COP16 Biodiversity Summit 2024: Report on Conclusions
10 Min Read
The following is a blog written by The Borrowed Earth Project’s Zahra Sarfraz Chattha, who has been covering the 16th Biodiversity COP (COP16) in Cali Columbia in October.
In this comprehensive assessment of the talks, Zahra sums up the overall feeling at the end of the COP, and takes us through the ten key accomplishments and obstacles that remain on the agenda for future Biodiversity COPs.
1. Cali Fund is launched: Paying a fee for profits from nature
2. Strengthening the role of Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs) in biodiversity efforts
3. Funding biodiversity: A strategy for resource mobilization
4. Implementing and Monitoring Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
5. Synthetic Biology
6. Invasive Alien Species
7. Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs)
8. Sustainable Wildlife Management and Plant Conservation
9. Biodiversity and Health
10. Risk Assessment
Our thanks to Zahra for putting this comprehensive summary together.
“The pace of COP16 negotiations did not reflect the urgency of the crisis we are facing”
— Catherine Weller Director of Global Policy Fauna & Flora
With nature being on the brink of burnout, the most anticipated biennial global biodiversity meeting ended abruptly with no staunch decisions on key issues of financing and implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework ‘’K-M GBF”
Commenting on the suspension of the meeting, Kirsten Schuijt, Director General, WWF International said:
“Despite Colombia’s valiant efforts and the tireless work of many negotiators to find consensus and build bridges between countries, this outcome jeopardizes the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Nobody should be okay with this – because it will impact us all. Delivering the mission to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 was never going to be easy, but we’re now veering dangerously off track.”
The final plenary of the 16th Conference of Parties COP16 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recently concluded at the wee hours of 2nd November at Cali, Colombia.
There were great expectations that the Colombian hosts would be able to bring both developed and developing countries together to work toward the historic global biodiversity agreement that was agreed at COP15 in Montreal, Canada, two years ago. During the two-week summit, nations aimed to advance important goals like reforming parts of the global financial system that damage the environment, and preserving 30% of the planet for wildlife. Negotiations, however, came to an abrupt stop after two weeks and one sleepless night. With important issues still unresolved, many delegates had to depart to catch flights home.
Many nations were incensed over the length of the negotiations, and the way they were conducted, which left important subjects up for debate at the last minute.
“This COP was meant to be a status check on countries’ progress toward saving nature, and all indicators on that status are blinking red.”
Key Takeaways and Potholes at COP16: the World’s Largest Meeting to Save Nature
Operationalizing the K-M GBF and setting a trajectory for a nature-positive 2030 were the main goals of COP 16.
Among its accomplishments were the establishment of the Cali Fund and the Indigenous-led subsidiary organization, which were moves toward more equitable and inclusive conservation. However, the summit's tumultuous conclusion and unresolved concerns demonstrate that implementation and ambition are not the same.
1. Cali Fund is launched: Paying a fee for profits from nature
Having agreed at COP 15 to establish a multilateral mechanism, including a global fund, to share the benefits from uses of digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI) more fairly and equitably, delegates at COP 16 made progress on its implementation– a historic decision of global importance.
This complex decision addresses how pharmaceutical, biotechnology, animal and plant breeding and other industries benefiting from DSI should share those benefits with developing countries and Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Developing world countries will benefit from a large part of this fund, with allocations to support implementation of the K-MGBF, according to the priorities of those governments.
At least half of the funding is expected to support the self-identified needs of indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth within those communities, through government or by direct payments through institutions identified by indigenous peoples and local communities. Some funds may support capacity building and technology transfer.
Voluntary aspect of DSI
“If you acknowledge the biodiversity crisis as a user of DSI, [and] you acknowledge that you depend on biodiversity for your own organization, [then] you should also agree that protecting that biodiversity takes money...Voluntary contributions simply won’t add up.””
