COP16 advances biodiversity protection despite ending before finance deal

CALI, Colombia — Negotiations at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference, or COP16, in Cali, Colombia, were suspended as talks went into overtime on Saturday and too few countries were present to reach an agreement around a new fund for nature. This conference was anticipated to be the “implementation COP,” where delegates were meant to iron out the details of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, or GBFF, which was established as an interim fund at COP15 Montreal in 2022. Experts also expected a new monitoring framework and for countries to submit their own plans to preserve and conserve biodiversity. The goals included protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030 — dubbed the “30 by 30” goal — and for wealthier countries to provide $20 billion a year by 2025 for nature conservation and $30 billion per year by 2030. But as the clock ran out in Cali, the finance discussions never happened. One of the primary hurdles was a continued debate from COP15 in 2022: many global south countries want a new fund that would be housed under the decision-making body of the Conference of Parties, or COP, similar to the “loss and damage” fund created as part of the separate U.N. climate change conference. Global north countries — primarily the European Union — want to avoid the intensive process of establishing the new biodiversity fund, however. “The clock struck 8:30am in Cali and negotiations ran out of time,” Georgina Chandler, head of policy and campaigns for the Zoological Society of London, told Devex via WhatsApp. “It was not the positive note we were hoping to end on, but sticking to the rules of the [Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD], they didn’t have enough countries in the room to agree on the much-anticipated issues of resource mobilisation, the monitoring framework, and the budget to run the secretariat.” Meanwhile, only 44 countries out of the 196 represented in the CBD — and 119 present at the conference — had submitted their biodiversity action plans by publication. Countries did, however, establish a landmark agreement for corporations to pay for the use of plant and animal genetic information used in their research and development. Experts say that this isn’t the end of the COP16 discussions. “But just to be clear, that doesn’t mean that the meeting is over. We will continue the meeting at a future date and location,” said David Ainsworth, the head of communications for CBD. No one seems certain when or where negotiations will continue. The Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD, comes with a two-year presidency, so Colombia remains in charge until COP17 in 2026 in Armenia. “There’s lots of government meetings that will follow through next year, hopefully with some civil society engagement,” said Edward Davey, head of the World Resources Institute Europe U.K. office and a senior adviser on food and land use. “Aspects that didn’t get resolved this time will hopefully get resolved down the line.” Despite the breakdown in finance discussions, many within the biodiversity world see this as a landmark event. This biodiversity COP was larger than any in the past, both among delegates and attendees. Major corporations made an appearance for the first time as well, with Amazon, Google, and IBM sending representatives. “You had companies that you would have never seen at a CBD COP before,” said Lydia Zemke, a nature finance expert and EarthAcre senior adviser. “It signals that they are putting this on their radar. Companies are recognizing that they will be forced to at least start disclosing their actions.” Why finance talks were suspended On the final night of the two-week conference, when COP16 delegates finally arrived at the topic they’d gathered to discuss — finance — they realized that there were not enough country delegations present in the room to vote. “There is no quorum. The meeting is suspended,” said COP16 President Susana Muhamad, also Colombia’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, marking the end of the summit. Delegates and observers were surprised and worried about the lack of finance discussions — one of the core issues for the implementation of the GBFF would not even be discussed. In a conversation with Devex early in the summit, Muhamad warned that “finance was the most difficult issue of this edition of the conference.” Lower-income and wealthier nations were deadlocked on whether to keep the GBFF established at COP15 under the Global Environment Facility, or GEF, which has funded environmental projects in low- and middle-income countries since 1991 as the official financing mechanism for several international conventions on climate and biodiversity — or to move it to an institution that focuses on biodiversity and will prioritize equity in governance, such as the CBD, which is housed under the Conference of Parties, which is the CBD’s decision-making body. Another option is creating a new, different fund under the biodiversity Conference of Parties, which is also a governing body. The GBFF, which was created at COP15 as an “interim fund” within the GEF, is meant to address the main threats to biodiversity and ensure its restoration, protection, and conservation. Some have called it the “Paris Agreement for Nature,” after the landmark 2015 U.N. deal to address climate change. But lower-income countries say that the GBFF doesn’t represent their voices and needs and that funds are difficult to access. Moving it, they say, would address these issues and more. “The funding we are asking for is not charity, it is the fulfillment of the responsibilities of developed countries,” said Diego Pacheco, the head of the Bolivian delegation to the UNFCCC, just before talks were suspended. “We have to change the way we access resources. The current model does not allow us to move forward as quickly as we have to in order to comply with the Global Framework.” Wealthier countries suggested waiting to see how the fund does under the GEF and revisiting the issue of whether to move it or establish a new fund in 2026. “I’m not sure we have to make this decision today,” Marcos Neto, United Nations assistant secretary-general and director of UNDP's Bureau for Policy and Programme Support , told Devex. “The GEF is an interim host of the GBFF until 2030.” The GEF is aware of the criticism but says that the power lies in the member countries. “Not all of the 187 countries that are members of the GEF behave like shareholders,” Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, CEO of the GEF, told Devex at a side event in Cali. “The big self-criticism is the lack of empowerment. Ministers questioned the rules of the GEF, but they are