Understanding the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Purpose, Content, and Science-Policy Engagement

Flavio Affinito , Tim Hirsch, Neil Burgess, Jillian Campbell, Cristina Eghenter, Ossama A El-Kawy, Shizuka Hashimoto, Alice Kammwamba, Marcel T. J. Kok, William A Mala, Alexander Shestakov, Andrew Stott, Usman Tariq, Josefa Tauli, Emily Nicholson

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), establishes four long-term 2050 goals, 23 action-oriented 2030 targets, and a standardized monitoring framework to track collective progress. The 2026 global review marks the first operational test of the Party-led planning, monitoring, reporting, and review (PMRR) mechanism, representing a deliberate shift toward bottom-up national monitoring systems. Central to this review is the first Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the KMGBF, which synthesizes seventh national reports from 129 Parties, including agreed upon indicators, and other relevant sources of information. In this Perspective, we—co-authors of the Global Report at the CBD Secretariat and its Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group (AHSTAG)—explain the report’s intergovernmental mandate, strict data hierarchy, and role within the science–policy interface. We explain that interpreting its empirical findings requires distinguishing three interconnected dimensions: implementation effort; monitoring and reporting capacity; and ecological outcomes. This distinction is necessary to avoid conflating indicator data gaps with national inaction or ecological response lags with policy failure. The Global Report shows that while national targets align relatively well with conservation and restoration goals, substantial gaps remain in addressing indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, capturing whole-of-society and Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ contributions, and overcoming geographic inequalities in monitoring capacity. Finally, alongside aligning future reviews with Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessments, we identify actionable priorities for researchers: operationalizing existing mandated indicators, deploying open-source automated data pipelines, mining qualitative national narratives, and building collaborative domestic monitoring capacity toward 2030.