Notably, the approved language does not say “must.” But even so, “should” is stronger than “may,” an option proposed by corporate lobbyists that was ignored by delegates. So DSI technically remains voluntary. However, there are high expectations that the newly-named Cali Fund agreement will lead to tropical nations passing laws that require corporations to pay DSI fees.
2. Strengthening the role of Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs) in biodiversity efforts
In a landmark decision at COP 16, Parties adopted a new Programme of Work on Article 8(j) and other provisions of the Convention related to indigenous peoples and local communities. This transformative Programme sets out specific tasks to ensure the meaningful contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities towards the three objectives of the Convention ((a) the conservation of biological diversity, b) the sustainable use of biological diversity, and c) the fair and equitable sharing of benefits), as well as the implementation of the K-MGBF. Through this Programme, rights, contributions and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities are further embedded in the global agenda.
Parties also agreed to establish a new permanent subsidiary body on article 8j and other Provisions, with its modus operandi to be developed over the next two years. The new Subsidiary Body is expected to elevate issues related to the implementation of Article 8j and enhance the engagement and participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in all convention processes.
A further decision was taken to recognize the role of people of African descent, comprising collectives embodying traditional lifestyles, in implementing the Convention and in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
A commendable inclusion
However, For the first time at COP16, in an unprecedented move the nature’s guardians have taken a seat at the table. This development recognizes the critical role of Indigenous communities, who manage around 80% of the world’s biodiversity, in preserving ecosystems and combating climate change.
“This landmark step not only reshapes [the U.N.’s] approach to biodiversity and traditional knowledge, but also sets a powerful example for Indigenous peoples to be involved in the climate change conventions and other mechanisms”
- Lakpa Nuri Sherpa, Co-chair of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.
3. Funding biodiversity: A strategy for resource mobilization
Parties at COP 16 will resume discussions to approve a new “Strategy for Resource Mobilization” to help secure $200 billion annually by 2030 from all sources to support biodiversity initiatives worldwide, representing one of the K-MGBF’s goals. Another is the redirection by 2030 of $500 billion per year in subsidies that harm biodiversity.
Parties will also look at the possible creation of a new dedicated global financing instrument for biodiversity to receive, disburse, mobilize and articulate funding needs.
To date the Convention has been able to count on resources mobilized to support the goals and targets of the GBF through a variety of bilateral arrangements, private, and philanthropic sources, as well as dedicated funds such as:
The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), agreed at COP 15 in 2022 and established in less than a year by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The fund accepts contributions from governments, the private sector, and philanthropies, and finances high-impact projects in developing regions, with emphasis on supporting countries with fragile ecosystems, such as small island states and economies in transition. To date, 11 donor countries as well as the Government of Quebec have pledged nearly US $400 million to the GBF Fund, with US $163 million pledged during COP 16.
The Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF), launched at COP 16 with a US $200 million contribution from the Government of China. The KBF supports accelerated action to deliver 2030 Agenda and SDG targets and 2050 goals of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework, particularly in developing countries.
COP 16 also considered an evaluation of the effectiveness of the GEF, which serves as the financial mechanism of the Convention. The evaluation noted that the GEF has made significant progress in its role in resource mobilization and in supporting the implementation of activities that achieve the objectives of the CBD. The report of the GEF to COP 16 noted that during the first two years of its current funding cycle (GEF-8), the GEF approved 2.42 billion in direct support to the KMGBF.
Financing issues remained in disarray
On a negative note, COP 16 was eventually suspended due to disagreements over a number of funding decisions that were necessary to solve the biodiversity problem. The projected USD 200 billion required yearly to address the biodiversity catastrophe is still far less than pledges. Furthermore, the Cali Fund is — at least temporarily — voluntary, which makes it unclear how much it can actually generate.
Significant financing is needed to solve these challenges effectively, yet COP16's greatest shortcoming was in this area. As delegates hurried to the Cali airport, finance was still one of the unresolved matters.
