Follow our full coverage of the Biodiversity COP16 on ThinkLandscape.
From 21 October to 1 November, world leaders gathered in Cali, Colombia, for the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16). Here’s a recap of the biggest biodiversity event of the year, as it happened.
Read our preview article for an overview of the conference themes, and stay tuned for our coverage of the 2024 UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) and UNCCD COP16.
Main highlights:
The 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) has come to a close after both working groups and various contact groups continued discussions throughout the final day, culminating in several key decisions during an evening plenary.
At the start of the conference, there were four big themes expected to be addressed at the negotiations: synergy between the Rio Conventions, the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and Afro-descendant communities in implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), so-called biopiracy, and financing the GBF.
We saw significant progress made on several fronts.
One of the biggest achievements at COP16 is the creation of a subsidiary body of Article 8(j) for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This comes 26 years after the working group for the implementation of the provisions of Article 8(j) was created and marks a major milestone.
“This is an unprecedented occasion in the history of multilateral agreements on biodiversity. Indigenous peoples and local communities worldwide, connected through our systems of knowledge in caring for life and biodiversity, recall the long journey we have traveled in this context,” said Camila Paz Romero, spokesperson for Indigenous Peoples, during the plenary.
“This new subsidiary body is a reference for the rest of the world in which the parties recognize the ongoing need for our serious and effective participation to meet objectives and agreements,” she continued.
Furthermore, the role of Afro-descendant communities has been recognized within Article 8(j) in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was a contentious issue from day one.
This recognition acknowledges the fundamental role of Afro-descendant communities in the care and protection of biodiversity. It will also provide access to resources and ensure their inclusion in future UN biodiversity conferences, starting with COP17 in 2026.
“We celebrate this historic moment with the implementation and recognition of the knowledge of Afro-descendants for the protection of biodiversity. This is a clear message of inclusion in the People’s COP, integrating culture, nature, and equity,” said Luis Gilberto Murillo, Colombia’s minister of foreign affairs.
These two last-minutes decisions follow the earlier approval of the work program for Article 8(j).
Another major achievement came as delegates agreed on the Cali Fund, a global mechanism to collect economic resources from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) of genetic resources and distribute them based on criteria such as conservation needs and biodiversity richness.
This decision addresses how benefits derived from the use of genetic data – in pharmaceutical and agricultural industries, for example – should be shared with the places and communities they come from.
“The historic Cali Fund was achieved to collect contributions from private enterprise on the use of genetic resources when they are in digital databases. This is also an innovative and very important mechanism,” said COP16 president Susanna Muhamad.
Throughout COP16, there has been much debate over the proposal of a new global biodiversity fund, as opposed to the current Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, operated by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
During the closing plenary, a draft decision text proposing a new dedicated global biodiversity fund under the COP’s governance was presented but roundly opposed by Global North delegates.
Discussions came to an end early Saturday morning as the meeting was suspended for failing to meet quorum (the minimum number of delegates needed). It will be reconvened at a future date and location, but the lack of consensus on finance is no doubt the biggest missed opportunity at COP16.
All of the decisions that were adopted before the meeting was suspended are still valid, including the key breakthroughs on Article 8(j) and digital sequence information.
At the start of COP16, Muhamad outlined her desire to “increase the profile of biodiversity within the climate crisis.” Whether that has been achieved is hard to measure, but she seemed confident that the talks in Cali have been successful.
“It raised the political profile including the visit of heads of state, foreign ministers, ministers who were here and international delegations that reached more than 170 official delegations,” Muhamad said.
This is the first time a UN Biodiversity Conference COP had a green zone and reflected Colombia’s commitment to making it the “people’s COP.” It seems to have gone well with official figures estimating that more than 900,000 people visited the space over twelve days.
“The Green Zone was a total success, an entry of approximately 150 thousand people was expected, at this moment the registration is at more than 900 thousand people,” said Mauricio Cabrera, vice minister of policies and standardization at the Colombian Ministry of Environment.
