生物多样性 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 25463.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2025463

• • 上一篇    

全球生物多样性框架基金运行进展、挑战与启示

刘海鸥1, 郝志明3, 杜乐山1, 刘文慧1, 李子圆1, 刘蕾2*   

  1. 1. 中国环境科学研究院, 北京 100012;2. 生态环境部对外合作与交流中心, 北京 100035;3. 国家林业和草原局林草调查规划院, 北京 100714
  • 收稿日期:2025-11-19 修回日期:2025-12-29 接受日期:2026-02-28 出版日期:2026-02-20
  • 通讯作者: 刘海鸥

Progress, Challenges, and Insights on the Operation of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund

Haiou Liu1, Zhiming Hao3, Leshan Du1, Wenhui Liu1, Ziyuan Li1, Lei Liu2*   

  1. 1. Institute of Ecology, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China 

    2. Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100035, China 

    3. Academy of Forestry Inventory and Planning, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, China

  • Received:2025-11-19 Revised:2025-12-29 Accepted:2026-02-28 Online:2026-02-20
  • Contact: Haiou Liu

摘要: 依据《生物多样性公约》第15次缔约方大会(COP15)决议,全球环境基金(GEF)于2023年8月正式设立全球生物多样性框架基金,旨在为发展中国家落实“昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架”目标提供增量资金支持。研究梳理发现:2024年2月框架基金启动首期规划,共安排资金2.016亿美元,经过3轮筛选支持41个国家的40个项目。项目分布方面,拉丁美洲和加勒比地区获批项目资金份额最大,占比达到43%。从项目规模来看,框架基金资助项目的中位数资助额为390万美元,明显低于GEF-8生物多样性重点领域项目的中位值930万美元,反映出框架基金在当前阶段资助项目的规模相对较小的特点。从资源分配结构来看,约78%的项目、48%的资金投入于框架基金行动领域1(生物多样性保护、恢复、土地/海洋利用与空间规划)方面。在全球符合框架基金资助条件的生物多样性大国中,中国是为数不多的尚未获得框架基金项目支持的国家之一。目前,2025年8月框架基金已开启第二期规划,资金规模为1.618亿美元。为此,本文从《生物多样性公约》缔约方角度提出创新多元化资源调动机制、强化支持系统性转型项目、增进资金机制间协同联动的建议;从作为发展中国家与生物多样性大国角度提出谋划综合性、高示范性的大型项目、统筹国内申报并同步完善关键文件与方法学的建议,从中国作为昆明生物多样性基金发起方角度,提出明确昆明基金差异化战略定位、赋能昆明基金能力建设功能和完善治理与公开透明等建议。希望通过上述建议,为中国深化参与全球生物多样性治理,进一步提升制度性影响力促进“昆蒙框架”目标实现提供参考。

关键词: 全球生物多样性框架基金, 昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架, 资源调动, 资金机制

Abstract

Background & Aim: Following the decision made during the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) officially established the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) in August 2023. The fund aims to provide additional support to developing countries in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). This study evaluates the operational advancements of the GBFF, with particular attention to its financing mechanisms, project portfolio, allocation strategies, and alignment with the KMGBF objectives. Additionally, the research seeks to analyze the challenges faced during the initial programming phase and explore their implications for improving biodiversity financing and global biodiversity governance. 

Review Results: The inaugural programming tranche, initiated in February 2024, allocated USD 201.6 million to 40 projects spanning 41 countries through three competitive selection rounds. The distribution of approved projects reveals that Latin America and the Caribbean received the largest portion of funding, accounting for 43% of the total allocation. In terms of project scale, the median grant under the GBFF is USD 3.9 million, significantly lower than the median of USD 9.3 million for GEF-8 biodiversity focal area projects. This indicates that GBFF-supported projects remain relatively modest in scale at this early stage. Regarding resource allocation, approximately 78% of the projects and 48% of the total funding were directed toward Action Area 1 of the GBFF (Biodiversity conservation, restoration, land/sea-use, and spatial planning). Among the 15 megadiverse countries eligible for GBFF support, 11 received funding, while China remains among the few without an approved project. 

Recommendations: From the perspective of CBD Parties, the study recommends promoting diversified resource-mobilization strategies, strengthening the GBFF’s capacity to support systemic transformation, and enhancing synergies among financing mechanisms such as the GEF and the Kunming Biodiversity Fund. For China, as both a developing megadiverse country and a key actor in global biodiversity governance, it is crucial to design integrated, large-scale demonstrative proposals, streamline domestic application processes, and improve the preparation of essential methodological and safeguard documents to enhance approval success rates in the second programming tranche. As the initiator of the Kunming Biodiversity Fund, China should also clarify its differentiated strategic positioning, reinforce its role in capacity building, and advance more transparent and robust governance frameworks to maximize complementarity with the GBFF. Collectively, these measures can support China’s deeper engagement in global biodiversity governance and contribute to the effective implementation of the KMGBF.

Key words: Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Resource Mobilization, Financing Mechanism