As COP 16 concludes, it’s essential to reflect on its key decisions across critical agenda items, such as Article 8(j), the monitoring framework, biodiversity-climate synergy, marine and coastal biodiversity, Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs), and resource mobilization. These decisions hold significant implications for Southeast Asia, particularly in relation to the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) targets. Below are reflections on how these outcomes impact the region

Reflection 1: Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Agenda
- Decision and Reflections
- Addresses the increasing frequency of coral bleaching events and the urgent need for marine biodiversity protection, with a focus on Target 8 which will be used for our biodiversity-climate political and legal campaign.
- CBD Parties should include Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP&LCs) in all marine and coastal biodiversity-related decision-making processes. Bridging these gaps is vital for successful KMGBF implementation and mainstreaming IP&LC inclusion in regional conservation programs. Additionally, further resources are needed to close inclusion gaps in traditional knowledge, which is often overlooked, contributing to community displacement in marine utilization.
- Regional Impact: Southeast Asian nations are encouraged to ensure IPLC involvement in marine biodiversity conservation, including the use of traditional knowledge. ASEAN countries should advocate for resource allocation and capacity-building to empower IPLCs, thus addressing conservation gaps, respecting local marine use, and mitigating community displacement.
Reflection 2: Resource Mobilization
Unfortunately, parties couldn’t agree on this agenda. The EU and other developed countries could not accept the president’s text putting a new fund for the implementation of KMGBF. Compromise did not happen. COP president, Susanna Muhammad, proceeded with Brazil’s proposal to have voting using CBD rules of procedure. Unfortunately, the parties did not fit the quorum, which is ¾ from parties, as most of the countries have already left. COP16 is suspended until an infinite time.
- This pending decision is important to be followed up as below:
- Emphasizes the need for new, accessible financial resources for key partners, especially IP&LCs, women, and youth, at all governance levels. Rapidly mobilized funding can empower initiatives such as those led by communities like Thailand’s Chana community, which has been instrumental in local marine conservation efforts. (See Bang Nee’s story).
- Reforming Harmful Subsidies: The decision also highlights the identification, phase-out, and redirection of financial flows harmful to biodiversity, particularly from public and private sectors. Encouraging development agencies, multilateral banks, and philanthropic organizations to align financial flows with biodiversity targets (Target 14) can support sustainable development while safeguarding biodiversity.
- Regional Implication: This alignment is crucial for strengthening ASEAN’s taxonomy for sustainable finance. Reforming resource flows harmful to biodiversity will be essential for safeguarding biodiversity in the region, while ensuring equitable resource access for IP&LCs and promoting financial transparency across development initiatives.

Reflection 3: Article 8(j)
- Decision and Reflection
- Despite this milestone, the proposal faced opposition from several member states during the two-week negotiations, including Russia, India, Japan, Jordan, and Indonesia, who raised concerns about the necessity of a permanent body. COP 16 established the permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) (SB8j), designed to offer guidance on implementing KMGBF targets related to traditional knowledge. This is a historic acknowledgment within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), affirming respect, protection, and recognition of traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices from Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP&LCs) relevant to conservation.
- Regional Implication: The SB8j could, however, prove crucial for Southeast Asia by promoting IP&LCs’ knowledge in regional biodiversity plans, potentially shaping policy that respects traditional practices while supporting conservation goals through 2030.
Reflection 4: Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)
- Decision: After eight years of work, a system to add and modify the Ecologically and Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) was approved. Global ocean protection is only possible with a system to identify areas that need protection and now we have it. The next step is for the States to ratify the Global Ocean Treaty and protect at least 30% of our ocean by 2030.
- This is a good starting point for governments in Southeast Asia to be more active in proposing potential EBSAs that will benefit the region. The identification of EBSAs and the selection of conservation and management measures is a matter for States and competent intergovernmental organizations to establish a global system for identifying and managing EBSAs, supporting ocean protection goals.
- Regional Impact: As a biodiversity hotspot,Southeast Asia can utilize this system to propose new EBSAs, fostering collaborative measures across diverse marine habitats like seagrass beds, coral reefs, and mangroves.
Reflection 5: Monitoring Framework
- This item outlined different indicators that will be used by the CBD parties to guide the implementation of KMGBF. The indicators below might be critical to connect with environmental advocacy organisations:
- Target 3 (30×30): Calls for recognizing indigenous and traditional territories in protected areas, which Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia can adapt without necessitating an OECM designation.
- Target 8 (Climate Resilience): Involves tracking marine acidity levels to assess resilience in marine biodiversity—a crucial indicator for Southeast Asian regions facing ocean acidification.
- Target 22 (Participation and Justice): Focuses on enhancing IPLC participation in biodiversity decision-making and tracking environmental human rights defender safety.
Reflection 6: Biodiversity-Climate Synergy
- COP 16 Decision: Calls for submissions on enhanced policy coherence between biodiversity and climate agendas, including a potential joint work program across Rio Conventions.
- Regional Implication: This decision, while less binding, offers a platform for integrating biodiversity and climate policies in future negotiations. For Southeast Asia, particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, policy coherence would allow for more comprehensive approaches to managing interconnected biodiversity and climate risks, including coral reef degradation and marine biodiversity threats.

