The conclusion of COP16, the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was met with a mixture of optimism and frustration in Cali, Colombia. Although there were significant strides made, including the establishment of the new “Cali Fund” for benefit-sharing from digital sequence information (DSI), several critical issues particularly around funding mechanisms were left unresolved as delegates departed.
The conference, held over a two-week span, aimed to bolster global biodiversity conservation through ambitious commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). But a lack of quorum in the final hours saw the meeting suspended before all agenda items could be addressed. This outcome has raised concerns over the implementation of biodiversity targets and the financial support needed for global biodiversity initiatives.
A High-Intensity Finish: Delays and Absences Disrupt Final Negotiations
The final stretch of COP16 became an intense 24-hour sprint, as negotiators from 196 countries worked around the clock to push through pending decisions. Key items on the table included the creation of an expanded biodiversity fund to aid developing nations, new mechanisms for monitoring biodiversity progress, and the finalization of a comprehensive Resource Mobilization Strategy to bridge a funding gap estimated at $200 billion annually by 2030.
However, these plans stalled when negotiators from numerous countries departed early to meet travel commitments, leaving a partial quorum that forced an official suspension of the meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity Information Officer David Ainsworth confirmed that the meeting’s suspension meant many critical decisions were left in limbo. Although decisions adopted before the suspension remain valid, some of the most challenging issues, such as the wider biodiversity fund, remain unresolved.
The “Cali Fund”: A Milestone for Benefit-Sharing, Despite Unanswered Questions
Among the key successes of COP16 was the establishment of a new global fund the “Cali Fund”dedicated to sharing profits from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) derived from genetic resources. Under the framework, companies that utilize DSI for product development are expected to contribute a portion of their revenues to the fund. A notable agreement was that 50% of the fund’s resources will directly benefit Indigenous Peoples and local communities, especially women and youth. This aims to acknowledge and reward the role of these communities in conserving genetic biodiversity.
While widely lauded as a step forward, the Cali Fund’s details are still under development, with stakeholders like WWF International acknowledging its potential but also highlighting the need for further refinement. WWF’s Director General, Kirsten Schuijt, expressed cautious optimism, noting that while the fund is a meaningful addition, its operational specifics will be critical to its success in contributing to biodiversity goals.
Funding Gaps Persist: Challenges in Securing Biodiversity Financing
Despite this breakthrough, significant financial challenges loom large. A core aspect of COP16 discussions revolved around mobilizing resources to meet KMGBF targets, particularly for developing countries that are disproportionately affected by biodiversity loss. Developed countries had previously committed to providing $20 billion annually in biodiversity funding by 2025. However, current contributions fall short, with only $407 million pledged so far to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF).
The Finance for Biodiversity Foundation (FfB Foundation) was among several organizations that expressed disappointment over the lack of progress on a comprehensive Resource Mobilization Strategy, which is essential to meet the $200 billion annual funding target by 2030. FfB Foundation Executive Director Anita de Horde emphasized that a robust strategy would not only increase investments in nature but also encourage regulatory policies for private-sector transparency on biodiversity impacts.
Unresolved Agenda: Monitoring Progress and Accountability Mechanisms
Other items left unresolved included a framework for monitoring progress towards KMGBF targets. Parties were set to discuss mechanisms for periodic “stocktakes” in 2026 and 2030, which would enable accountability in meeting biodiversity goals. These stocktakes were seen as vital for evaluating country-level progress and reinforcing global commitments to halt biodiversity loss by 2030.
Without these measures, experts warn, countries may lack the tools to effectively track and report their biodiversity achievements, making it difficult to hold them accountable for progress. Monitoring discussions will likely be revisited when the COP16 sessions resume at a future date.
Recognizing Indigenous and Local Community Rights: Article 8(j) Adoption
One area that saw progress was the adoption of the Article 8(j) work program, which guarantees the involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in implementing biodiversity strategies. This decision formalizes the role of traditional knowledge holders, such as Indigenous and Afro-descendant groups, in biodiversity conservation, honoring their contributions and ensuring they have a voice in future negotiations and projects.
This move aligns with efforts to achieve “peace for nature” by integrating local communities’ perspectives into biodiversity efforts. The decision was praised by biodiversity experts as a pivotal step in fostering inclusivity and sustainability within global biodiversity governance.
Mainstreaming Biodiversity Across Sectors and Environmental Health
In addition to local community involvement, COP16 also advanced initiatives for mainstreaming biodiversity across various sectors. The conference saw the launch of the Mainstreaming Champions Group, a government-led initiative aimed at integrating biodiversity considerations into agriculture, fisheries, and infrastructure planning. Supported by 18 countries, this group is expected to encourage more parties to adopt biodiversity-friendly policies within key economic sectors.
Further, COP16 adopted an action plan connecting biodiversity and human health, alongside progress in defining Ecologically Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in oceans. The latter aims to conserve 30% of ocean areas by 2030, a significant step toward safeguarding marine biodiversity in alignment with the KMGBF.
The Road Ahead: Lessons from COP16 as Parties Look to COP29 in Baku
With COP29 in Baku approaching, attention now shifts to how countries will reconcile unresolved issues from COP16. Key among these will be aligning National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, a step seen as vital to bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate agendas.
Biodiversity champions welcome the renewed focus on collaboration between the biodiversity and climate conventions, as well as efforts to enhance funding transparency to avoid “double-counting” of nature and climate finance. This integrated approach is crucial for achieving the KMGBF’s ambitious targets.
However, the abrupt conclusion of COP16 has underscored the urgency of addressing logistical challenges to ensure a full quorum in future meetings. Experts caution that as biodiversity and climate crises escalate, it is imperative for global leaders to demonstrate unity and commitment in international negotiations.
WWF’s Schuijt warned that the inability to finalize key funding agreements jeopardizes the KMGBF’s implementation, and called on parties to take stronger action ahead of COP29. “Delivering the mission to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 was never going to be easy, but we cannot allow bureaucratic setbacks to derail this mission. The stakes for biodiversity and humanity are far too high,” she said.
Final Thoughts: A Mixed Legacy for COP16
COP16 in Cali will be remembered for both its achievements and its shortcomings. The establishment of the Cali Fund marks a milestone in benefit-sharing, yet delayed financing commitments threaten to slow momentum on biodiversity conservation efforts. Although some progress was made in mainstreaming biodiversity and strengthening Indigenous rights, the inability to conclude critical funding and monitoring mechanisms leaves much work for future COP sessions.
As the world grapples with unprecedented biodiversity loss, the outcomes of COP16 highlight the urgent need for cohesive and committed international action. The path forward may be uncertain, but the stakes for biodiversity and the planet remain undeniably high.
