The UN’s Biodiversity Summit (COP16) took place from 22 October – 8 November this year in Cali, Colombia, bringing together 196 government representatives to discuss the future of global biodiversity.
The summit started off with lots of questions and ended with many left unanswered. The conference was plagued by loss of attendees, as many representatives had to catch flights before talks concluded and consensuses were made. However, here are the highlights
of COP16 and what it means for COP29 happening right now in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Bernadette Fischler Hooper, head of international advocacy, WWF-UK, stated: “Following the negotiations on biodiversity finance here in Cali was as enjoyable as root
canal surgery. The discord between donor and developing countries shortly before the meeting suspension is sadly not surprising, but certainly disappointing. Countries have been divided for years and have not managed to find a solution that works for all.
However, waiting longer to take the badly needed decision on the fund dedicated to the CBD threatens the delivery of 2030 nature goals.”
The conference concluded 44 of 196 (22%) revised National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans in support of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), and adopted the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 119 governments revised
National Targets, which is around 63% of countries.
North and South funding divide
The summit concluded with no agreed-upon finance strategy for biodiversity moving forward, and a clear lack of leadership and urgency from countries in the EU, UK, US, China, Japan, and Canada. Many of these countries were also stingy with their funding
commitments; Germany, France, Netherlands, and UK all cut down their foreign aid budgets in 2023. There were also non-committal funding for the Global Biodiversity Fund, which currently holds $407 million.
The EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland rejected nature restoration fund for less developed countries, stating a new fund would complicate the process, which was argued against by African, South American, and Pacific Island
nations – Brazil and Panama refused to handle other issues until they reached an agreement.
This led to ministers from 20 African, Southeast Asian, and Pacific nations to write a letter to wealthy nations on the shortfall in funding, according to
Politico.
Jiwoh Abdulai, Minister of Environment and Climate Change from Sierra Leone, stated to The Guardian: “This COP has
neither delivered that additional funding nor given us confidence that governments will work together to deliver it in a transparent and urgent manner. Governments have shown time and time again that they can materialise the funds needed when they want – be
that for pandemics or wars. Why then can they not materialise it to fight the greatest existential threat we face?”
The lack of finance mechanisms and funding from governments was brought up by multiple speakers – the representatives from Africa and Brazil pointed to the inefficiency of the current biodiversity fund held by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which
they do not have access to due to wealthier countries possessing control.
The previous biodiversity summit two years ago in Montreal, Canada, promised to raise money for nature protection, and nations committed to raising $200 billion a year by 2030, and $20 billion to give to developing countries from wealthier nations by 2025
– funding is not currently on track to meet this. COP15 also saw representatives pledge to protect 30% of land and oceans by 2030. Progress tracking was not addressed, and the funding pledge to contribute $20 billion a year by 2025 looks unlikely.
The discussions on private investments for biodiversity conservation was inconclusive, with it remaining highly improbable that global nature financing can be funded from private investments.
Catherine Weller, director of global policy at Fauna & Flora, also stated to
The Guardian: “The pace of COP16 negotiations did not reflect the urgency of the crisis we are facing. Despite the hard-won breakthrough on creating a fund for profits from nature’s genetic information and ongoing rhetoric about the urgency of scaling up
finance for nature, there has not been significant headway made on how we will finance nature recovery, nor clarity on how we monitor progress at a global level. Two years on, the vast majority of nature targets agreed in Montreal regrettably currently still
feel like unfunded words on paper.”
Current talks in COP29 are also seeing a lack of action in climate financing, where global leaders have yet to reach a consensus on an annual finance target for richer countries.
Fossil fuel talks omitted
A significant miss at COP16 was
the omission of the fossil fuel transition pledge. The COP16 draft agreement did not discuss this pressing issue that is imperative for green energy transition and the journey towards net zero.
The position towards fossil fuels has not shifted, as major banks continue to lend to gas and oil giants despite climate pledges. Namely, NatWest
and other major UK banks still finance BP, having managed a £400 million bond to the gas company in 2023.
This unsettling truth aligns with the pro-fossil fuel rhetoric that Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev championed in
his opening remarks for COP29, calling oil and gas resources a “gift from God”.
The Cali Fund gets approval
One success emerging from COP16 was that the Digital Sequence Information (DSI) fund plan passed. This plan puts a global levy on products made using genetic data from the natural world, that is used in medicines, vaccines, and many other products. The development
of this fund enables further innovation and accessibility to this research, whilst driving capital towards nature.
The plan requires companies that use DSI which make sales of more than $50 million, profits over $5 million, and $20 million in total assets to contribute 1% of profits of 0.1% of revenue to the DSI fund. This could generate over £1 billion annually, half
of which will be given to Indigenous peoples communities, and a portion of which will go to developing nations. However, the introduction of this plan depends on local governments, and is voluntary.
In other good news, the TNFD saw 502 organisations commit to adopting
TNFD-aligned nature-related risk management and corporate reporting, which will lead to more transparency in the sector. Also, leaders from California and Quebec pledged to fund their own biodiversity and nature action, putting funding into local initiatives.
Environmental Audit Committee Chair, Toby Perkins MP,
commented: “We are in the grips of a global nature crisis, and the pressure is on at each UN Biodiversity Summit to seize the challenge.
“While I welcome progress on the Cali Fund to encourage companies benefiting from the use of genetic information from nature to pay more, and on new criteria to meet our 30x30 targets, the overall scale of the challenge has not been reflected in the agreements
reached before the Summit was suspended. Delegates failed to reach consensus on mobilising nature finance, and we’re still in the dark as to how ambitious international targets are to be met. It’s impossible to see how governments worldwide can pave the way
for nature to recover with such gaping holes in key mechanisms to fund and assess efforts. In the cold light of day, Cali can only be seen as a disappointment.”