In a world racing against time to save its vanishing biodiversity, recently, the delegates from around the world met for the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) in Cali, Colombia. The meeting unfolded as both – a beacon of hope and a stark reminder of global inaction.
As the clock ticks on targets like ’30×30,’ the world faces a critical juncture: will it rise to the challenge, or will the promise of global biodiversity conservation crumble under the weight of unfulfilled commitments?
COP 16 at Kali saw the first major outcome in the form of an agreement to share the benefits from the uses of digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI) more fairly and equitably. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) 2022 led to an agreement to establish a multilateral mechanism, including a global fund in this regard.
With digital sequence information (DSI) transforming into a goldmine for industries ranging from pharmaceuticals to agriculture, the question arises: Who truly owns the wealth of biodiversity? And who benefits from it? The stark realities of unequal benefit-sharing, inadequate funding, and geopolitical tensions threaten to derail global conservation efforts.
The Kali Fund:
The delegates at COP 16 advanced on this very aspect by adopting the ‘Kali Fund’ that aims to finance biodiversity conservation and reward those who are frontline protectors of biodiversity, such as indigenous people and forest dwellers. It will address how pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, animal and plant breeding, and other industries benefiting from DSI should share those benefits with developing countries, Indigenous People, and local communities. Large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from DSI uses have to contribute to “the Cali Fund,” based on a percentage of their profits or revenues.
Entities that exceed at least two out of three of these thresholds (total assets: $20 million, sales: $50 million, profit: $5 million) should contribute to the global fund 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue.
Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLC):
COP 16 has witnessed the formal incorporation of indigenous communities in the official decision-making of the UN biodiversity process. Till now, for the last 20 years, indigenous people and local communities had informal working groups as part of the UN biodiversity process. For the first time, a permanent subsidiary body is established under Article 8(j), which means that now such communities don’t have to depend on the goodwill of other countries to represent their interests.
Other hits:
COP 16 also witnessed some other advances. For example, parties agreed to develop a new “Strategy for Resource Mobilisation” to help secure $200 billion annually by 2030 to support biodiversity initiatives worldwide. 44 countries submitted their updates National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (NBSAP). Similarly, new guidelines were proposed for the management of invasive alien species through new databases, improved cross-border trade regulations, and enhanced coordination with e-commerce platforms. COP 16 agreed on a new and evolved process to identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs). Last but not least, the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health has been designed and approved to help curb the emergence of zoonotic diseases, prevent noncommunicable diseases, and promote sustainable ecosystems.
Issues & Fallouts
First, as far as the Cali Fund and sharing of benefits for DSI are concerned, India has raised the issue of sovereignty. It says that the countries have their own national regulations in line with their domestic developmental targets. The multilateral mechanisms, therefore, might not be beneficial, and hence they should be voluntary in nature. This has been objected by developed countries on the ground that if exceptions for national legislation are given, either the companies will not pay into the global fund or the companies would end up paying two times. Here, it must be reminded to the developed world that they have not yet reached the $20 billion target set for 2023. Further, this fund also faces the crisis of legitimacy. Experts have asked: were there enough countries present when this fund was put to vote? Did it satisfy the minimum quorum required to take any decision?
Second, an issue has come up regarding the lack of leadership on behalf of wealthier countries like Canada, China, the E.U., Japan, and the U.K. They didn’t take up the important issues with the same vigour as they did in the last COP when the targets were being setup. Nothing much has been achieved this year to complete the ‘30 X 30’ target that was agreed under at the KMGBF in 2022.
“We saw insufficient leadership from the wealthier countries, the European Union and France in particular, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, the UK, but also China. The executive secretary of the UN convention on biodiversity was also quite phantomatic”
– Oscar Soria, director thinktank the Common Initiative.
The third issue is regarding the ‘nature funding’. In 2022, developed countries had committed to raising $200 billion per year by 2030, including $20 billion to be given to the developing countries. Nothing much has been achieved at this front either.
The fourth issue was related to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Africa Group and Brazil had demanded a new ‘financial mechanism’ for biodiversity finance. They have brought out the issues related to GEF being too burdensome.
Conclusion
The outcomes of COP 16 reveal a critical crossroads in humanity’s quest to preserve its rapidly depleting biodiversity. Persistent issues of sovereignty, funding gaps, and lacklustre commitment from wealthier nations cast a long shadow over global efforts. The price of failure is steep: an irreversible loss of biodiversity, weakened ecosystems, and a future where zoonotic diseases and climate catastrophes become the norm.
Without urgent, unified action, COP resolutions will remain hollow promises, and the natural world we depend on will edge closer to collapse. The time to act decisively is now—before the fragile balance of life on Earth tips beyond repair.
