Against the backdrop of the just ended 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Cal, Colombia, the Climate Action Network (CAN) International has acknowledged decisions on climate-biodiversity alignment and Indigenous Rights – but insists that COP16 falls short on biodiversity funding.
While stating that COP16 ended without the crucial agreements needed to finance and monitor the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), the group submitted that the failure to resolve these points poses a significant hurdle to building the much-needed trust and momentum essential for COP29, which begins next week.
Argentinian campaigner Catalina Gonda, and one of Climate Action Network’s representatives at the biodiversity talks, said: “We can’t afford any more delays. Countries must urgently pick up these discussions and finalise outstanding issues to ensure the Global Biodiversity Framework stays on track to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”
Financing Stalemate
Countries have failed to finalise a strategy for securing US$200 billion annually for biodiversity from “all sources” by 2030 (in line with Target 19 of the KM-GBF). Deep divisions over funding mechanisms prevented progress, with some developing countries pushing for a new dedicated biodiversity fund, managed by COP itself – frustrated by governance and access issues with the current Global Environment Facility (GEF).
These disagreements were compounded by the lack of trust stemming from the failure of developed nations to deliver on their commitment to provide US$20 billion annually in international public finance by 2025.
Gonda said: “Rich nations are still dodging their financial commitments under the convention and downplaying the importance of public finance. In one room, they champion private finance as a solution to the biodiversity funding gap, but in another, they block mandatory contributions from companies profiting from genetic data.
“They’ve also resisted clear language to prevent double counting of climate and biodiversity finance. This double standard, combined with their underwhelming pledges, seriously undermines their credibility as we approach the NCQG discussions in Baku.”
While a new global fund, the “Cali Fund,” was established to support biodiversity by leveraging profit-sharing from companies that use digital sequence information (DSI) from genetic resources, contributions remain voluntary, and payment rates are only indicative.
Climate and Biodiversity Convergence
CAN welcomes COP16’s adoption of a decision to align biodiversity and climate goals across the UNFCCC and CBD. This decision marks a crucial step in linking COP16 to COP30, but sustained political momentum will be essential to ensure this does not get lost on the road from Cali to Belém.
However, the decision lacks strong language on transitioning away from fossil fuels, addressing the threats of large-scale bioenergy and geo-engineering, and ensuring essential safeguards for biodiversity, human rights, and financing.
Carlos Rittl at Wildlife Conservation Society, and co-coordinator of the Climate Action Network’s Ecosystems Working Group, said: “This decision is a major milestone that opens the door to strengthen genuine cooperation across the Rio Conventions as we gear up to COP30 in Belém in 2025. Recognising these outcomes at COP29 in Azerbaijan will be essential to making meaningful progress next year and ensuring climate and biodiversity are addressed as interconnected crises.”
Indigenous Rights and Participation
In another positive outcome, CAN welcomes the establishment of a work programme under Article 8(j) and a permanent subsidiary body to ensure the full participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This move underscores the importance of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives throughout the CBD process.
