COP 16 Columbia: Outcomes and Next Steps

COP16, the Convention on Biological Diversity's conference, marked a most important milestone for global biodiversity conservation in Cali, Colombia. Representatives from 196 countries gathered to tackle pressing challenges in biodiversity protection. The conference was pivotal for biodiversity action, building on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) set during COP 15. This year’s theme "Building Resilience for Biodiversity and Climate," set out ambitious targets to halt biodiversity loss, increase conservation efforts and ramp up funding for nature restoration. Despite some impressive wins, there were sadly significant setbacks. For instance, from the 119 nations that participated in COP 16 only 44 parties have submitted at least one National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAP).  In this article, Biodiversity Scientist Dr Alejandra Zazueta Lopez outlines the key COP 16 Columbia outcomes and next steps from the conference on biodiversity. 

Key COP 16 Columbia Outcomes

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, nicknamed the 'Cali Fund', marked a significant milestone at COP16. This fund aims to distribute benefits from digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources fairly and equitably. This fund showcases a trailblazing solution for biodiversity conservation that targets companies producing and selling DNA-based products from wild organisms. The UN supervises this multilateral mechanism that balances historical inequities in biodiversity resource use and maintains open access to genetic data for scientific progress 

What Does this Mean for Biodiversity? 

• The Cali Fund will require companies to contribute either 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue from DSI-based products. 

• Organisations can volunteer to participate while robust systems track and monitor their compliance. 

• The fund will distribute resources strategically to biodiversity-rich regions and developing nations. Half of all funds will go directly to Indigenous Peoples and local communities - a key commitment. 

The fund has received £133 million (around $163 million) in original pledges. Its voluntary nature creates new possibilities but also brings challenges to meet conservation goals. Robust monitoring systems will be essential in keeping the process transparent and allow regular reviews to improve the system's performance over time. 

Delegates made a landmark decision at the summit in Cali to approve a permanent subsidiary body dedicated to Indigenous people interests under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The conference also formally recognised Afro-descendant people as indispensable partners in global biodiversity conservation efforts. Their significant role in preserving some of the world's most biodiverse regions led to this acknowledgment. 

What Does this Mean for Biodiversity? 

• This decision creates new frameworks that enable Afro-descendant people to participate in global environmental governance. 

• Countries are encouraged to implement policies that enable Indigenous-led conservation. 

Research has shown that conservation outcomes improve when Indigenous communities manage protected areas. This body will give Indigenous communities a guaranteed voice in future UN biodiversity conventions instead of depending on nations' goodwill.

3. Agreement on Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) 

COP16 reached a breakthrough agreement on Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) through eight years of complex negotiations. There are 338 recognised EBSAs worldwide today, stretching from polar to equatorial regions and from coastal waters to deep oceans. These areas provide vital habitats for marine species, food sources and ecological services for humanity. The agreement created new mechanisms to identify and modify these significant marine zones. Nonetheless, we are still far from our goal to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. With only 8.4% of the ocean currently as Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s).  

What Does this Mean for Biodiversity? 

• The EBSA framework adapts well to different features - from permanent structures like seamounts to changing elements such as seasonal ocean circulation patterns 

• EBSA status does not automatically create management measures. However, it serves as a solid scientific foundation that helps creation of marine protected areas. Therefore, it is crucial that leaders and decision-makers act in not only identifying but protecting our oceans.  
  
  

Recognising the limitations of public funding, COP 16 explored biodiversity credits as a new tool to attract private sector investment. These credits allow companies to offset their environmental impacts by investing in biodiversity initiatives, potentially unlocking substantial funds for restoration projects. However, the credits sparked debate on ethics and effectiveness, highlighting the need for stringent guidelines to avoid “greenwashing”.  

What Does this Mean for Biodiversity? 

• Increased Funding for Restoration Projects: Biodiversity credits could channel substantial private funds into restoration initiatives. 

• Risk of Greenwashing Concerns: Without strict standards, there’s a danger that biodiversity credits could be misused for “greenwashing”. 

• Global Push for Comprehensive Biodiversity Metrics: The rise of biodiversity credits also highlights the need for reliable, science-based biodiversity metrics to measure the impact of conservation investments accurately. 

Setbacks from COP 16 

• Delay in Meeting Global Biodiversity Funding: Growing concerns about existing financial mechanisms led to a proposal for a new biodiversity fund. The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) has secured pledges totalling £328 million far short of the estimated £164 billion required annually by 2030 to reverse biodiversity loss, including £24.6 billion expected to come from wealthier nations.  

• Suspension of Monitoring Framework Negotiations: The two-week conference ended with an unexpected turn of events. Negotiations about biodiversity target monitoring hit a deadlock and came to a halt. This sudden suspension has created widespread worry about implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework effectively. 

• Inconclusive Talks on the Global Review Process: COP 16 ended with significant discussions about the global review process still unresolved. This outcome emphasised how complex it would be to create a working monitoring system for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Final plenary negotiations stretched over ten hours and failed to reach consensus leading to insufficient quorum. 

The Bottom Line 

COP 16 in Colombia demonstrated a strong commitment to the goals set under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, but the conference also highlighted the challenges of financing and implementing large-scale biodiversity initiatives. As countries move forward, their success will depend on actionable strategies, transparency, and the active involvement of Indigenous communities and the private sector. COP 16 has set a clear path, but sustained effort and international cooperation will be necessary to make these commitments a reality.