ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Implications of global distributive justice principles for implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implications of global distributive justice principles for implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the era of the sixth mass extinction, reversing global biodiversity loss is of vital importance for life on Earth. In 2022, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), a strategic plan with 23 action-oriented targets to be achieved by 2030. However, biodiversity action carries direct and indirect costs that are unevenly distributed globally. Moreover, parties to the CBD may differ relative to various aspects of bearing these costs. Although the GBF implicitly acknowledges its parties' common but different responsibilities for its implementation, what this means in practice is left open. We suggested a distributive justice framework to guide global sharing of the costs of biodiversity action, with a focus on specific GBF targets. We combined the contributor pays, beneficiary pays, and ability to pay principles from the normative-philosophical justice literature together with empirical information on trends in biodiversity degradation, benefits from resource exploitation, and livelihood levels in different countries to develop a distinct and comprehensive account of distributive justice in a global biodiversity policy context and to specify implications for target implementation. Our framework suggests that high-income countries should provide substantial financial resources for the implementation of GBF targets domestically and internationally. Moreover, these countries have a particularly high moral obligation to take action to reduce pressure on biodiversity-for instance, by reducing pollution or changing consumption patterns. Recent institutional innovations related to the funding, planning, monitoring, reporting, and review structures of the GBF hold promise for its just implementation, which ultimately depends on parties' political will.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.