The United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP16) held in Cali (Colombia), from October 21 to November 1, ended without representatives of some 200 participating countries being able to reach an agreement on financing issues to protect biodiversity until 2030.
“The goal of stopping and even reverse the destruction of nature After this conference, the 2030 horizon remains a distant prospect,” lamented Florian Titze, international policy expert from WWF Germany.
Environmental protection organizations had asked countries participating in COP16 to they will reach a compromise of financing at the end of the negotiations last Friday, when the end of the summit was scheduled, which was finally extended beyond November 2.
Lack of financial support
The conference focused on the technical implementation of the global agreement for the conservation of biodiversity, adopted at the last meeting in Montreal two years ago, as well as financing issues. The main point of contention was how to distribute financial support to countries in the South.
“It is regrettable that the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity is ending sin which a strategy was adopted to raise more funds for nature conservation”, lamented the State Secretary of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Jochen Flasbarth.
“The result of COP16 represents a mixture of thingsadded Ginette Hemley, senior vice president of the World Wildlife Fund in the United States.
Reversing nature loss
“We have seen real progress on important issues such as the distribution of benefits linked to digital sequence information, health and biodiversity, integration of biodiversity into infrastructure and other sectors, and enable greater participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. But the lack of progress on financing will slow efforts to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030,” Hemley detailed.
A bittersweet feeling emerged during this summit on biodiversity, because the achievements of the negotiations concerning the recognition of indigenous peoples and the distribution of benefits from the use of genetic resources, but with a disappointment that spoiled the ending because there was no consensus on financing and resource mobilization, the most pressing issue.
At COP15, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted, an important milestone in the history of conservation. However, for its implementation it is necessary to establish where resources will come from and how they will be channeledand that was the task facing the countries at this summit in Cali.
Feeling of disappointment
The differences on the issue, which is always the most tangled on the table, meant that finally, after almost 24 hours of negotiation for financing, COP16 ended with a feeling of disappointment due to expectations that had and with the uncertainty of knowing whether it will be necessary to wait two years, until the next COP, in the Republic of Armenia, to return to the issue.
The marathon session completed many delegates will leave the plenary session, breaking the quorum necessary to make decisions and causing an atypical end to the summit.
Failure and uncertainty
The terms used by organizations and experts at the end of COP16 vary, from “failure» expressed by Greenpeace, from the lack of funding to the “uncertainty” which worries WWFbut everyone agrees that without agreements on resource mobilization, the conservation of biodiversity is in danger.
Everything seems to indicate that the negotiations on financing will be taken up at the next interim meeting to be held in Bangkok (Thailand) before COP17 in Armenia in 2026.
No financing agreement
“The governments of Cali presented their plans to protect nature, but they failed to reach agreements to mobilize funds to make this protection effective. Financing biodiversity remains stagnant after a deafening absence of credible promises by rich governments and an unprecedented economic lobby,” lamented Celia Ojeda, head of biodiversity at Greenpeace.
Ojeda added that “in Spain we are direct witnesses of the collapse of nature with the terrible events caused by DANA in Valencia and that people should not continue to pay the price of this destruction.”
For his part, the director of Campaign for Nature, Brian O’Donell, criticized the fact that “unfortunately, too many countries and UN officials came to Cali without the necessary urgency and level of ambition ensure outcomes at COP16 that address our species’ most pressing existential problem.
Discord between countries
“The discord between donor countries and developing countries shortly before the suspension of meeting unfortunately not surprisingbut if disappointing (…) Waiting any longer to make the much-needed decision on the fund dedicated to the Convention on Biological Diversity threatens the achievement of the natural targets for 2030,” said Bernadette Fischler, director of international advocacy for WWF-UK.
In return, everyone celebrates the “historic” approval of a subsidiary body of article 8J of the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework for Biodiversity, one of the main demands of indigenous peoples and local communities for this summit.
Background of Cali
“It is a historic day for indigenous peoples (…) This means that the role and contribution of indigenous peoples will be recognized. traditional knowledge in biodiversity conservation. “We are celebrating,” said Viviana Figueroa of the International Indigenous Biodiversity Forum (IIFB).
And also the agreement for the cCreation of a global fund to establish payments for the use of digitized genetic sequencescalled the Cali Fund, which will also guarantee the distribution of benefits from biodiversity.
“The People’s COP”
For Kirsten Schuijt, general director of WWF International, this new Cali Fund, although “imperfect and with many details remain to be refined“This is an important step forward.”
As for the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia and President of COP16, Susana Muhamad, she stressed that the conference was “the COP of the people” and regretted that the outstanding issues represent “some challenges for the convention and it’s time to start fixing them“.
