Mixed results at the summit in Colombia
Over the past two weeks, the 16th UN Biodiversity Conference in Cali, Colombia, brought together delegates from around 200 countries to discuss the crucial role of biodiversity in climate adaptation and to promote measures to protect species. After tough negotiations and several extensions, the conference, which was held this year under the motto “Peace with Nature”, abruptly ended on November 2. The remains of the 12 days have some partial successes, but also big question marks.
COP 16 has received mixed reviews from conference observers are mixed. What is certain is that the number of concrete decisions taken at the conference is manageable. For example, the more than 20,000 delegates from the business, politics and science sectors decided to set up a committee to officially represent the interests of indigenous peoples in biodiversity actions. The aim is to involve local communities more closely in discussions and decisions relating to biodiversity and nature conservation within the framework of the convention. This is particularly important as their valuable generational knowledge can make a significant contribution to combating climate change and maintaining the balance of global ecosystems.
The role of genetic databases was also on the COP16 agenda. The delegates agreed that companies, for example from the pharmaceutical or cosmetics industry, which may utilize genetic data from plants and animals from vulnerable countries for the development and production of medicines or cosmetics, must pay compensation to those countries in the future.
The international community also passed a resolution to more closely interlink climate and biodiversity protection. To this end, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are expected to work more closely together in order to make better use of potentials in the implementation of national biodiversity strategies and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
Setback for the financing of worldwide nature and biodiversity conservation
However, there was division on one of the most important items on the agenda: financing. The Montreal Framework Agreement, which was adopted by the entities at the conference in Canada two years ago, was actually supposed to be implemented. The so-called “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF) of 2022 is one of the hallmark nature conservation agreements to date. One of its core objectives is to place at least 30% of the globe's land and marine areas under effective protection by 2030. However, implementation cannot take place without the necessary financial resources. In 2022, a pool of money, the Global Biodiversity Fund, was established to promote global investment in species conservation. However, it is still unclear how the previously agreed upon 20 billion US dollars — a sum which was originally promised to the vulnerable countries of the global South — will be made available and distributed. The financing mechanism is also unclear, as climate vulnerable countries are calling for a new biodiversity fund that would give them more leverage. The EU blocked the decision to set up a new fund. Ultimately, the conference ended without the anticipated adoption of a clear financing strategy. The question of the control mechanisms to be used to review country-specific progress in the protection of biodiversity also remains open.
Since the follow-up negotiations between the communities of countries lasted much longer than expected, prompting many delegates to leave, these talks were ultimately tabled. A continuation of these negotiations is not expected to resume until they reconvene in Armenia in 2026.
Given the upcoming World Climate Conference, or COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan later this month, this outcome is not very satisfactory. Read our blog post to find out what we at First Climate now expect from COP29.
