Nature COP16 Roundup
Over the weekend, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity concluded after nearly two weeks of press conferences and negotiations in Cali, Colombia. There had been many key ambitions for this COP, notably, to make significant progress on the new Global Biodiversity Framework agreed at COP15, reversing the destruction of nature and achieving key targets like 30×30 (30% of land and sea protected by 2030) as well as getting countries to agree on the mechanisms for resource mobilisation and the funnelling of finance into nature. Unfortunately, COP16 could not deliver everything on its agenda, and what turned into a contentious conference ended with many issues still on the table despite running well over its allotted schedule.
So, before we look at some of the missed opportunities of COP16, what were some of the successes? The biggest wins were undoubtedly those centred around inclusivity and justice. Firstly, the decision was made to create a permanent subsidiary body of indigenous people and local communities as part of the UN Biodiversity process. This means that these groups now have a permanent platform within negotiations, as opposed to the previous temporary body, and will no longer be reliant on the goodwill of nations to maintain their voices within future UN negotiations on biodiversity. Given that these groups have crucial roles in the stewardship, conservation and restoration of biodiversity this move is undoubtedly a win for COP16. Secondly, an agreement was reached to ensure that companies which profit from the use of genetic data derived from nature (Digital Sequence Information or DSI) must contribute a share of profits (1%) or share of revenue (0.1%) to the DSI fund. This fund will then be used to deliver benefits for nature conservation, with at least half being sent towards indigenous communities and a portion being delivered to developing countries. It is estimated that this scheme could generate more than £1bn a year for biodiversity, however, unfortunately, the deal is voluntary and national governments will need to introduce the law domestically with many delegates noting that the final wording allows “too much discretion” to parties.
One of COP16’s largest agenda items was to finalise a strategy for raising necessary funds from countries for the restoration of nature. At COP15 in 2022 countries committed to generating $700bn a year in finance for nature, starting with $200bn a year by 2030. Within this agreement $20bn is to be delivered by richer countries to developing countries by 2025 to provide them with the financial support to protect nature while maintaining development. COP16 failed to implement a strategy for achieving these goals, despite the many concerns raised by developing countries over these missed targets. Currently, less than 1% of the £200bn has been offered.
Monitoring was another key target for COP16, with the intent of signing off on how progress towards the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 23 different targets (including 30×30) will be officially tracked. Despite progress among the dedicated working group, a draft framework was never approved. This means there is still no agreement on how progress towards these crucial targets for nature will actually be tracked and it is uncertain when this agreement will finally be reached.
Despite some positive steps, COP16 was plagued by deep divisions and unfinished business, ending in slight disarray as delegates were forced to leave talks early and the negotiations were suspended when fewer than half the countries remained present. Discussions will now need to continue at next year’s interim meeting in Bangkok but for many delegates, there is a distinct feeling that the COP process must be streamlined if actual decisions are to be reached. Too many of the important discussions and decisions were left to the final days, with crucial issues being left on the table with no time for delegates to reach an agreement.
Again COP16 has shown that while the worlds nations are often very adept at setting ambitious targets for nature, they are unable (or unwilling) to implement them. The biodiversity crisis must be treated with the urgency it warrants, we have little time left to let targets drop by the wayside.