The world’s largest biodiversity summit, known as COP16, concluded in some disarray. There were several landmark decisions, but also lack of agreement on some key issues.
It was agreed that:
- Companies profiting from nature’s genetic data should pay towards its protection through a global fund
- The fund, to be known as the Cali fund after the COP16 host city, will be financed with payments from companies who make use of genetic information from living things
- The role of Indigenous Peoples as vital stewards of nature was officially recognised through the setting up of a permanent body to represent their interests
However, two issues remained unresolved, both of which are instrumental for implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. These related to funding and monitoring.
Orca Killerwhale traveling on ocean water with sunset Norway Fiords on winter background
Ocean gets small boost
Until the final few days of this year’s meeting, progress toward action plans to conserve the open ocean were limited. Near the end of the talks, a coalition of 11 philanthropies pledged $51.7 million to help identify and expand marine protected areas in the ‘High Seas’.
“COP16 delivered mixed results for the ocean. Countries adopted two important ocean-related technical decisions, but failed to reach consensus on the resource mobilization and review mechanisms needed to drive progress for the ocean across the Global Biodiversity Framework,” Pepe Clark from WWF told Mongabay, “If countries reconvene as expected in 2025 to address these outstanding issues, they must come prepared to deliver on their promises. We have no time to waste.”
‘A bitter end’
Seven countries and one provincial government pledged an additional $163 million to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund which was established to help realize the goals laid out in the Biodiversity Framework. COP16 was tasked with implementing that agreement however the meeting ended with the lack of a definition for a financing model to bring the biodiversity protection plan to reality. Calculations indicate that $700 billion is required to implement the framework. The other pending issue is a monitoring mechanism to measure the progress of countries in complying with the roadmap to protect biodiversity.
By the close of the summit, discussions on these issues were suspended due to the fact that there were no longer enough negotiators present to reach an agreement.
A number of countries expressed fury at the way the talks had been dragged out and the order of discussions, which left crucial issues undecided at the final hour. The decision, taken by a group of developed countries including the European Union, Japan, and Canada, left African and Latin American nations furious and prompted some to refuse to engage in talks on other matters.
It was a bitter end to a conference that many had hoped would inject fresh energy into the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, an ambitious treaty that aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally.
“We really question the lack of legitimacy of discussing such an important issue at the end of the Cop,” the Brazilian negotiator Maria Angelica Ikeda said, shortly before discussions of resource mobilisation were cut off. “We should have started discussing these issues at the beginning … We should have decisions guaranteeing that we have the resources we need.”
Countries were meant to come to the table with a detailed plan on how they intended to meet biodiversity targets at home, but most missed the deadline.
We are stuck in a “vicious cycle where economic woes reduce political focus on the environment” while the destruction of nature costs the economy billions. Until we have world leaders with the wisdom and courage to put nature as a top political priority then nature-related risks will continue to escalate,” said Tom Oliver, professor of biodiversity at the University of Reading.
A summary of the outputs of the meeting from the UN can be read here and further commentary here.