The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) has largely settled the debate over whether sustainable use belongs within biodiversity conservation. The challenge now is far more practical: can governments create the institutions, incentives, and partnerships needed to make sustainable wildlife management work on the ground?
The international community has now reached the halfway point between the GBF’s adoption in 2022 and its 2030 targets. As delegates meet in Nairobi this week for the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-28), discussions on sustainable wildlife management offer a timely illustration of this shift.
The guidance under negotiation is intended to help Parties implement Targets 5 and 9 of the GBF, which call for ensuring the sustainable, legal, and beneficial use of wild species. It builds on the landmark IPBES Assessment Report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species, which demonstrated that biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are not competing objectives but mutually reinforcing ones when supported by appropriate governance.
The scientific case for sustainable use of wild species is therefore increasingly well established. The more pressing question is what countries need to translate these principles into action.
Much of the discussion at SBSTTA-28 reflects the broader evolution of the CBD’s implementation agenda. As Parties prepare for the first global review of progress under the GBF, attention is rightly focused on monitoring, indicators, and the science-policy interface. Robust evidence and credible reporting are essential for understanding whether biodiversity policies are delivering results.
But implementation is about much more than measurement.
Experience from around the world shows that successful sustainable wildlife management depends not only on ecological knowledge but also on governance systems that enable long-term stewardship. Secure rights, effective institutions, cross-sectoral coordination, equitable benefit-sharing and meaningful participation by landowners, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities are often the factors that determine whether conservation succeeds or fails.
This is where the current negotiations present an important opportunity.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in its position for SBSTTA-28, rightly emphasises the importance of science-based decision-making, monitoring frameworks, and coherent guidance for implementation. These elements are indispensable. Countries need practical tools to assess the status of wild species and measure progress towards the GBF’s goals.
Yet the next generation of CBD guidance should go one step further. Alongside ecological indicators, it should help countries strengthen the governance conditions that make sustainable wildlife management possible. How can national biodiversity strategies better recognise private and community stewardship? How can wildlife use policies be aligned with rural development and other land uses, notably agriculture? What institutional arrangements support adaptive management across different ecological and cultural contexts and support sustainable and legal trade?
The IPBES Assessment Report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species provides a useful roadmap. Its findings consistently show that sustainable wildlife management works best where scientific evidence is combined with local knowledge, where rights and responsibilities are clearly recognised, and where landowners and local communities have both the capacity and the incentive to steward wildlife over the long term.
Delivering on the GBF will require more than stronger policies; it will require better connections between science, technology, governance, and practice. Tools such as digital public infrastructure, interoperable data systems and collaborative knowledge platforms can help countries monitor biodiversity more effectively, but their greatest value lies in establishing robust user rights and supporting transparent decision-making, adaptive management, and inclusive governance.
As negotiations continue in Nairobi, sustainable wildlife management should be seen not simply as another technical agenda item, but as a test case for the GBF’s implementation agenda. The question is no longer whether sustainable use belongs within biodiversity conservation. The evidence has answered that.
The real challenge is whether the CBD can equip countries with the practical guidance, governance tools, and partnerships needed to make sustainable wildlife management work at scale. If SBSTTA-28 succeeds in doing so, it will have taken an important step towards turning the ambitions of the GBF into action for people and nature.