From protecting genetic data to failing to make action plans for biodiversity conservation, COP16 was a mixed bag of successes and pitfalls.

Of Victoria Heath

As COP16 draws to a close earlier this week in Colombia – attended by nearly 200 countries, along with business leaders, indigenous communities and NGO representatives – the growing urgency to conserve biodiversity has become increasingly more and more obvious.

With an estimate two million species threatened with extinction around the world, taking immediate action to protect Earth’s ecosystems and habitats is more vital than ever.

Do you like this article? Check out our related reads:

And while some measures were implemented at COP16 that show promising progress in supporting biodiversity across the planet, the summit’s expansive agenda fell short. Several key measures have not reached universal agreement – ​​and in some cases have not been discussed due to lack of time – as well as imperative financial targets for conservation to be blocked.

So what exactly did COP16 achieve? And what problems remained unsolved?

Protection of genetic data

A global tax – called the Cali Fund – has been decided on products manufactured using genetic data from natural ecosystems.

The data, known as Digital sequence information – or DSI – is genetic material that has been sequenced from nature. Previously, this DNA code was freely accessible through global databases.

While the DNA code will continue to be available on the databases that scientists can share, the new agreement reached at COP 16 means that companies must share the profits from any commercial discoveries they make that come from nature.

Because the global north often uses genetic information from nature to produce medicine, cosmetics and food, there have long been calls for the global south – where many of these resources were discovered – to receive some of the benefits from production.

But now companies that meet two of the following three criteria – sales of more than $50m (£39m), profits of more than $5m and $20m in total assets – will have to contribute 1 percent of its profits 0.1 percent from their total income to the DSI fund.

However, this business is voluntary, with companies left to decide whether or not to share their profits. If successfully implemented, it is estimated that £1 billion a year could be generated for nature conservation. Half of this money will be given to self-identified indigenous communities – especially women and children – as well as some to developing countries.

Recognition of indigenous communities

Despite making up only five percent of the world’s global population, indigenous people protect 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity.

It is therefore essential that COP16 becomes the first time that indigenous communities have been formally incorporated into the official decision-making process of the UN biodiversity process, rather than previously adopting an informal working group.

A subsidiary body will ensure that all future biodiversity decisions include indigenous peoples, meaning that these communities can regularly contribute to negotiations. without needing to for a government invitation.

There is no consensus on the biodiversity framework

When the COP16 summit was postponed, there was still no consensus on the Kunming-Montreal framework – an initiative to conserve 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030 – which was initially poised to be one of the most important. pressing tasks. Currently, only 17 percent of the earth of the world and 8 percent of marine and coastal areas are protected – but this is increasing compared to 2020 with an area equivalent to two columbia.

This framework, often called the “Paris Agreement for Nature”, was agreed in 2022, with countries expected to provide commitments, strategies and action plans by the start of this year’s conference in Cali.

But only 44 countries out of 196 submitted action plans before COP16, and some of these were only partially completed. Countries such as Brazil and Colombia were unable to meet the original deadline, saying the time given to complete the plans was not long enough, while the UK blamed changes in power in Scotland and nationally.

Other developing nations cited a lack of funding from Global Environment Facility (GEF) made the implementation of action plans impossible.

Finally, countries such as Colombia, Germany, Iran, Venezuela, Vietnam and the Netherlands plans submitted during the summit but after the deadline.

Lack of a strategy for finances

Previously, countries pledged to mobilize 200 million dollars for conservation, as part of the creation of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF). Developed countries have pledged to mobilize $20 billion a year for developing countries by 2025, rising to $30 billion by 2030.

But COP16 did not bring a robust strategy to raise this money.

The summit also did not have enough time to approve a budget for the Convention on Biological Diversity, and there was no consensus on whether new funds should be transferred to developing countries in an alternative fund, or GBFF.

For developing countries – which are often some of the most biodiverse in the world – large amounts of money are needed to protect and restore nature.

Finally, the successes of COP16 are a step in the right direction for the conservation of the world’s species. But there is still much to be done, namely in mobilizing finance and strengthening the Kunming-Montreal framework.

tracking 23 goals and four goals of the framework will become difficult without adequate monitoring protocols in place, and developing countries – especially those that are mega-diverse – will struggle to meet the vast conservation demands without adequate funding to support them.

Until today, the world has not yet met one global goal to stop the destruction of nature. And as global biodiversity is rapidly disappearing – with a global average loss of 73% of mammal, bird, fish, reptile and amphibian species since 1970 – action by countries and organizations around the world must match the pace at which our planet’s biodiversity is in decline.