The sixteenth UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, faced significant challenges and ran overtime due to disagreements between developing and developed countries. A resumed meeting will be required to address these unfinished issues.
While some key decisions adopted marked significant wins for civil society and those most affected by biodiversity loss, several important agenda items, such as mobilising financial resources for biodiversity and monitoring the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), were not finalized. A resumed meeting will be required to address these issues.
Wins for Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants and benefit sharing
Despite the unfinished business, several groundbreaking decisions were made, particularly regarding Indigenous Peoples, local communities and people of African descent. These decisions were celebrated as historic, especially the creation of a new permanent subsidiary body on traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in relation to biological diversity. This decision was a victory for them, as they had long advocated for such a body, which will now operate on par with the other subsidiary bodies of the CBD.
Another important decision was the recognition of the role of Afro-descendant communities embodying traditional lifestyles, in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. This decision, made at the end of the UN International Decade for People of African Descent (2015-2024), encourages governments to facilitate and support the participation and contributions of people of African descent in implementing the Convention, a key political promise of the Colombian government to its population.
Additionally, COP16 saw the adoption of a decision on the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources. This decision mandates that large companies benefiting from DSI contribute a percentage of their profits or revenues to the ‘Cali Fund’, aimed at ensuring that benefits are more equitably shared with developing countries and Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This long-awaited measure has been viewed as a win for developing nations and civil society who have consistently called for fairer distribution of DSI benefits. Nonetheless, how the decision is implemented in the coming years will determine its success.
The ‘COP of the People’
COP16 was dubbed the ‘COP of the People’ by the Colombian government, which sought to emphasize citizen participation. It included a ‘Green Zone’ featuring hundreds of public events aimed at promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. This allowed for extensive dialogue and knowledge-sharing, complementing the formal negotiations that took place in the ‘Blue Zone’. Nonetheless, the considerable physical and thematic separation between the Green Zone and the Blue Zone left participants longing for more integration between both spaces.
With over 24,000 registered participants and nearly 900,000 attendees at Green Zone events, COP16 became the largest CBD COP in history.
Disagreements over biodiversity credits and offsets
One controversial issue at COP16 was the development and promotion of biodiversity credits and offsets. While not formally on the COP agenda, the KMGBF included these as “innovative schemes” to increase financial resources for biodiversity protection.
The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB) launched a "Framework for High Integrity Biodiversity Credits" during COP16 that aimed to address criticisms of biodiversity credit markets and “unlock significant financial flows for nature conservation and restoration”, claiming that Indigenous Peoples and local communities were involved throughout the process.
Many organizations argued that these schemes offer false solutions to the biodiversity crisis and allow rich countries, corporate actors and financial institutions to profit from the biodiversity crisis they have created while maintaining the status quo.
However, the promotion of biodiversity credits was met with strong resistance from civil society, which criticized the practice as "greenwashing", and that it would ultimately lead to biodiversity offsetting schemes. Biodiversity markets will be worse than the failed carbon markets because of the complexities of ecosystems, and the serious negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their land tenure rights, they warned.
Many organizations argued that these schemes offer false solutions to the biodiversity crisis and allow rich countries, corporate actors and financial institutions to profit from the biodiversity crisis they have created while maintaining the status quo. Over 300 organizations have signed a statement calling for a halt to the development of biodiversity credits and offsets, emphasizing the need for more effective and equitable non-market-based approaches to biodiversity financing.
Unresolved decisions – finance and monitoring
On resource mobilisation, a key decision involves the potential establishment of a new biodiversity financing instrument under the COP's authority, which would better address the needs of developing countries. However, developed countries have resisted this proposal, leading to deadlock in the negotiations.
A decision to update and complete the Monitoring Framework, adopted at COP15, with its indicators to track progress in implementing the KMGBF has not been reached. Alongside this, the adoption of the decision on the mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting, and review (PMRR) of national and global efforts has also been delayed.
These decisions have not been adopted as the plenary session on 1 November, held late into the night, lacked quorum by the morning of 2 November, and the meeting was suspended due to insufficient attendance.
The debates at COP16 highlighted ongoing tensions between developed and developing countries. Developing nations strongly advocated for more robust financial structures and commitments, while developed countries argued for a more market-driven approach to funding biodiversity efforts. Developed countries also pushed for swift adoption of the Monitoring Framework and PMRR mechanisms, for which developing countries called for commensurate financial resources.
With the decision on DSI already adopted, the focus will now shift to the outstanding issues related to resource mobilization and monitoring.
Other key decisions yield mixed results
COP16 also reviewed the implementation of the KMGBF, which was adopted in 2022. By the end of the conference, 119 countries had submitted national biodiversity targets and 44 countries had submitted updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) ‘aligned’ with the KMGBF. This marks some progress in the global effort to meet the framework’s goals and targets, but also sends a message on the lack of financial resources and capacity building for developing countries to update their NBSAPs.
A long-awaited decision on biodiversity and climate change was also adopted after extensive negotiations. This decision emphasized the importance of synergies between the CBD, UNFCCC, and other environmental conventions. It focused on the integration of nature-based solutions (NbS) and ecosystem-based approaches (EbAs) in national plans, while acknowledging alternatives to market-based approaches.
Progress in synthetic biology has however stalled since COP15, where a process for regular horizon scanning, monitoring and assessment of technological developments was established. This was not continued at COP16.
It reaffirmed the CBD’s moratorium on climate-related geoengineering, a significant win for civil society and Pacific small island developing states that championed this. However, the negotiations also reflected ongoing disagreements on human rights-based approaches, bioenergy and large-scale land conversion, and carbon and biodiversity markets.
Progress in synthetic biology has however stalled since COP15, where a process for regular horizon scanning, monitoring and assessment of technological developments was established. This was not continued at COP16. Instead, an expert group has been formed which will identify both positive and negative impacts.
The focus has now shifted to capacity-building and development, technology transfer and knowledge-sharing, and developing a thematic action plan. While concerns remain that the plan might prioritize research and development, the inclusion of assessment efforts could help to ensure that equity and precaution are considered.
Looking forward
COP16 made significant strides in recognizing the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples and people of African descent in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. It also saw the adoption of a key decision on digital sequence information. However, the negotiations were difficult and lengthy, particularly around the provision of financial resources, and this will continue to be negotiated at the resumed meeting.
The debates at COP16 underscored the ongoing tensions between developed and developing countries, as well as the demands of civil society facing an increasingly business-focussed biodiversity agenda. Beyond the upcoming CBD discussions, the resistance movements against the corporate capture of biodiversity finance, extractive policies and fortress conservation, will continue to shape the future of biodiversity and those who depend the most on it.
This article was co-authored by Lim Li Lin (Third World Network) and Lim Li Ching (Third World Network).
This article first appeared here: www.boell.de