Key takeaways from Biodiversity COP16
Published on: November 4, 2024
Sweco has attended the Biodiversity COP16 in Cali, Colombia. Having just gotten back from the negotiations at the summit, Andreas Gyllenhammar, Chief Sustainability Officer at Sweco shares an overview of the discussions and key takeaways.
The final stretch
The COP negotiations tend to run into overtime, and this was the case for COP16 as well. The high-level segment with heads of state (only 7 present) and ministers (more than 100) did not manage to induce as much critical energy into the negotiations as needed. The final plenary session extended through Friday night and most of Saturday before Panama took the floor and asked whether there were below 130 parties still in the room. The answer was no. This meant that there was no quorum (minimum number required for decision making) and the COP hade to be postponed. What had already been decided during the final days was of course valid. Let’s dive into that.
Major decisions at COP16
Inclusion of indigenous people
The decision to establish a permanent subsidiary body to represent indigenous interests under the Convention is seen as a major win by indigenous groups and local communities. This body aims to ensure that indigenous communities have a formal role in biodiversity-related decisions and that their vital contributions to conservation efforts are recognised. To have a voice when the Kunming-Montreal Protocol is interpreted and further implemented is a clear way of protecting the interests, and knowledge, that indigenous people have. The next step is to form the group where two co-chairs will lead the work, one being nominated by the UN parties and the other by representatives from the Indigenous people and local communities.
My reflection is that this is more progressive than what has been decided at the climate summits and also a very wise (and right) way to ensure trust and quality of the forthcoming work.
Benefit-sharing from genetic resources
The Kunming-Montreal protocol has a goal on the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic sources. This was a major topic during COP16 and the Cali Fund was established in the final days. The delegates also reached an agreement to source the funding through a payment structure for companies utilising genetic information from biodiversity in their research and development. Industries such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and biotechnology are expected to contribute either 0.1% of their revenue or 1% of their profits to the newly established Cali Fund. Half of these funds will be allocated to indigenous and local communities.
Is this enough? Although contributions to the fund are voluntary, it will probably be regarded as bad for the reputation of companies choosing not to do so. Like the decision taken on indigenous people, this is a clear step to deliver on the global biodiversity goals. However, it remains to be seen to what degree companies will chip in, and what the total value of the fund will be. It is quite clear that it will not come closer to the sum needed to fill the biodiversity funding gap.
Other decisions include “mainstreaming biodiversity” and synthetic biology. I urge those of you interested in the details to head over to Carbonbrief that has the most thorough article on the COP16 outcome that I’ve come across.
Major unresolved issues
Financial commitments
Negotiations stalled over the creation of a new global nature fund. Disagreements persisted regarding the governance and mobilisation of financial resources necessary to meet biodiversity targets. As a result, the session was suspended without finalising the finance strategy.
Monitoring framework
Delegates failed to agree on a comprehensive monitoring framework to assess progress toward biodiversity goals. This lack of consensus hinders the ability to effectively track and implement conservation efforts.
All unresolved issues on the agenda will probably be picked up in the inter-sessional meetings planned for 2025.
Analysis of the outcome
The biodiversity COP is still in ”awareness mode”. A lot more maturity is to be achieved on all fronts before scaled action, funding opportunities and mechanisms, defined and distributed goals and targets can be expected. Even though a few more National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans surfaced during the meeting, it’s still a small minority of states that have submitted them (44 out of 196). The funding gap between available and needed economic resources is large, and rising and it currently amounts to USD 700 billion.
One temperature check I use for maturity is this. When I spot more ”processes” as an outcome than ”real action” or change it is clear that development is needed. This was the case for a lot of the agenda on finance but also on monitoring. Another sign of immaturity is that the negotiations are still struggling with finding the right balance of details. As a contrast, this is something that is mainly taken care of nowadays at the climate COPs. If there is general consensus, everyone agrees to sort of the details in a following and delegated way. At COP16, I observed that considerable time was consumed by some parties wanting to bring up issues of minor importance compared to the bigger picture.
Also, the climate COPs have many more negotiation mechanisms to ”conquer by division” and to appoint ministerial pairs that are given a task and a mandate to sort out tricky issues in a more agile manner. The lack of similar experiences and practices for the biodiversity COPs greatly contributed to the misjudgement of piled-up work. I am a bit worried by the fact that, although inter-sessional meetings will follow, the biodiversity COPs are only held bi-annually. This will contribute to a slower maturity process.
There is hope from the sidelines…
Although the mere text result was meagre, there is a lot of good news to take away from Colombia. Here are the big ones:
- You build trust by inclusion. Indigenous people aimed for attention and inclusion – and in many ways, they got it.
- The people of Cali showed up. At the climate COPs, the green zone is usually the less attractive place, and you will find many national or corporate half-empty stages, booths and seminars. But not in Cali! About 800,000 people participated in a two-week nature festival not only listening to music and dancing salsa but also getting marinated in biodiversity. The educational effect will fast forward Colombia into awareness that can spur action!
- Corporates showed up in numbers. Although there were reports of corporate lobbying behind the side-lines, similar to the fossil fuel companies at climate COPs, the majority of companies were heavily engaged in pushing for strong ambition and clear rules and targets. The present companies also showcased solutions on nature positive design and private funding mechanisms. This contributed to the overall positive atmosphere at the meeting centre. When you hear more about than you do about problems, you tend to lean over to a more hopeful mood.
The main hope is that the financial system will start to recognise and premiere those companies that have solutions for reducing pressure on nature and biodiversity. This will unlock the larger funds and investments, as has been the case with renewable energy and climate action.
A globally shared love for nature
On my way back to Sweden, I tried to get my head around what could explain the fact that I left Cali feeling more heart-warmed than I do when leaving a climate COP. The answer is maybe as simple as this. Everyone loves nature. It is tangible. Relatable. You can touch it. Be immersed in it. Have a meaningful relationship with it. Connect it with feelings of happiness, meaning, healthy activities, relaxation, spirituality, curiosity, beauty. We see nature, visit nature, live in nature and … love nature!
This might explain the unity I felt that extended beyond stakeholder affiliation, geography, knowledge level or background. The task to halt and reverse biodiversity loss is complex, potential consequences dire and time is short. And for that, we need a strong force to succeed. I think that force might be the globally shared love for nature.
About the author of this article
Andreas Gyllenhammar has been attending UNFCCC COP meetings since 2009 as an observer for the business and industry group or as a part of the Swedish delegation. He is Sweco’s liaison officer for WBCSD (the World Business Council on Sustainable Development) and a renowned climate analyst, working with clients to shape climate strategies by interpret science, market shifts to identify and capture opportunities in the transition towards a fossil free future.
