ocean offers a range of solutions that contribute to the objectives of both the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework. The Ocean Breakthroughs illustrate this potential and can guide the integration of these solutions into national strategies. The conclusions of the Global Review, which are intended to guide the implementation and revision of national biodiversity strategies, must also send a strong signal in favour of strengthening these synergies.
But the blue thread does not end there. It must also extend beyond national jurisdiction, to the high seas. Having entered into force on 17 January 2026, the BBNJ Agreement marks a historic step forward and brings renewed momentum to ocean protection. By facilitating the creation of marine protected areas on the high seas, it offers a major means of accelerating progress towards the Global Biodiversity Framework’s target of conserving at least 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030 (30x30). COP17 must build on this momentum to strengthen cooperation between the CBD and this new treaty, drawing on existing knowledge and tools to translate this ambition into effective, representative and connected protection measures across the ocean.
As the 2030 deadline approaches, COP17 must give fresh impetus to collective action for biodiversity. The first Global Review must send a strong political signal in favour of the ocean, raising ambition and mobilising the resources needed to protect and restore marine and coastal ecosystems. With the next climate negotiations approaching (9–20 November 2026, Antalya, Türkiye), followed by the first BBNJ COP (11–22 January 2027, New York, United States), Yerevan must set the stage for closer alignment between our agendas and objectives. COP17 must help weave a “blue thread” across international frameworks, strengthening synergies between action for the ocean, biodiversity and climate.