The 16th World Conference on Biodiversity (COP16) held in Cali, Colombia, ended with some important issues still unresolved and only limited progress made for Indigenous communities. The conference highlighted how challenging global biodiversity negotiations can be.
Minimal Step for Indigenous Rights
A step forward was made for securing a permanent representation for indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Until now, indigenous voices were part of a provisional working group, and advocates had to consistently renegotiate their mandates. This new permanent body signifies a momentous recognition of the role indigenous communities play in biodiversity conservation. As Jennifer Corpuz of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity remarked, the new body “moves us up the hierarchy,” providing these communities with a stronger platform to influence policies that directly impact their lands and ecosystems.
Establishment of a Voluntary Tax for the use of Genetic Resources
COP16 also saw the endorsment of a voluntary tax framework aimed at the fair sharing of benefits from the commercial use of genetic sequences found in plants and animals. The mechanism, enshrined in what is now called the “Cali Fund,” will require larger corporations in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to contribute 0.1% of their revenue (or 1% of profits) to the fund. This fund aims to accumulate up to €1 billion annually, with half of the generated resources directed to indigenous peoples and local communities. However, challenges remain regarding the voluntary nature of these contributions, with critics like the NGO Birdlife International warning that without mandatory contributions, some corporations may evade their obligations.
Financing Stalemates and North-South Tensions
While some small progress was made on indigenous rights and genetic resource sharing issues, the core issue of biodiversity financing saw no resolution. Developing countries, led by South Africa and Zimbabwe, argued for the creation of a dedicated biodiversity fund to address the estimated $700 billion annual funding gap needed to preserve global biodiversity. They criticized existing funds for being overly bureaucratic and difficult to access, especially for smaller and less developed nations.
However, wealthier countries, including the European Union, Canada, and Japan, opposed the new fund, arguing that it could divert resources from existing financial commitments. France’s Minister for Ecological Transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, dismissed the proposal as a “political distraction,” sparking further friction between nations. For many representatives from the Global South, this opposition highlights persistent imbalances in the global environmental financing structure, exacerbating frustration over what they perceive as limited support for their conservation efforts.
Disarming Indifference From The Delegations
The conference’s final session on Saturday, November 2, ended unexpectedly when the United Nations CBD declared that a quorum was no longer present, due to several delegations having already left Cali. This premature ending left many key items, including a comprehensive roadmap for tracking biodiversity progress, unresolved. Panama’s spokesperson lamented that he was “the last representative of my delegation,” capturing a broader sense of unfinished business felt by many participants.
Minister Muhamad, acknowledging the tension, stated that the absence of an agreed financial strategy was due to “a lack of trust and understanding between states.” The representative from Burkina Faso, Moumouni Ouedraogo, echoed this sentiment, pointing out that while some milestones were achieved, the conference ended with a palpable sense of incomplete work.
Conclusion
The debates at COP16 underscored a persistent divide between wealthy nations and developing countries over financing and responsibility, a divide that will likely continue to shape future environmental negotiations, including the upcoming COP29 on climate in Baku.
The biodiversity community will reconvene to revisit unresolved items and ensure countries are equipped to meet the ambitious targets set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Achieving the 2030 targets, which include conserving 30% of the Earth’s land and oceans and closing the $700 billion annual financing gap, remains essential for protecting global ecosystems.
In summary, while achieving modest goals for indigenous rights and resource sharing, COP16 underscores the need for stronger, more equitable commitments to biodiversity funding—commitments that governments are clearly unable to meet.
As governments fall short, the hope is that this ‘unfinished business’ will inspire the private sector to step up. Carbon credits or biodiversity credits are not the only solutions, nor are they perfect, but they are currently the most efficient and rapid way to channel investment towards nature.
