By Aurora Gómez Espinoza and Michelle Gaëlle Simeone Bidima, Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN)

Despite the humidity fogging the windows of the Atlapa convention center, the space felt cold the moment the chairperson silenced us – the youth, women and Indigenous Peoples who had gathered to influence how the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) will be implemented. 

Along with fellow delegates from around the world, we were at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), known as SBSTTA 27, held in Panama City last October.

This was also the first meeting dedicated to hearing advice from the CBD’s subsidiary body for Indigenous Peoples and local communities established under Article 8j (known as SB8J).

The two-week-long discussion was a space for country and network representatives to analyze biodiversity data and discuss how to implement the GBF at the upcoming 2026 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17), which will be held in Armenia this November. 

Behind the scenes, between each biennial UN biodiversity conference, various working groups and subsidiary bodies meet to review new data and prepare strategic messaging to inform these global negotiations.

We arrived at SBSTTA 27 as youth delegates for the  Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN), the formal youth constituency of the CBD. 

We believe that global biodiversity decisions must reflect the diverse contexts of the landscapes and communities they affect and that youth, women, Indigenous Peoples and local communities must be given space to advocate and push for real change. 

In the weeks leading up to the meeting, we had worked with other GYBN delegates to prepare concrete proposals. We called for evidence-based biodiversity policies, greater accountability, stronger integration of human rights and intergenerational equity and the meaningful inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, women and youth.

But at the meeting itself, the conversations were largely shaped by government-led negotiations and procedural debates.

On the third day of SBSTTA 27, we waved our flags from the observer section, excited to share our next suggestions for the official text in discussion. Then, rather than being given the floor, we were told time had run out. 

The hum of the room faded into silence. We looked at one another – we had just lost our opportunity to intervene in the recommendations that will shape the next Biodiversity COP.

Why inclusive policies on biodiversity matter

Being silenced is sadly an experience shared by many youth, women, Indigenous Peoples and community leaders at these high-level events.

We live in a time of deep socio-environmental polycrisis, marked by accelerating biodiversity loss, climate disruption, food insecurity and growing inequalities across regions. 

Gatherings like the CBD are often framed as solution-making spaces. In reality, only certain voices are given time to speak.

In these spaces, youth participation is frequently celebrated in speeches, side events and photographs. We are framed as future leaders, sources of hope and drivers of change. But when negotiations tighten and time runs out, we are the first to be sidelined. 

Participation isn’t just about presence; it’s about access, recognition and the willingness to share decision-making power.

For many young delegates, those brief moments in plenaries are the core reason we organize, prepare and continue to believe in negotiation processes.

Here are our individual experiences attending SBSTTA 27.

“Politics overrode science”

By Michelle Gaëlle Simeone Bidima

I’m an agronomist and researcher from Burkina Faso, and I work at the intersection of sustainable agroecosystems, biodiversity conservation and community-based action. 

At SBSTTA 27, I worked primarily on scientific and technical discussions, implementation pathways and the accessibility of formal negotiation spaces.

Even before entering the negotiation rooms, participation had already been restricted. Logistical constraints, financial barriers and institutional gatekeeping shaped who was present and under what conditions. 

For many young people, especially from the Global South, reaching these international negotiation spaces requires navigating obstacles that are largely invisible once the meeting begins.

Inside SBSTTA 27, I expected science to guide the discussions more decisively. I believed that the technical nature of the body would ensure that evidence and scientific consensus would meaningfully shape political decisions, particularly those feeding into COP17 and the broader goal of halting biodiversity loss. 

Instead, I saw how political considerations often overrode scientific arguments. Country representatives used procedural tools to bracket or delete text in ways that felt disconnected from the evidence meant to inform the process.

Coming from the Sahel, these debates felt far removed from the biodiversity loss we experience every day. The distance between the urgency on the ground and the pace of negotiations in the room became increasingly visible. 

Still, we had our moments of hope. Through targeted advocacy, we worked with parties willing to support youth perspectives and carry them into the official global report that will be presented at COP17. 

