Bio*: Mapping the landscape of international and transnational cooperative initiatives for biodiversity

A growing number of international and transnational cooperative initiatives, including thousands of state, non- and sub-state actors, engage in governance for biodiversity beyond the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). While this trend provides new opportunities for effective governance beyond the formal international regime, there is a need to better understand key characteristics of this new institutional landscape for governing biodiversity.
This report presents an updated overview of the landscape of 388 international and transnational cooperative initiatives (ICIs) for biodiversity, examining the actor constellations, temporal dynamics of the initiatives and their governance functions. Furthermore, it focuses on the thematic scope of the initiatives addressing CBD objectives and programs, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), industry sectors and biodiversity threats, as well as geographic focus and location of ICIs’ headquarters. Additionally, the report analyses the accountability mechanisms of the ICIs, i.e., the mechanisms to hold actors responsible for their commitments and actions, across 388 initiatives, focusing on whether monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) frameworks are in place.
The results show that the landscape of international biodiversity governance is dominated by public initiatives, but the number of hybrid ICIs, involving public, private and CSO actors, is increasing. The ICIs are predominantly involved in information sharing and networking activities. They focus on sustainable use of biological resources and key themes such as forests, marine and agriculture areas which is also reflected in industry sectors addressed. The main SDGs addressed by ICIs refer to terrestrial biodiversity, climate change and responsible production and consumption. Even though most of the ICIs operate on a global level, their actions focus on areas with biodiversity hotspots such as Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Pacific as well as Latin America and Caribbean. Most of the headquarters are, however, located in Europe and North America. Finally, a majority of ICIs have established monitoring frameworks. Almost half of them publish progress reports and around one third conducts internal verification. At the same time, more sophisticated accountability mechanisms, such as external verification or sanctions, are implemented by lower numbers of ICIs.
This analysis provides a better understanding of the institutional landscape for governing biodiversity including non- and sub-state actors. The report not only provides insights into the status quo but also points towards ambition levels and potential effectiveness of this type of governance. It offers useful insights for policy makers, environmental organisations or researchers.