Stalemate at COP16 has left global biodiversity progress uncertain  – Inside track

This post is by Ben Parker, Bethan Laughlin and Georgina Chandler of the Zoological Society of London. It ends our COP16 miniseries, a collection of blogs spotlighting this yearâ€s UN Biodiversity Conference.   

In the early hours of a winter’s day in 2022, the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted to rapturous applause. It was heralded as an ambitious, potentially pivotal moment for nature, with its pathway for halting and reversing biodiversity loss. But the challenge remains huge; around one million plant and animal species are threatened by extinction, wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 73 per cent in the past 50 years, and the finance gap for conserving and restoring biodiversity exceeds $700 billion per year.  

Enter COP16 which has taken place this year amidst Colombiaâ€s remarkable biodiversity, it was the first COP since the passage of the GBF and focused on collectively assessing its progress and further incentivising its implementation. Yet, as the rousing music of the opening ceremony rang around Amazonia Hall, only 33 of 196 countries had submitted their updated GBF-aligned National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (although this has since reached 44).  

Several important topics lay on the table, for instance: strengthening the roles of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IP&LCs), as well as Afro-descendent communities; enhancing biodiversity and climate alignments and synergies; leveraging resources from private sector organisations using digital sequence information on genetic resources; and improving how finance is mobilised and disseminated for GBF implementation.  

Two weeks later, the final plenary saw COP16 sputter to a close without agreement on major areas. With the plenary exceeding ten hours; by 8.30am a lack of quorum led to failure to agree on and pass key areas of implementation; notably, the monitoring framework, the strategy for resource mobilisation and the budget.  

There were outcomes to celebrate
COP16 was known as ‘the peopleâ€s COP†and speeches and negotiations widely applauded the contributions of groups to conservation, particularly IP&LCs, with COP President Susana Muhamad describing them as the “stewards of the worldâ€s biodiversityâ€.  

Despite complex, divisive negotiations, it was eventually agreed to strengthen the role of IP&LCs and allow them to consult on decisions officially. This is a testament to the hard work of many who, over many years, have been advocating for better representation of the rights, voices and views of IP&LCs. In a similar nod to the notion of ‘the peopleâ€s COPâ€, it was agreed to recognise the distinct roles of Afro-descendent communities in conservation.

It was noteworthy that the COP reached a consensus that biodiversity loss and climate change should be addressed together. For the first time, it adopted language promoting collaboration between the Rio Conventions on climate change, biodiversity and desertification. This lays groundwork for the possibility of a more co-ordinated and effective response to the planetary crisis, tackling these interconnected issues in interconnected ways. Hopefully, this will lead to a formal mechanism for joint action.

Negotiations on digital sequencing information saw staccato progress. Discussions and disagreements spanned allocation modality, database governance, potential for opt out, and, of course, the amount to be paid. Underlying and surrounding the proceedings was a palpable sense of corporate influence. Yet, it was agreed that companies that use digital sequencing, including those from the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and biotechnology sectors, should contribute 0.1 per cent of their revenue or one per cent of their profits to the new Cali Fund and, ultimately, to the places and peoples from where such genetic resources originate. Some estimate this will generate around a billion dollars a year, of which half will go to IP&LCs to support their contributions to conservation.

Time constraints and a lack of trust prevented consensus in key areas
Resource mobilisation and the financial mechanism were marked by disputes. Developing countries emphasised their desire for a new, dedicated global biodiversity fund, whereas developed countries directed attention to leveraging finance from all sources. Developing countries raised concerns over Global Environment Facility (GEF) funding (in terms of amount, fairness, accessibility, affordability and timeliness), whilst developed countries focused on its positive contributions towards biodiversity action. The negotiations were visibly hindered by a pernicious lack of trust.

Resource mobilisation and the financial mechanism enjoyed some progress, with the pledging session yielding contributions to the GBF Fund (GBFF) totalling $163 million. But the divides proved hard to bridge. The presidentâ€s text sought to compromise by proposing a comprehensive financial solution for closing the biodiversity finance gap, including a new, dedicated fund for biodiversity at COP17. It wasnâ€t clear whether this would be agreeable to several developing countries and the negotiations lasted so long that the plenary lost quorum and the COP was suspended.

This meant the contentious resource mobilisation and financial mechanism proposals werenâ€t properly discussed or passed, leaving considerable uncertainty over the strategy for financing GBF implementation. Likewise, there was no opportunity to discuss or pass items on monitoring, reporting and review, which impedes the review on progress scheduled for COP17, and delays urgent work needed on the conventionâ€s budget and secretariat.

In the end, time was against these late stage proposals. Now the conference has concluded and the focus shifts to the presidency to provide a clear and decisive path to COP17 in 2026, where these unresolved issues must be tackled head on.