From ambition to action: Making Rio Synergies work in practice

Representing over 70 organisations and a host of countries, more than 110 stakeholders gathered at CBD COP17 to explore practical ways to advance integrated action on biodiversity, climate change and land degradation. 

“If we want synergies to deliver tangible results, they must move beyond international discussions and into national policies, investment decisions and action on the ground.” — Stewart Maginnis, IUCN Deputy Director General.

Achieving global goals for biodiversity, climate and land requires more than aligned commitments. It demands coordinated national action, inclusive governance and investment that reaches the people and places where change is needed most.

This was the central message of the Rio Synergies Workshop at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP17), which was organised by the Türkiye COP31 Presidency, the G20 Global Land Initiative at the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), IUCN and the Asociación ENACT.

Building on recent dialogues in Antalya and Ulaanbaatar, participants discussed barriers, good practices and opportunities to strengthen practical implementation pathways for synergies across the three Rio Conventions.

What does implementation look like in practice?

Discussions across the workshop groups highlighted several priorities for turning shared ambition into measurable results.

Nature-based Solutions and ecosystem-based approaches: Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and ecosystem-based approaches offer practical entry points for connecting biodiversity, climate and land objectives. However, interventions must be tailored to local ecosystems, protect biodiversity and support sustainable livelihoods – thereby bridging the global-to-local gap. International commitments are valuable, but local authorities must interpret and implement them according to their specific ecological, institutional and social contexts. Participants discussed the risks of siloed implementation design – for example climate-focused restoration and planting trees in natural grasslands can harm the local biodiversity. NbS must not only consider the ecosystem context but also the broader scope of both natural and human environments with measurable biodiversity, climate, land and livelihood outcomes.    

Whole-of-society approaches: Indigenous Peoples, local communities, youth and grassroots organisations must be involved from the outset in designing and implementing solutions. Community ownership, locally relevant knowledge, capacity-building and access to resources are essential to ensure that integrated approaches respond to local needs and deliver lasting benefits. Participants further highlighted that education and capacity-building activities are essential to provide practical training on implementation of integrated approaches for farmers, students and communities, including on sustainable agriculture and soil conservation. The key question for discussing synergies is on ownership. Who are we empowering to take action on synergies and who should we empower to ensure practical implementation?  

National governance: Fragmented policies, institutional silos and weak coordination between ministries remain major barriers. Participants highlighted opportunities to align national strategies, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) targets. Stronger coordination, clear responsibilities and practical guidance can help countries move from separate commitments to joint implementation. Participants noted that successful examples of synergistic implementation often occur where central coordination of ecological or environmental planning is elevated to the level of the Prime Minister’s Office or Ministry of Finance, enabling stronger policy coherence and deeper mainstreaming of the interconnected climate, biodiversity, and land degradation agendas.

Monitoring and reporting: Different indicators, data systems and reporting requirements can create unnecessary complexity and obscure progress. Participants called for better-aligned indicators, improved data sharing and stronger integration of scientific and Indigenous knowledge. Existing approaches, including Japan’s integrated forest management planning and Norway’s coordinated outcome monitoring, offer lessons for tracking progress across multiple objectives.

Finance group: Financing for climate, biodiversity, and land restoration is largely fragmented, with climate finance attracting the lion’s share of investment whilst biodiversity and land-based actions efforts depend largely on grants and project-based funding. Participants identified several barriers to integrated financing, including a mismatch between the small, long-term nature of synergistic projects and investor preferences for large, short-term returns. Furthermore, a disjointed funding landscape increases duplication and transaction costs coupled with a dearth of biodiversity and land data to strengthen monitoring systems, which create uncertainty for investors. Participants noted that country-led financing platforms can address fragmentation by serving as coordination hubs and supporting the alignment of fiscal flows from various sources, while critically connecting capital with national priorities and reducing transaction costs. 

From shared ambition to collective action

Across the groups, a common message emerged: effective Rio synergies must be country-led, locally grounded and supported by stronger partnerships, technical expertise and long-term finance. Better coordination should build on existing initiatives and institutions, rather than create additional structures or duplicate efforts.

The workshop outcomes informed the Yerevan Technical Dialogue on 23 October and the High-Level Dialogue on 27 October at CBD COP17, contributing to the Türkiye COP31 Presidency’s planned launch of the Rio Synergies Group for Action at UNFCCC COP31 in Antalya.

The proposed voluntary, country-led group aims to connect national priorities with existing expertise, partnerships, implementation platforms and finance to accelerate the delivery of commitments across biodiversity, climate and land.

“Building on the outcomes of the Ulaanbaatar Technical Dialogue at UNCCD COP17, today’s workshop has advanced the conversation by focusing on practical implementation and concrete approaches to Rio synergies. But beyond these conversations what really matters is how implementation takes place. We know that climate change, biodiversity loss and land degradation are altering landscapes and the way people interact with those landscapes. In our implementation approach, we need to take into consideration that we have an evolving target.” — Ali Raza Rizvi, Director, IUCN Climate Change and Energy Transition Team

From Ulaanbaatar to Yerevan and Antalya, the next step is to turn dialogue into delivery — advancing coordinated action that strengthens ecosystems, builds climate resilience and supports sustainable livelihoods.