Neither objective is nearly accomplished. However, during COP16, the conversation about how to get there never got underway. The U.N. said that financial negotiations will resume in Bangkok in less than a year. However, the overall financing outcome at Cali was deeply disappointing.
NBSAPs Tracker reveals marred response from the stakeholders
The world needs to see much more clarity on how leaders plan to close these gaps in action and finance. All 190+ countries represented in Cali were expected to submit National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by the end of the summit outlining concrete steps to meet their collective goals. Yet just 44 did so. More than 100 put forth high-level biodiversity targets, but without formal action plans to achieve them.
While countries agreed to a progress review in 2026, no consensus was reached on the indicators to be used at COP16.. Progress was painfully slow.
4. Implementing and Monitoring K-M GBF
Delegates also took stock of progress in implementing the K-MGBF since its creation in 2022. Some 119 countries, representing the majority of CBD’s 196 Parties, submitted national biodiversity targets – policy measures and actions to help reach the 23 KM GBF targets.
Additionally, to date 44 countries have submitted National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans as the policy document which will support the implementation of these national targets.
5. Synthetic Biology
Synthetic biology was a prominent topic at COP 16, with an eye toward its potential benefits while considering the risks. To address inequity in the participation of developing countries in the synthetic biology field, the decision introduces a new thematic action plan to help address the capacity-building, technology transfer and knowledge-sharing needs of Parties, and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. By helping countries assess and apply synthetic biology technologies, COP 16 aims to foster innovation while safeguarding biodiversity.
An expert group will guide identification of synthetic biology’s potential benefits and review the potential impacts of recent technological developments – a unique opportunity to explore synthetic biology in relation to the CBD’s three fundamental objectives and in implementing the K-MGBF.
6. Invasive Alien Species
COP 16’s decision on invasive alien species addresses one of the top five direct drivers of biodiversity loss, highlighting the need for international cooperation, capacity-building, and technical support for developing countries. It proposes guidelines for managing invasive alien species, touching on issues such as e-commerce, multicriteria analysis methodologies and others.
New databases, improved cross-border trade regulations, and enhanced coordination with e-commerce platforms aim to address gaps in managing invasive species risks and align with the goals of KMGBF, where cross-sectoral and collaborative approaches are central to biodiversity protection.
7. Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs)
COP 16 agreed on a new and evolved process to identify ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs). Under the CBD, work on EBSAs, which identifies the most critical and vulnerable parts of the ocean, began in 2010 and became a central area of onean-related work. Continued development of the programme was stymied for more than 8 years due to legal and political concerns.
COP 16 gave new life to this process, agreeing on new mechanisms to identify new EBSAs and update existing ones, ensuring that the cataloging of information of these areas can support planning and management with the most advanced science and knowledge available.
This comes at a time when EBSAs can play an important role for marine biodiversity protection, with major steps being taken to implement the 30x30 protected areas target and to prepare for the future implementation of the new agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.
“COP16 delivered mixed results for the ocean. Countries adopted two important ocean-related technical decisions, but failed to reach consensus on the resource mobilization and review mechanisms needed to drive progress for the ocean across the Global Biodiversity Framework, …If countries reconvene as expected in 2025 to address these outstanding issues, they must come prepared to deliver on their promises. We have no time to waste.”
The negotiations appear ambitious but the outcomes fell far short of expectations.
The first official progress report on the global "30x30 goal," which calls on countries to protect 30% of the world's land and water by 2030, was released during COP16. It found that just over 17% of the world's land area and a mere 8% of marine and coastal areas are currently protected.
This shows progress: Over 2.3 million square kilometers were added to the total since 2020, an area twice the size of Colombia. Yet, the road ahead remains steep. To meet the target, countries must collectively protect another 16.7 million square kilometers of land (an area nearly the size of Russia) and over 78 million square kilometers of marine and coastal areas (more than twice the size of Africa) by 2030.