Main highlights:
On the second to last day of the Biodiversity COP16, negotiations pressed on with many questions still unresolved, including those related to Article 8(j), digital sequence information (DSI) and finance.
Working Groups I and II considered various conference room papers, while contact groups talked through some of the remaining sticking points.
Armenia has been chosen to host the next UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17) in an evening plenary vote. Armenia got 65 votes to Azerbaijan’s 58, with one invalid ballot and seven abstentions.
“We will be very happy to welcome all the delegates, all the participants, all the stakeholders to our country with warmth, with hospitality,” said the Armenian delegate.
“The government of Armenia will do its utmost to make sure COP17 is a real success and we transfer the spirit and energy of Cali to Yerevan and make another milestone in our efforts for global biodiversity preservation,” he continued.
In the fifth session of Working Group I, negotiations continued late into the night with delegates discussing conference room papers related to the Nagoya Protocol, Cartagena Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
In Working Group II, delegates continued discussions on the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity and island biodiversity.
They agreed on the need to understand further the impacts of geoengineering on marine and coastal biodiversity, to enhance the use of nature-based solutions, and to take effective measures on the benefit sharing of marine genetic resources and DSI.
There was debate around references to subsidies for fisheries and how to mention the so-called ‘High Seas Treaty’ (BBNJ Agreement), but delegates agreed to include a request to the Secretariat to strengthen efforts related to overfishing and illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing.
Working Group II also discussed a conference room paper on biodiversity and climate change, debating language about how they are connected. Some progress was made, but discussions are ongoing.
Delegates also considered a conference room paper on scientific and technical needs, where there was divergence over whether to call for more work on equity, gender equality and the human rights-based approach.
There was a suggestion that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights could be requested to conduct a study into human rights-based approaches to implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
Delegates also discussed conference room papers on the CBD multi-year program of work, the Nagoya Protocol global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism, diverse values of biodiversity and the IPBES work program.
In the contact group on resource mobilization, delegates continued to discuss the revised resource mobilization strategy. They focused on the objective and actions of the strategy, including securing new financial resources and reforming existing harmful financial flows.
The contact group on the financial mechanism continued discussing a non-paper draft decision. Notably, they agreed on the need for predictable support to developing countries for biodiversity strategies and financing plan in relation to the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
There was also consensus on the need to significantly increase resources going to the GBF Fund to meet the target of mobilizing USD 200 billion annually for biodiversity. However, opinions diverged on a voluntary scale of contributions for the GBF Fund.
Delegates also failed to agree on sections that would request the GEF Council to look into improving equitable geographical representation or ensuring the engagement of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and youth in decision making.
In other news, Susana Muhamad, the Colombian minister of environment and COP16 president, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki, which will strengthen environmental cooperation between the two countries and address the ecological impacts of the conflict in Palestine.
“This agreement with Colombia is a major step in our struggle to protect the environment in Palestine, which has been severely affected,” Malki said.
“Colombia’s experience and knowledge will be essential to face the daily challenges we face in Palestine, particularly in the socio-environmental field.”
Main highlights:
Both working groups considered conference room papers today, while contact groups continued throughout the day.
The high-level segment of COP16 concluded, and an evening plenary agreed on some key decisions on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol.
Delegates considered a conference room paper on Article 8(j), which relates to the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
They approved the work program with some amendments, including changing a list of actions for implementation to a note that there has been a decision to implement the work program.
There was further unresolved debate around establishing a subsidiary body for Article 8(j). Some delegates argued it was an important step for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the CBD, while others argued that the existing working group is already effective.
The inclusion of language around Afro-descendants in Article 8(j) has been contentious throughout COP16 and remains so. Several delegates offered support for a conference room paper on the topic, but the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has opposed it from the start, argued there was a lack of evidence to justify the addition.
Working Group II considered a conference room paper on the mainstreaming of biodiversity.
Canada introduced a compromise text addressing a request to the Secretariat for a gap analysis and other activities to be undertaken. Delegates approved the revised paper with a placeholder for reporting pending further discussions on planning and monitoring.