the ones who define them, we implement them. The big challenge is political. The resources exist and the technology is available.” “Whether countries decide to establish a new fund or not, the donors will be the same in all likelihood,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. It’s time to pay for plant DNA Despite the inconclusive outcome on finance, some experts left COP16 feeling positive about other resolutions. The conference came to a historic deal on digital sequence information, or DSI, which asks companies using genetic biodiversity in their products to put a portion of their profits toward the new “Cali Fund.” DSI refers to genetic data from plants and animals that is used in everything from rice to vaccines to denim jeans that are distressed using natural enzymes. “Clauses are included in the decision that are meant to ensure mutually supportive implementation with other international access and benefit-sharing instruments and to avoid stacking of obligations,” said Szonja Csorgo, intellectual property and legal affairs manager at the International Seed Federation. “Nevertheless, there is a lot of unclarity and ambiguity in the COP decision and a lot will depend on the national implementation by Parties that will follow.” This is voluntary for now and would only apply to companies whose income exceeds a certain amount. Companies are being asked to contribute just 1% of their profit or 0.1% of revenue. “All in all, payment rates as determined by the decision as ‘indicative’ are exaggerated and legal certainty provided by the system is low,” Csorgo said. “A study will be commissioned on the contribution rates and a review in this regard may take place at COP17.” Delegates agreed that 50% of this fund will be allocated to Indigenous peoples. “They wanted 80%, the negotiation started at 30%, and 50% is where the compromise was born,” Neto said.. The new fund will take time to build, but experts left Cali feeling hopeful. “I think the DSI outcome was genuinely quite significant,” WRI Europe’s Davey said. “It’s been two years of work and although it’s voluntary and it might only generate a billion or so initially, I do think that is quite significant and we can build on that.” A formal body for Indigenous voices COP16 discussions led to the creation of a formal subsidiary body for Indigenous peoples and local communities. “This new subsidiary body is an example for the rest of the world,” said Camila Paz, a representative of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, which represents Indigenous communities at these meetings. “Parties recognized the continued need for our full and effective participation, knowledge, innovations, technologies and traditional practices to meet the objectives of the Convention.” Jing Corpuz of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity echoed this. “This is a watershed moment in the history of multilateral environmental agreements,” she said. A second decision recognized the role of Afro-descendant groups in the protection of biodiversity. It is meant to facilitate their participation in the negotiations and invites parties “to consider providing financial support to protect the shared knowledge, innovations and practices of Afro-descendant people.” “From the Amazon rainforest and coral reefs to mountain ecosystems, in all these ecosystems there are Afro-descendant communities that have generated a culture that takes care of nature,” Muhamad told Devex. “The invisibility comes from a process of structural racism. Recognition is a claim.” The proposal was presented by Colombia and Brazil, but was initially rejected by some African countries. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, argued that there was not enough evidence of the contribution of these communities to the implementation of the GBFF. “In a negotiation, it’s normal for each country to come with their own proposals and have some disagreements,” Francia Márquez, vice president of Colombia, said to Devex in a press conference during the first week of the COP. In Colombia, Afro-descendant communities represent 10 million people. In the wider region, 1 in 4 Latin Americans identify as Afro-descendant. Muhamad emotionally acknowledged that the result was an achievement of joint work between Colombia and Brazil, which will chair the COP30 climate conference in 2025. “It is the first milestone from Cali to Pará,” Muhamed said. A look ahead at COP29 … and 30 Looking ahead, COP16 struck a new tone of collaboration that could be echoed at the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan next week. “There was an interesting new decision here, which is going to have repercussions in Baku and then Saudi Arabia for the United Conference on desertification in Riyadh this December which is called a synergy decision,” Neto said. “It just took us 34 years to realize that these things are actually connected.” The conference came to an additional decision to address biodiversity loss and climate change as joint and interdependent issues. Part of this effort involves planning both the national climate plans, also called nationally determined contributions or NDCs, and national biodiversity strategies and action plans, or NBSAPs, together. "Being able to articulate these instruments is a good sign, especially for countries in the global south, as it will allow for more efficient use of resources, more coherence in policies, more coherence in institutions,” said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, World Wildlife Fund’s climate and energy global practice leader and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement. The effort is not to combine the conferences, but for the conference secretariats to connect on financial commitments. The hope is that the secretariats work together to combine the biodiversity financial commitments with the NDCs. This can be as simple as merging the in-country negotiations and stakeholders so that those attending the meetings only come to one. Colombia along with Brazil are working together on a proposal for a new critical minerals pact that will be presented at the much-anticipated COP30, which Colombia will host, in 2025. The goal is for a binding global treaty to trace the minerals used in the green energy transition, from mining to recycling. “The conventions have evolved in isolation. In silence,” Neto said. “Now I think it’s pretty obvious that you can’t talk biodiversity protection without figuring out climate change. You can’t solve climate change without talking about nature-based solutions and land restoration.” Chandler echoed this sentiment from the COP16 conference. “A door has been opened on the joint work between the Rio Conventions, breaking down the barriers between climate and nature action,” she said.