Progress made but more to do: Top UNDP India official on global biodiversity targets

COP17 is a formal UN biodiversity meeting where countries assess progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The Yerevan talks matter because they turn global commitments into reviews, decisions, and stronger national action. They also provide a checkpoint before the 2030 deadline.

A central task is taking stock of progress toward the framework’s 23 targets. India submitted its seventh national report earlier this year. It also submitted an updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan at COP16, endorsed by all 24 line ministries.

The talks are taking place as the world prepares for COP31 in Türkiye next month. The article reports that progress has been made, but convergence among ministries and more finance are still needed. COP17 can therefore reveal gaps and help governments speed up implementation.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is the shared global plan for reaching 23 biodiversity targets by 2030. India’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, or NBSAP, translates that direction into national priorities, actions, and monitoring. Together, they are designed to guide governments toward biodiversity-positive development.

India submitted its updated NBSAP at COP16. All 24 line ministries endorsed it, giving the plan a basis for coordinated implementation. Its seventh national report helps identify progress and areas where action needs to accelerate.

The main challenge is making the plan work across sectors. UNDP and the World Bank are supporting the CONSERVE project, including a national biodiversity data portal. The portal will bring together scattered information and track progress against NBSAP targets. A management system will also support planning for key biodiversity areas and ecological corridors.

India has made substantial progress in protecting nature, reporting 27% of its total area under the protected-area network in its sixth National Report in 2019. The 2030 goal is higher: protect at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and coastal areas. The comparison leaves a three-percentage-point gap.

India is considering Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures, or OECMs, to help bridge that gap. These measures recognise places outside protected areas that still conserve biodiversity effectively. Guidelines for identifying potential OECMs have been developed, and a national advisory committee is guiding their use.

The figures show progress, but they do not mean the task is complete. Conservation also needs landscape-level planning and community involvement. OECMs could expand protection across important landscapes while complementing existing parks and reserves as India works toward 2030.

Biodiversity conservation needs money for planning, data, protection, restoration, monitoring, and implementation. BIOFIN estimated India’s funding gap for implementing its NBSAP at USD 6.5 billion in 2019. Globally, a 2024 IPBES assessment put the annual biodiversity financing gap at USD 598–824 billion.

When plans lack finance, governments and partners have fewer resources to turn commitments into action. The article links funding directly to NBSAP implementation and says action must speed up. India is updating its Biodiversity Finance Plan with BIOFIN to identify solutions and encourage nature-positive investment.

Closing the gap will require more public and private money, plus innovative financing. India is developing customised proposals with companies and identifying NGOs to implement them. Projects will be listed on the National Biodiversity Authority’s website, allowing companies to select initiatives and partners.

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures, or OECMs, are areas outside protected-area systems that effectively conserve biodiversity. They matter because nature does not stop at park boundaries. Landscape-level conservation can protect connected habitats, ecological corridors, and the species that depend on them.

India is considering OECMs as one way to help meet the 30-by-30 target. Guidelines for identifying potential OECMs have been developed. A national advisory committee has also been established to guide their operationalisation. This creates a process for recognising suitable areas beyond formal parks.

OECMs are not a replacement for protected areas. They can complement them and help bridge India’s reported gap between 27% protected-area coverage and the 30% 2030 target. Their success will depend on applying the guidelines effectively and involving communities in conservation decisions and management.

Local communities, women, and tribal groups are important because conservation happens in lived landscapes, not only inside government boundaries. Their participation can make decisions more practical, fair, and durable. It can also help ensure that conservation does not overlook the people who depend on natural resources.

The article identifies communities as having a role in implementing conservation beyond protected areas, especially as India considers OECMs. However, the provided excerpt ends just as it begins discussing benefits for local communities, particularly women and tribal communities. It gives no further examples or mechanisms.

Using established conservation practice, lasting programmes generally involve affected people in planning, implementation, and benefit-sharing. This is especially important for groups whose knowledge, livelihoods, and rights are closely connected to ecosystems. Such participation can strengthen trust and local support, but the article does not detail India’s specific arrangements.

Biodiversity means the variety of life, including different species, genetic variation, and ecosystems. Healthy biodiversity supports functioning landscapes and the ecological processes people rely on. The article focuses on conserving it through protected areas, OECMs, landscape planning, and national targets.

When species disappear or ecosystems degrade, natural systems can become less resilient and less able to provide benefits such as food, clean water, pollination, soil protection, and climate regulation. Those effects can harm health, livelihoods, businesses, and public finances. These details are established scientific context beyond the article’s specific discussion.

The article shows why the issue has economic and policy consequences. India faces a USD 6.5 billion NBSAP funding gap, while global needs are far larger. Protecting biodiversity therefore requires coordinated government action, private investment, reliable data, and conservation that works across entire landscapes.