The declaration by the United Nations to consider this decade, the UN decade of ecosystem restoration, acknowledges decades of research urging us to take action to prevent further degradation of our natural world and restore what has been degraded. Although there is still a long way to go in achieving this goal, COP 16 must be a step towards finally taking action to restore ecosystems. 

We recognise that biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities, particularly those already marginalised by systemic inequalities, such as Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, people with disabilities, and those living in poverty. Biodiversity policies must therefore prioritise equity, social justice, and the inclusion of these groups in decision-making processes, as their unique knowledge and perspectives are critical for developing effective solutions.

As young people in Europe, we expect European countries at COP 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to prioritise bold, actionable solutions that address the ongoing catastrophic global biodiversity loss and recognise our continent’s crucial role in addressing the crisis. We want concrete commitments to protect and restore ecosystems, ensure sustainable use of natural resources, and safeguard the rights of Indigenous communities. Our present and future depend on a healthy planet, and we expect nothing short of world leaders acting swiftly to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework, hold corporations accountable, and invest in nature-based solutions; all this underpinned by principles of solidarity and leaving none behind.

As for concrete text proposals, we support the policy paper by the Global Youth Biodiversity Network and the Opinion by the European Economic and Social Committee NAT/926 ‘A comprehensive strategy for biodiversity at COP16: bringing all sectors together for a common goal’. Still, as European Youth, we want to emphasise the following aspects: 

We believe that COP16 decisions need to entail: 

Inclusive and Equitable Biodiversity Strategies in NBSAPs

Global targets are translated into national implementation through the NBSAPs, which must be well-designed (i.e. whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach) and supported by a strong monitoring framework. However, the design of NBSAP should not delay biodiversity action: we have plenty of ready and proven solutions to tackle biodiversity loss that need to be accelerated. The European Union (EU) and its Member States should align their NBSAPs to the ambition of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which, with its legislation like the Nature Restoration Law and the Deforestation Law, are already urging action.

As a region with high capabilities to do so, European countries should ambitiously support wildlife comeback and coexistence in their own continent, and have a duty to restore lost habitat and species populations besides protecting the few that are left. 

When designing and implementing NBSAPs, we believe that the targets that differ most from former Aichi targets need to be especially considered, to make sure the NBSAPs address them properly. In particular, this includes Targets 22 and 23, which focus on critical areas of inclusivity. Target 22 emphasises the full and equitable participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth while ensuring their rights to lands, territories, and resources are respected. Target 23 calls for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in biodiversity decision-making and leadership. We believe that these targets are essential to achieve a truly inclusive and effective biodiversity strategy.

Furthermore, NBSAPs must be developed with a focus on marginalised and vulnerable populations that are often left out of national environmental policies, ensuring their meaningful inclusion from planning to implementation. This includes securing their rights to ecosystems they depend on for their livelihoods and culture, while also protecting them from displacement and exploitation by large-scale projects under the guise of conservation.

Significant gaps remain in the indicators proposed by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG), particularly regarding youth involvement. EU countries can set a good example by including youth-specific indicators. This would be at the very least the disaggregation of indicators by age where relevant. However, EU countries are invited to adopt more ambitious indicators monitoring the key role of the youth and more stakeholders in achieving the CBD targets.

Finally, the EU should respect the principle of intergenerational equity prescribed by the GBF and include youth from an early stage of the process, as beneficiaries, partners and leaders, 

Resource mobilisation & Financial Mechanisms

We urge the EU to be constructive and genuinely ambitious during the Resource Mobilisation and Financial Mechanisms discussion. These resources must come from different sources, including ODA, the domestic as well as the private sector, considering different capabilities and responsibilities, and applying the polluter-pays principle to ensure a fair share of burden distribution.

While significantly increasing biodiversity funding is essential, we caution against false solutions and greenwashing, which allow business as usual to continue without addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss.

We urge decision-makers to phase out investments dangerous to biodiversity and perverse incentives (such as environmentally harmful subsidies). We also want to emphasise that resources need to be redirected towards those working on the ground to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) goals – especially Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth. Any financial mechanism must explicitly ensure that a significant portion of the funds reach these communities directly, bypassing bureaucratic obstacles, and empowering them to lead restoration and conservation efforts themselves.

Ensuring equitable benefit-sharing with Indigenous Peoples and local communities is crucial, as these groups are often the custodians of biodiversity. COP16 should demand transparent, accessible pathways for these communities to gain their fair share of benefits from the use of genetic resources, ensuring that no group is left out or exploited.

Empathy and fairness in biodiversity policy

We call for empathy in biodiversity policy-making. Empathy means improving the lives of all beings —human and non-human— while minimising harm. By prioritising empathy as a value, we can foster stronger commitments for both our present and future. Furthermore, we urge the EU to integrate sufficiency; ensuring that resources are used in ways that meet essential needs without overexploitation, promoting sustainability and fairness for all species and ecosystems

COP16 must also strengthen the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) and ensure fair technology exchange, particularly in the area of digital sequence information (DSI) technologies. 

Rio Convention Synergies

Biodiversity conservation, climate action and the fight against desertification, among others, should go hand in hand. We need the synergies on environmental action to be recognised and to be reflected in all three Rio Conventions. This also entails the recognition that actions for one Rio Convention might have negative impacts on the other ones, and should thus be avoided. The Rio Conventions should therefore design their implementation measures in such a way that it provides positive environmental effects without jeopardising the objectives of another convention.

European youth calls for action

We believe the COP16 represents a major opportunity to secure a sustainable and healthy future for future generations by exemplary actions at present. The future generations do not rightfully own the burden to deal with an even further deteriorated environment, loss of species and more severe climate change processes and events which today can be confronted.

This youth-led united position recalls the concerns surrounding the biodiversity loss crisis, the needs of the most vulnerable and the imperative need for proportional measures that correspond to the magnitude of the problem.