COP16 – some breakthroughs made, but key issues left unresolved

2 November 2024 marked the conclusion of the 16^th meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the “Convention”) in Cali, Columbia (“COP16”). Over 23,000 representatives from governments, civil society and businesses attended COP16 - a record number for a biodiversity conference – which is a testament to the increasing importance being attributed to mitigating the risks associated with biodiversity loss. Much was expected of COP16, but despite some positive breakthroughs on using genetic resources and representation of indigenous peoples, little-to-no progress was made with regards to funding.

In this update, we provide a summary of COP16, the main conclusion of which is that we should all hope for a better COP17.

Background

At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, 150 governments signed the Convention, with the aim of promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. Meetings of the parties to the Convention, known as “COPs”, have been held every two years thereafter.

The conclusion of COP15, which was held in Montreal, Canada in 2022 and attended by over 1,000 businesses, marked one of the most significant steps on the road to developing a nature-positive economy: the adoption of the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the “Framework”).

The Framework, which has been dubbed the “Paris Agreement for Nature”, contains four global goals to be achieved by 2050 and 23 underlying targets to be achieved by 2030. These goals and targets focus on, among other things, (i) ensuring at least 30% of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water and marine / coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration by 2030, (ii) mobilising at least $200 billion from both private and public sector actors per year by 2030 to implement National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (“NBSAPs”), (iii) ensuring the full, equitable and inclusive representation and participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making processes, and (iv) reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of invasive alien species by at least 50% by 2030.

At COP16, governments were tasked with reviewing the state of implementation and operationalisation of the Framework. They were also tasked with presenting national strategies on how they plan to meet the targets under the Framework, known as NBSAPs, as well has with coming to an agreement on sharing the benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information (“DSI”) on flora and fauna genetic resources.

What happened at COP16?

(1) All quiet on the funding front.

As noted above, under the Framework, governments agreed to collectively mobilise at least $200 billion in annual funding under the Framework. Despite that fact that the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (“GBFF”) has been established for these purposes, so far, only seven countries have committed funds, to the sum of approximately $243 million.

During COP16, there were calls for countries to commit funds to the GBFF and even a proposal to abolish and replace the GBFF, with arguments reemerging from COP15 regarding the suitability of the Global Environment Facility to manage the GBFF. Concerns were also once again raised about the ability of indigenous peoples to access the GBFF.

Unfortunately, countries did not agree on how best to mobilise the annual $200 billion in conservation funding, meaning that the can has well and truly been kicked down the road to COP17.

(2) Absent NBSAPs.

Governments committed to submitting NBSAPs ahead of COP16, which were meant to outline how countries will implement the goals and targets of the Framework. However, approximately only 23% of the parties to the Convention submitted their NBSAPs at COP16.

To address this, at the end of the summit, a new decision text on NBSAPs was adopted, urging countries that have not yet submitted NBSAPs to do so “as soon as possible”. Despite the UK government’s efforts to amend the wording to “as soon as possible and no later than October 2025”, no specific timeframes were adopted, meaning it has very much been left in the hands of the governments themselves to submit their NBSAPs.

(3) Agreement on the use of DSI.

COP16 was not all doom and gloom: countries agreed a plan to charge companies for the use of DSI on flora and fauna genetic resources in the research and development of new commercial products and put the proceeds into a new DSI fund.

The plan specifies that companies that meet two of the following three criteria will need to contribute 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue to the new DSI fund: (1) sales of more than USD 50 million, (2) profits of more than USD 5 million and (3) USD 20 million in total assets. Importantly, the funding will be ring-fenced for investment in nature conservation and restoration, and at least 50% will be allocated to indigenous peoples.

Until now, most DSI has been accessed for free on global databases, to the detriment of countries rich in flora and fauna genetic resources. It is hoped that the plan – which will need to be implemented by national governments - will generate around $1 billion annually, thereby empowering those countries rich in genetic resources.

However, given the farcical ending of COP16, with the majority of delegatees having to leave early to catch flights, it is unclear if enough countries were present to formalise the vote that passed this plan.

(4) A “watershed moment” for indigenous representation.

COP16 also marked the formal incorporation of indigenous peoples in the official decision-marking of the UN biodiversity process.

Thus far, the role of indigenous peoples in the UN biodiversity process has been limited to an informal working group. However, it was agreed at COP16 that indigenous peoples should have a permanent body, allowing them to contribute to negotiations formally. This has been described as a “watershed moment in the history of multilateral environmental agreements” by a lead negotiator for the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Jennifer “Jing” Corpuz.

Let’s hope for a better COP17

Given the reemergence of contentious issues from COP15, it is difficult to be too hopeful of what lies ahead. There is, however, an interim meeting being held in Bangkok in 2025 to hopefully resolve the unresolved funding issue, which is a prerequisite to any real progress being made at COP17. Only time will tell if such a resolution is reached.