The Council of the European Union has published an information note dated 30 June 2026 compiling statements delivered by the EU and its Member States at the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, held in Campo Grande, Brazil, from 23 to 29 March 2026. The document reveals the EU's positions on key decisions, including support for the Samarkand Strategic Plan for Migratory Species 2024-2032 but with objections to specific indicators and actions, and rejection of exploring the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the financial mechanism for CMS.
The EU broadly endorses the Samarkand Strategic Plan and its monitoring framework, but insists on deleting indicators 4.3.4 and 4.3.5, which differentiate between developed and developing countries, and Potential Actions 4.3.a) and 4.3.d), which call for redirecting resources. The EU also opposes exploring the GEF becoming the Financial Mechanism for CMS, preferring instead to improve existing GEF funding pathways. On bycatch, the EU welcomes amendments to Resolution 12.22 but stresses that decisions must be based on best scientific advice, taken case-by-case, and respect the roles of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). The EU supports renewing decisions on maltreatment of seabirds (14.38 and 14.39), dissemination of Technical Series No. 49 on in-water interactions (14.54), and circular design of fishing gears (14.223(e)). Additionally, the EU backs the Aquatic Wild Meat Working Group and its Terms of Reference, including assessments of crocodilians and freshwater chelonians.
The EU's positions affect conservation NGOs and developing countries, who may see the rejection of differentiated indicators and resource-redirection actions as limiting financial and technical support for capacity-building. The fishing industry benefits from the EU's insistence on RFMO-led bycatch measures, which may avoid additional top-down regulations. EU member states gain from maintaining existing GEF funding pathways rather than creating a new financial mechanism. Migratory species conservation could be moderately impacted if the rejected indicators and actions are not adopted, potentially slowing progress on species-specific targets.