The ‘People’s COP’ for Biodiversity Saw Suspension in High-Level Negotiation but Strength from the Private and Public Sectors
Maiko Nishi – Research Fellow, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) was the first such meeting since nations adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022. That framework ignited hope and mobilized coordinated action worldwide, but, as deadlines for its goals loom, many nations realize they will fall short. The world’s ability to ally against the threats of biodiversity loss and climate change were once again thrown into question at the 2024 event, where parties failed to complete negotiations.
Negotiations suspended after nearly two weeks
Parties gathered in Cali, Colombia, for COP16, which began on October 20. By the morning of November 2, it was clear that delegates would not reach a consensus on all articles. The parties suspended negotiations, as several delegates had to return home, leaving the group without a quorum. In doing so, they left multiple decisions suspended, including some regarding financial mechanisms, resource mobilization, budget, and planning, monitoring, reporting, and review.
One major challenge negotiators ran into was means of implementation, particularly in the context of resource mobilization. The negotiations signify a north-south asymmetry of parties’ positioning regarding financing implementation. Many countries from the Global South were eager to establish a global financing instrument dedicated to biodiversity under the COP authority. Meanwhile, nations from the Global North opposed the idea, flagging concern about further fragmenting global financial landscapes.
Parties made progress on IPLCs and other inclusion measures
Nevertheless, several remarkable outcomes emerged from COP16. This year’s event expanded and centered the role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) in protecting biodiversity. Notably, the parties approved a Subsidiary Body on Article 8j (SB8j), a key demand submitted by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.
This move created a new permanent subsidiary body to represent the voices and interests of IPLCs in CBD processes. It will build on an ad-hoc working group created through Article 8j (WG8j), which has been in place for over two decades. The subsidiary body supports another COP16 decision related to Article 8j, which adopts a new program of work related to IPLCs by committing to recognize the contributions of these groups toward three key objectives of the convention: (1) conserving biodiversity, (2) using biodiversity sustainability, and (3) fairly and equitably sharing biodiversity benefits.
The COP decision related to Article 8j also pledged to recognize the role of people of African descent, comprising collectives that embody traditional lifestyles, in implementing the CBD and in stewarding biodiversity.
Negotiators agreed that benefits from information on genetic resources must be shared more equitably
Another major decision was concerned with digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. This both addressed people’s rights to genetic resources and the need for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other industries benefiting from DSI to share the benefits they reap from this information with developing countries and IPLCs. The decision will implement a multilateral mechanism for DSI benefit and use sharing and establish the Cali Fund—a global fund dedicated to developing and sustaining the mechanism and aimed at collecting financial resources derived from the use of digital sequencing information. Delegates agreed that companies benefiting from DSI use should allocate 1 percent of their profits or 0.1 percent of their revenue to the Fund. At least half of the funding should support the self-identified needs of IPLCs including women and youth.
COP16 drew some of the largest crowds and robust participation from the public sector
The event also delivered on Colombia’s promise to make it a “people’s COP”, by welcoming the largest in-person attendance of any CBD COP to date. Its 23,000 registered participants represented governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, and the private sector. In an attempt to encourage private-sector participation, COP16 provided a variety of forums and exhibitions along with official side events at the Blue Zone, an area within the main conference venue designated for negotiation and dialogue between member countries and accredited observers.
A more open space, called the Green Zone, was set aside for public participation and attracted about 40,000 visitors each day. The Green Zone hosted over 1,000 events over the course of COP16.
Outcomes from the event show a commitment to regional efforts and cross-sector collaboration
The meetings both formal and informal that convened people and sectors at COP16 reaffirmed and invigorated commitment of both state and non-state actors engaged in implementing the GBF. While high-level negotiations stalled during the main event, myriad side events enabled important connections.
For example, the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) hosting the Secretariat of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI), organized several side events in collaboration with partners. Here, participants explored topics including, support mechanisms of on-the-ground initiatives, community action for biodiversity, landscape approaches for biodiversity and peace in Colombia, and landscape management initiatives. These smaller meetings allowed people to share lessons and experiences, think creatively together, and strengthen partnerships to realize societies in harmony with nature.
Similarly, a few participants traveled to Cali together after attending the fourth Global Congress of the International Land Conservation Network. The group shared in the two unique experiences, which encouraged peer-to-peer communications about their work in land conservation and its implications for implementing the GBF. Though the combined experiences made for a whirlwind few weeks, the group agreed that attending both meetings was beneficial to finding likeminded fellow experts, participating in a dedicated community of practitioners, and in being exposed to dynamic negotiations and interactions.