These moments reminded me that influence isn’t always visible from the floor – and that alliances can open spaces even when formal access is limited.

“Vision and persistence can make waves”

By Aurora Gómez Espinoza

I’m a 27-year-old Mexican biologist, illustrator and science communicator. My work encompasses transformative education, artivism and biodiversity conservation, and I attended SBSTTA 27 as a GYBN policy communication coordinator and artivist. 

I support the GYBN through art-based actions, visual and digital narratives and collective mobilization, where youth and allied messages become physically and publicly visible.

When our voices were silenced in the plenary, I spearheaded a collective art-based action to reclaim our right to speak. 

Overnight, youth delegates made hand-written messages, animal puppets, self-made clay figures and wooden stamps to strategically draw attention to our creative, important messages. We appealed to the human beings behind each institutional role. 

More than 80 messages were personally received and read by party delegates at the action, which we named “Free Our Voice.”

Our right to take the floor in plenary was restored. 

As youth delegates, true participation means co-developing the design, implementation, measurement and reporting of the actions that we hope will steer the future.

Being a youth delegate isn’t a recognition of personal achievement but a responsibility. For many of us, this role is voluntary and comes with uncertain travel arrangements, personal and professional needs left uncovered and needing to put in extra effort to professionalize our presence. 

We navigate this while also acknowledging that many other young people can’t access these high-level conversations or don’t know they exist.

At large events like this, it can be hard for me to navigate how to create quality interactive art without experiencing burnout. I also try to make space to build connections with others, though as a neurodivergent person, small talk isn’t always easy for me.

On top of that, I know I can’t capture the total essence of an event alone, so instead, I remind myself to be proud to have played my part. 

Since my first governance experience at the Biodiversity COP15 four years ago, I’ve dedicated much of my life to supporting meaningful youth participation in Mexico within this global framework. 

Through workshops, policy advocacy, collaborations with local and national governments and support for grassroots youth-led initiatives, I’ve seen the limits and the potential of these negotiation processes. 

I’ve witnessed how global events often fail to live up to their taglines – cue the example of months of collective work being erased in seconds by a procedural decision.

However, I’ve also seen how the long-term vision and persistence of youth can make waves. 

At SBSTTA 27, youth constituents influenced the final recommendations for COP17 with nine successful interventions supported by 47 countries, helping secure an approach that honors human rights and the needs of entire societies.

This isn’t just about changing texts and frameworks. True transformation at CBD comes from individual choices that – if we organize and work together – can reshape systems to be more inclusive, respectful and more truthful to the promises they claim to uphold. 

That’s what we know and stand for, and I can tell that we’re already finding each other.

Why we need youth representation at the highest level

When youth participation matters in the decision-making process, you feel it in your body. It’s a feeling of responsibility and urgency, but also belonging. 

It’s the tension of waiting to see whether a country will support your proposed amendment, and the relief of watching carefully crafted words reshape a paragraph that will guide global action. 

It feels like a collective effort becoming visible, like a duty fulfilled toward communities and generations that aren’t in the room but whose futures are being negotiated there.

When global environmental governance excludes those who live with the consequences of its decisions, it loses not only perspective but also credibility. Decisions made today will shape ecosystems, food systems, cultures and livelihoods long after the negotiation rooms have emptied.

Without youth participation, those decisions risk narrowing futures before they’re ever lived, foreclosing possibilities that will never appear again in another agenda item or at another meeting.

Sharing space in these processes is not the same as sharing power. 

Meaningful participation requires access to the floor, time to intervene and openness to multiple forms of knowledge – scientific, territorial, cultural and creative. 

It demands a willingness to redistribute authority, especially when doing so feels inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Returning to that moment of silence in the plenary, what was at stake was not a single intervention or a procedural detail. 

It was the question of whether biodiversity governance is willing to listen to those who are already living with the reality of great loss and who are passionate and ready to build a better future.