8. Sustainable Wildlife Management and Plant Conservation
Among the most crucial areas of discussion was the protection of wild species. A decision on sustainable wildlife management underscores the necessity of monitoring, capacity-building, and the inclusive participation of indigenous peoples, local communities, and women. To this end, the decision calls for the cooperation of international bodies like CITES and FAO to implement. The framework encourages research on how wildlife use, biodiversity loss, and zoonotic diseases are interconnected, a vital area for a world increasingly aware of the public health implications of biodiversity loss.
Additionally, COP 16 saw a commitment to align plant conservation efforts with the KMGBF monitoring framework. This includes updating the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation with specific indicators and a standardized reporting template, ensuring that progress in plant protection is measurable and consistent with global biodiversity targets.
9. Biodiversity and Health
At COP 16, CBD Parties approved a Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health designed to help curb the emergence of zoonotic diseases, prevent non-communicable diseases, and promote sustainable ecosystems. The strategy embraces a holistic “One Health” approach that recognizes the health of ecosystems, animals, and humans as interconnected.
Recognizing that biodiversity loss and poor health often share common drivers—such as deforestation, pollution, and climate change—the Plan emphasizes the urgency of tackling these threats to benefit both ecosystems and humans.
The strategy underlines the need for education and promoting understanding of the connections between biodiversity and health, and the need to strengthen policies that promote sustainable ecosystems, support traditional medicine, and reduce habitat destruction. Special attention is accorded to vulnerable populations, including Indigenous peoples, who depend on local biodiversity for food, medicine, and cultural identity, as well as youth, seen as vital contributors to conservation and health initiatives.
At the heart of the plan is a collaborative framework that brings together health professionals, conservationists, and policymakers. The COP decision invites nations to designate national focal points for biodiversity and health, and to develop policies reflecting these interconnections, integrating biodiversity-health considerations in policies across the range of sectors from agriculture to urban planning.
Parties further called for close cooperation with international organizations, including the World Health Organization, to develop monitoring tools and metrics for assessing the progress of biodiversity-health initiatives.
10. Risk Assessment
In Cali, Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety welcomed new, voluntary guidance on assessing the risks posed by living modified organisms (LMOs) containing engineered gene drives, a milestone in international biosafety management aiming to bolster the scientific rigor and transparency of risk assessment procedures in the Protocol.
Engineered gene drives have the capacity to propagate genetic modifications rapidly through wild populations and the move to strengthen protocols comes amid increased debate over genetic engineering, particularly for applications for pest control, disease control, and agriculture. The new guidance prioritizes scientific transparency and accuracy in risk assessments, an essential step toward unified safety standards for managing LMOs worldwide.
The new guidance materials bring together the best available scientific resources and guidance materials available for environmental risk assessment, while also emphasizing the precautionary approach.
The voluntary nature of these guidelines allows individual countries to tailor assessments to national contexts, considering ecological variables unique to their environments. This flexibility is crucial in regions with diverse ecosystems and will help regulators make informed decisions, taking into account both the benefits and risks of LMOs with gene drives.
Environmental Crisis: Leaders must act now
COP16 formal negotiations were more sluggish and controversial than anticipated. However, the meeting took on a life of its own outside the negotiating rooms and throughout the congested streets of Cali.
People from all around the world came together to celebrate biodiversity and generate momentum for its protection, engaging in everything from networking and open talks to song and dance. This wider involvement gave rise to a number of novel initiatives on cities, restoration, food and land use, financing for tropical forests, and other topics.
The conference demonstrated that a wide range of individuals are already stepping up to address the biodiversity threat.
The question now is whether leaders from businesses, governments, and other sectors will use this fervor and urgency to support globally revolutionary action. They are aware of what must be done. It's time to take action.
Campaigners are now hopeful that leaders can take up the mantle at the COP29 climate talks in Baku next week after a frustrating outcome on biodiversity at COP16.
“Looking beyond COP16, we cannot continue at this snail’s pace, and decisive, practical action must continue across the board “…Negotiators at COP29 must keep nature front and center of the climate agenda. Governments must work harder to get their national action plans through”