With this action, the environmentalist organization reminds rich countries of their commitment to contribute 20 billion dollars for the protection of biodiversity by 2025. © Nathalia Angarita / Greenpeace
Political Display Beyond the ASEAN Region
In the broader context, Brazil has emerged as a crucial player in supporting the positions of other Global South countries, particularly in the discussions around Article 8(j), Digital Sequence Information (DSI), and resource mobilization.
- For Article 8(j), while Indonesia and India initially resisted the idea of establishing a subsidiary body for IP&LCs, Brazil successfully bridged the gap between differing parties, helping to synthesize various compromise proposals.
- Regarding DSI, the LMMC (Like-Minded Mega-Biodiverse Countries) have aligned with Brazil’s proposal, as they are scientifically and legally prepared to advance this concept. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the African Group (AG) have also played significant roles in these discussions.
- In terms of resource mobilization, there has been divergence among South-South countries, with the central debate primarily occurring between developed nations, such as those in the EU, and neighboring countries like Japan. This contentious issue remained unresolved until the very end of the negotiations, as parties struggled to reach consensus. Notably, Colombia, in its presidency role, made significant efforts to push for agreement on these crucial items.
COP 16: ASEAN Countries’ Key Positions and Priorities
As COP 16 concludes, ASEAN countries have demonstrated varied approaches to the main agenda items, from biodiversity funding to the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP&LCs). However, Southeast Asia, one of the richest biodiversity regions in the world, should be more active in this negotiation to champion the Southeast Asia position instead of being driven by other countries, especially coming from the Global North. Here’s an overview of the key positions and priorities across ASEAN countries:
- The Philippines has been a standout advocate on several key issues, championing IP&LC rights within marine and coastal conservation, as well as pushing for stronger links between climate and biodiversity goals. Their leadership in advancing IP&LC inclusion reflects their commitment to more inclusive conservation efforts in the region.
- Indonesia initially opposed direct funding to IP&LCs under Article 8(j), preferring that funds be managed through government channels. While not as prominent on other agenda items, Indonesia supports community-led marine conservation and has submitted its updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), showing commitment to biodiversity goals.
- Malaysia made a strong call for ASEAN’s collaboration on biodiversity finance. Minister Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad highlighted the importance of including IP&LCs and finding synergies between biodiversity and climate actions. He noted, “ASEAN’s collaborative efforts are essential to achieving the KMGBF goals. Despite economic and political challenges, we remain committed to protecting our natural resources. We risk losing our natural heritage if we don’t act decisively against climate impacts.” Malaysia also recently submitted its NBSAP.
- Singapore supports the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), a marine biodiversity agreement, with an emphasis on ocean conservation, though it remains less involved in other agenda topics.
- Vietnam submitted its NBSAP, joining Indonesia and Malaysia in solidifying its commitment to COP 16 biodiversity goals but they were unseen during the negotiation at the item agenda we focused on.
- Laos and Cambodia focused on developing their biodiversity plans to lay the foundation for future action. While they have not been highly visible in several agenda items at COP 16.
- Thailand submitted NBSAP in the online system but was very passive in the item agenda that we followed, although they are part of the high ambition coalition (HAC).
- Timor Leste prioritized the ratification of the Nagoya Protocol, taking significant steps to strengthen its involvement in international conservation frameworks.
- ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has played an important role in facilitating the development of a regional biodiversity action plan. Its priorities include working toward the 30% conservation target and ensuring meaningful IP&LC participation in achieving this goal. ACB’s support helps drive ASEAN toward achieving the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) objectives, particularly through regional cooperation.
The GPSEA team has been successful in building strong connections with ACB and establishing closer contact with key ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Timor Leste, and Laos, with lighter contact with Cambodia. Singapore and Vietnam remain harder to engage, with minimal contact thus far.
How GPSEA plans to move forward
- Continue engaging in COP CBD spaces, including the subsidiary body meeting in Bangkok next October, as well as the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA).
- Monitor COP 16 resolution implementation and advocate for the development of a new fund to meet the $20 billion annual commitment for KMGBF implementation.
- Capitalize on the South-South CBD political bloc, such as the Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC), which has a relatively unified voice on the resource mobilization agenda.
- Coordinate closely with other South-South civil society organizations (CSOs) for stronger impact.
Rayhan Dudayev is the Senior Regional Campaign Strategist (Legal and Political) in Greenpeace Southeast Asia.