The EU supports the introduction of the ‘national commitments’ concept in efforts to strengthen the mechanisms for monitoring and review of the future-post-2020 global biodiversity framework. This would be in addition to the existing CBD obligation to adopt the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).  There are various parties that oppose this proposal including parties like Norway and Switzerland who fear undermining NBSAPs.  The less-ambitious Parties – such as China, Brazil or Argentina – simply prefer the flexibility of the current system.

The issue of Resource Mobilisation (RM) will remain a 'make-it-or-break-it' issue at the CBD COP15.

• A growing number of Parties, including EU+MS, call for a broad approach: generate new finance both from public and private sources, reduce resource needs (.g. by phasing out harmful subsidies) increase efficiency (e.g. though better synergies with climate finance).
• There is, however, a clear divide between developed and developing countries. Developing countries urge to scale up biodiversity Official Development Assistance (ODA). In addition, GRULAC countries systemically refer to the principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility', which has been echoed by China. Africa is requesting the creation of a new global fund for biodiversity. Significant work is therefore required to overcome these diverging views and find an agreement in the context of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.