The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity has just concluded in Cali, Colombia. Representatives of UN countries are trying to negotiate measures to stop and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030, which threatens human well-being and the stability of human societies. The important point is who will pay to implement the measure and how much.
The highlight of COP16 was the involvement of Indigenous peoples and local communities – but otherwise it raised a big red flag: the country is not on track to meet the ’30×30′ target, which calls on the world to protect 30% of the world. land and sea by 2030.
How many setbacks is this?
The highest value of COP16 stocks
Including decision making:Negotiators reached an important agreement to create a permanent body made up of Indigenous people and members of local communities and agreed that this body’s input should be included in decisions on biodiversity conservation. The move is intended to protect traditional knowledge systems and strengthen representation and participation in policy making.
At COP16, negotiators also recognized the role of people of African descent in nature conservation and made sure they were included in biodiversity initiatives and helped integrate traditional knowledge and conservation practices into global efforts.
Biodiversity funding: COP16 created a framework called “Cali Fund”. This obligates major companies – especially in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors – to share the financial benefits obtained from the use of genetic resources with the communities that take care of these resources. Companies must contribute 0.1% of revenue or 1% of profits from products developed using genetic information to the fund. These figures can exceed $1 billion annually and should support biodiversity conservation projects and benefit local communities.
Half of the money from this fund will be allocated to Indigenous communities, to help with conservation efforts and to recognize their contribution to biodiversity. Contributions to the fund are voluntary, but they are a critical step in sharing the benefits more equitably in the realm of biodiversity, especially considering the challenges of global funding for biodiversity initiatives.
Defense of biodiversity: COP16 also proposed guidelines to manage invasive alien species, direct drivers of biodiversity loss, by developing new databases, improving cross-border trade regulations, and improving coordination with e-commerce platforms. This decision emphasizes the need for technical support, capacity building, and international cooperation among developing countries.
Momentum for blue: Negotiators also agreed to a new and updated process to identify ‘Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas’ (EBSAs), which are critical and vulnerable parts of the sea. This process has faced various political and legal obstacles since it started in 2008; COP16 was revived by approving a mechanism to update existing ESBAs and identify new ones.
‘Wrong Health’:The Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health established at COP16 underscores the need for a holistic ‘One Health’ approach, which requires a collective focus on ecosystem, animal, and human health. By addressing the common causes of biodiversity loss and poor health, such as deforestation and climate change, the plan aims to prevent zoonotic diseases, reduce non-communicable diseases, and promote sustainable ecosystems. It also encourages partnerships among health professionals, conservationists, and policy makers to develop tools and measures to track the progress of biodiversity and health initiatives.
Innovate with care:Reengineering organisms or creating new biological systems (synthetic biology) is an important topic of discussion at COP16. Applications – including bioengineered species for ecosystem restoration or sustainable materials to reduce resource strain – are promising as they address environmental challenges. However, researchers have been concerned about the risks and unintended ecological effects of introducing synthetic organisms that could disrupt ecosystems affecting natural species.
State representatives also discussed the regulatory framework to manage these risks and ensure a balance between innovation and conservation.
Lowest value from COP16
Among the issues that have not been resolved at the meeting, financial commitments and the lack of a monitoring framework are at the fore.
Uphill battle for finance:A major issue is the mobilization of financial resources to meet the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) target of $700 billion per year for biodiversity conservation by 2030, including $30 billion from developed to developing countries. But the pledge at the conference was only $163 million.
Disagreements over governance and the distribution of funds led to a stalemate, with discussions on financial mechanisms stalled without resolution. This is because developing countries support a global nature fund dedicated to conservation, while rich countries block the proposal due to concerns about the structure of the fund and the idea that the existing framework is sufficient to meet their financial needs.
Monitoring and implementation: GBF implementation is another key issue at COP16 but progress is limited. Only 44 out of 196 countries submitted an updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) review framework to assess their progress through a ‘global stocktake’. Many countries have still not submitted NBSAP. The lack of a mandatory enforcement framework could undermine these targets.
India at COP16
India unveiled an updated NBSAP at COP16, which outlines a roadmap for biodiversity conservation efforts aligned with the GBF. This updated plan aims to stop and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030 and achieve a harmonious coexistence with nature by 2050 through a “Whole-of-Government” and “Whole-of-Society” approach.
India is challenged with balancing conservation with economic growth. As such, the updated NBSAP outlines 23 national biodiversity targets and emphasizes a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. It mainly focuses on interagency cooperation, financial solutions, and involving community members to restore damaged ecosystems, protect wetlands, and sustainably manage marine and coastal areas.
Looking forward
Establishing an inclusive decision-making body and framework for benefit sharing shows progress. But without adequate financial commitments and robust monitoring mechanisms, reaching the 2030 targets will be difficult.
As countries reflect on the outcome of COP16, it is clear that biodiversity conservation is essential for environmental health, socio-economic resilience, and climate stability. For countries like India, where biodiversity is linked to cultural heritage and economic stability, the stakes are higher.
Governments should set ambitious targets and take steps to translate these into achievable, measurable and time-bound goals. Transparency in reporting and shared knowledge systems are essential to track progress and address gaps. As the world looks forward to COP17 in Armenia next year, collaborative action and cross-border efforts can make or break our ability to defeat the triple planetary crisis of pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss.
Aparna Sundaresan is a senior analyst and Indu K Murthy heads the Climate, Environment and Sustainability sector, both at the Center for the Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank.
Published – November 11, 2024 08:47 IST
