The UN Biodiversity Conference 2024 has ended. What has been achieved and what hasn't? WUR-researchers Jeanne Nel, Jelle Behagel and Liesje Mommer reflect on the outcomes.
This COP16 was both an "Implementation COP". And a "People's COP". The "Implementation COP" involved formal negotiations around how countries will implement their promises made in the new Global Biodiversity Framework. The "Implementation COP" was extremely disappointing. I am appalled that only 22% of the Member States submitted their national strategies and action plans. These are essentially their formal strategies that outline how governments will make good on their promised commitments. Not handing them in could be an issue around resources, but often it is a political play too.
How can we possibly get going with the urgency of implementation if governments are not taking their NBSAPs seriously? The science is very clear - the window of opportunity for acting on both biodiversity loss and climate change is rapidly disappearing. We cannot afford these delays. I am also dismayed that the negotiations around a robust monitoring framework - the responsibility and accountability of implementing commitments - was overshadowed by funding and funding mechanisms. Yes, this funding is important, but there is also a lot that countries can do to just get started. We have learnt from the failure of the previous Aichi Global Biodiversity Framework that without a robust responsibility and accountability framework, we do not progress towards global targets.
On the other side, the "People's COP" hosted by the Colombian Presidency to bring along the public - and especially indigenous and local voices - was a huge success. I get goosebumps watching the moment when agreement was reached to establish a new permanent and subsidiary body to enhance engagement and participation of indigenous and local communities in all biodiversity convention processes. We have heard of so many incredible bottom-up initiatives involving these custodians of nature who are working to show how human-nature relations are also human-human relations - we are all interconnected with nature. Their voices in the room - with inherent values of nature - make a big different. Local initiatives and ordinary people are mobilising around "Peace WITH Nature" despite weak government commitment! This to me is inspiring. My ultimate dream is that these initiatives, rooted back in their communities, become the massive-small action routes we need to finally get society moving.
At WUR, we are working hard on both sides. We are supporting government policy and decision-making processes, and also working to build critical momentum in diverse local initiatives - among individuals, local communities, and public and private initiatives.
Jelle Behagel, associate professor with the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group:
COP16 has not formally ended, but was suspended early Saturday morning in Cali after so many delegates had already left the COP to catch their planes home and resulted in a lack of quorum needed for decision-making. It will likely reopen sometime in the coming months at the secretariat in Montreal, so that parties may approve the budget for the coming two years of work of the CBD. Big decisions that were not taken during the meeting in Cali however will likely have to wait until the next COP17 that will be held in Armenia in 2026.
Two of those stand out. One was the monitoring framework to assess progress of the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that was adopted at COP15, two years ago. While a consensus text was ready to be adopted on the floor, it was considered to be a package deal together with the decision on resource mobilisation strategy. The latter was stuck in between calls from developing countries to create a new biodiversity fund in 2030 and the reluctance of the developed to do so, as two new funds were already agreed on the last two years and "new funds do not mean new funding". As the meeting abruptly ended due to a lack of quorum, neither monitoring framework nor resource mobilisation strategy were adopted. Either way, meeting the target of the resource mobilisation strategy to mobilise 200 billion USD per year for biodiversity by 2030 was already on shaky grounds even if the strategy was adopted and now seems a faraway goal.
With two of the three major decisions that were expected to come out of the COP16 having failed, at least there was success to report on the third one: DSI. An instrument on Digital Sequence Information was adopted on the plenary floor only moments before the meeting was suspended. It calls for large companies that directly or indirectly benefit from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources in sectors such as pharmaceutical and cosmetics to donate either 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue in the newly agreed-on "Cali fund". That fund will be distributed by countries themselves, but they will have to send at least 50% of that money to indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC). A caveat on the instrument on DSI is that soft legal language was used ("should" instead of "shall") and that one of the largest economies of the world, the US, is not a party to the CBD.
Still, there is hope this could generate around a billion USD per year for biodiversity, if the relevant sectors step up their commitment to biodiversity conservation. Another clear success was the inclusion of IPLC in the formal working of the CBD. Both the adopted decision to establish a subsidiary body on implementation (SBI) related to indigenous peoples and local communities and the decision on acknowledging the contributions of people of African descent to biodiversity conservation mark a step forward for inclusive conservation. While the role of IPLC in biodiversity conservation today is widely acknowledged in public discourse, their formal recognition in UN agreements was lagging behind. Reference to IPLC was still a hotly debated topic for the GBF two years ago, in Cali their role has become mainstream.
The presidency of Colombia, with the adoption of a few important decisions on IPLC and DSI, fulfilled their promise to the people of Colombia. Cali was chosen as avenue especially because it is home (or close to home) to so many indigenous peoples and to so much biodiversity at the same time. A decision on benefit-sharing of genetic resources moreover fits the ideals of the current government on the political left. While Susana Muhamad, as Colombian chair of the COP, worked as hard as she could to get the other decision through as well, the new executive director of the CBD, Astrid Schomaker, was noticeably absent from public view. Looking back, one cannot escape the notion that more could have been done to build consensus on resource mobilisation, which is so direly needed to reverse the ongoing trend of biodiversity loss. The COP was suspended while bitter words were flung by Bolivia and Brazil towards the global North on the finance situation and there was no time left to resolve it. Such an ending does not build trust for future meetings and undermines the spirit of global multilateralism. Yet we do not seem to have an alternative. Nature cannot wait much longer.
