Reflections on CBD COP16, Financing Biodiversity, and Inclusive Outcomes
The 2024 United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, informally known as “COP 16,” was intended to focus on implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s goals to preserve 30% of the earth’s lands and waters by 2030 and secure $200B in annual commitments by 2030 to finance needed actions. Despite some significant breakthroughs, the meeting in Cali, Colombia ended in disarray late last month and before attendees were able to commit to a financing strategy. Falling far short of expectations, the meeting nevertheless including discussions of the role of indigenous-led efforts to protect and restore biodiversity, and biodiversity credits, as notes student contributor Stefanía Sibille Grández, who had the opportunity to attend the summit, in her reflections below. – CFN Staff
As an observer at the COP16, I witnessed a dynamic gathering of diverse actors engaged in discussions, negotiations, and side events dedicated to advancing the ambitious Kumming-Montreal framework. These conversations highlighted the importance of integrating diverse voices, aligning climate and biodiversity agendas—where restoration holds significant potential—and innovating financing mechanisms for nature, including the much-debated biodiversity credits, all while balancing different high-level ambitions with on-the-ground realities. Amid this complexity, the active participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) brought equity to the forefront, creating the Subsidiary Body 8J—a new permanent working group to ensure IPLC’s voice in biodiversity agreements—, and the Cali Fund. These outcomes reflected the conference's focus on inclusiveness and its ambition to be "the people's COP."
After attending New York Climate Week in September, I expected to see progress at COP16 on two key issues: implementation and finance. However, the discussion on how to conserve 30% of land, waters, and seas by 2030 (also known as the 30x30 target) was vague, as less than 25% of Parties had submitted their National Biodiversity Action Plans (NBSAPs). The link between climate and biodiversity was prominent during the discussions, with national efforts and private finance highlighted. This reflects this year's "tri-COP" approach (biodiversity, climate, and desertification), which emphasizes the interconnectedness of these crises and the need for integrated solutions.
In terms of financing, developing and developed countries highlighted contrasting approaches in the side events and negotiations. Among the range of financing sources for biodiversity discussed in the events, including public and multilateral funds and private sector mechanisms, developing countries shared their experiences with debt-for-nature swaps, while developed countries highlighted the impact of positive economic incentives such as taxes and payments for ecosystem services. This contrast in perspectives was also noted in the negotiations on Target 19, which calls for mobilizing $200 billion per year from all sources by 2030, but for at least $20 billion per year to come from developed countries by 2025. This disparity underscored conflicting priorities and the lack of consensus in negotiations.
One topic that attracted a large audience was biodiversity credits. The Biodiversity Credit Alliance defines a biodiversity credit as a certificate representing a measurable, evidence-based unit of positive biodiversity outcome that is durable and additional to what would have occurred without any intervention. The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB) launched the new Framework for High Integrity Biodiversity Credit Markets during the COP16.
This new framework is based on 21 principles grouped into three categories: verified outcomes for nature, equity and justice for people, and good governance for markets. The framework provides guidelines for developing high-integrity biodiversity credits, targeting projects and the market in general. During the launch, the IAPB’s co-chairs recognized that this market should not function like the carbon market because international offsetting has no place in it as the market’s focus is more local. They also emphasized that this market needs regulatory articulation to establish and manage habitat banks for proper growth.
Some NGOs, including Friends of the Earth, Third World Network, and the Indigenous Environmental Network, opposed the focus on biodiversity credits. They offered critical perspectives on this mechanism, arguing that it is a false solution to biodiversity loss since it promotes the continued destruction of ecosystems on a planet with no more land to degrade. Representatives of Indigenous Peoples actively participated in the conversation, stressing that this market must learn from the mistakes of the carbon market and respect the rights of IPLCs through robust governance systems and well-implemented Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) processes, where these groups are considered partners, not just beneficiaries.
A whole day focused on restoration and implementing Target 2 (restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems) at the national level. The United Nations Decade of Ecosystem Restoration launched new guidance and tools for monitoring national restoration progress. A roadmap for implementation and monitoring offered an indicator methodology to provide guidance on qualifiers, a framework consistent with reporting requirements, and capacity development and awareness for national planning, monitoring, and reporting. Although these high-level guidelines provide direction for governments, it remains to be seen how governments will adopt them and influence smaller-scale practitioners.
Negotiations got off to a slow start, especially on resource mobilization—to reach the aforementioned $200 billion—, which was left until the very end, leading to delays and even suspensions. Attendees, especially from developing countries, were left feeling like they had experienced a setback, given that the Biodiversity COP only meets every two years. Unfortunately, differences over creating a new fund for biodiversity conservation (proposed by developing countries) or using existing mechanisms like the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) (preferred by developed countries) prevented an early agreement. The lack of consensus on resource mobilization hinders the implementation of biodiversity action plans and delays the achievement of conservation and restoration outcomes at national and local levels.
COP16 did reach some agreements on other topics. The Subsidiary Body 8J was created in recognition of the local conservation efforts of indigenous peoples, local communities, and Afro-descendants. This body recognizes traditional knowledge at the international level and guarantees a permanent place for local voices in decision-making on biodiversity, rather than the temporary place they have had. This group of actors will also benefit from the new "Cali Fund," which will provide economic compensation to communities that protect the digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources used by companies like the pharmaceutical industry.
These two agreements (SB 8J and the Cali Fund) reflect COP16’s slogan, "the people's COP," where inclusiveness and equity were central. These values were also evident in the Green Zone, open to all, where thousands of people of all ages learned about biodiversity in Cali and Colombia more broadly, enjoying a global event that recognized the importance of biodiversity in their city. This zone sent a clear message to me: international negotiations and high-level agreements are made for the people and future generations, who are essential actors in biodiversity conservation.