Discussions continued on a conference room paper on biodiversity and health. Delegates reviewed a revised text on actions to ensure biodiversity and health co-benefits.
There was agreement on promoting equitable access to necessary tools and knowledge for implementing a One Health approach, but divisions remained over the inclusion of derivatives, genetic resources and traditional knowledge in benefit sharing measures. The paper was approved with amendments and some unresolved sections.
In one of the biggest decisions in Working Group II, delegates considered a paper on marine and coastal biodiversity and the modification of descriptions of ecologically or biological significant marine areas.
After resolving a paragraph on the synergies with the agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, delegates came to an agreement – marking the end of eight years of negotiations.
Today saw contact groups on digital sequence information, synthetic biology, PMRR and resource mobilization.
A revised “non-paper” was introduced, which some delegates believed would require deeper discussion around contribution options, alignment with national access and benefit sharing (ABS) systems, new database creation, voluntary vs imposed obligations and incentives for DSI users.
A proposal was made for a hybrid contribution model, allowing companies to choose payments based on total or product revenue depending on their situation.
Delegates discussed a proposal for future work in synthetic biology and agreed on the creation of an intersessional ad hoc technical expert group (AHTEG).
There was debate regarding the AHTEG’s focus, before delegates agreed to invite information submissions from parties and others to inform the AHTEG’s work.
Delegates considered text related to commitments by non-state actors and the global review’s design. They agreed that any commitments communicated by non-state actors will have no implications for territorial sovereignty or the legal status of states or their authorities. They also removed mentions of subnational governments.
There was disagreement over references to outcomes from the informal technical dialogue and the advisory committee in the global review’s foundational elements.
The contact group also agreed on the need to further develop component indicators related to subsidies that harm biodiversity and streamlined the decision text to address parties’ needs in implementing the framework.
Delegates discussed a revised non-paper on the resource mobilization strategy for 2025–2030, agreeing – in draft – to encourage parties and others to use the strategy as flexible guidelines to implement the CBD while considering national circumstances and existing obligations.
Discussing the strategy’s guiding elements, delegates diverged over references to CBD Article 20 (financial resources), with further talks needed on access to financing sources for all parties, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and other stakeholders.
There were several other proposals that did not reach consensus, including one on ensuring equitable representation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and youth in decision-making processes.
COP16 President Susana Muhamad reported on the high-level segment outcomes and announced that both Armenia and Azerbaijan have offered to host COP17.
With agreement in the regional group, a secret ballot vote will take place on Thursday evening to decide the host of the next UN Biodiversity Conference.
The plenary received reports from working groups and the budget committee and adopted decisions related to the Cartagena Protocol on compliance, risk assessment and risk management, as well as the detection and identification of living modified organisms.
The Nagoya Protocol Meeting of the Parties addressed a decision on access and benefit sharing clearing house and information sharing, with an amendment to invite the UN Environment Programme to develop a global capacity building project for Global South countries and to seek financial support from the Global Environment Facility.
In what was lauded as a big win, the COP adopted the decision on ecologically or biologically significant areas (EBSAs) without amendment.
They also reached a compromise on the Article 8(j) work program, acknowledging the specific challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples and local communities and supporting financial resource mobilization.
Discussions around the inclusion of “taking national legislation, circumstances, and priorities into account,” were contentious, but delegates decided to keep the term “as appropriate.”
Considering a draft decision on the “Role of people of African descent, comprising [collectives] embodying traditional lifestyles in the implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity,” delegates agreed to remove the brackets around “collectives,” with a footnote, and “recognize” their contributions in the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
There was a proposal on delaying discussions around a permanent subsidiary body on Article 8(j), but many countries supported establishing the body promptly, emphasizing its importance for recognizing the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to biodiversity.
Bolivia, representing a group of “developing countries,” called for a dedicated global biodiversity fund at COP16 and urged “developed” nations to meet their financial commitments under the CBD and GBF.
“Success or failure at COP16 will be measured on the key issue of resource mobilization. Agreement on the financial resources needed to address the biodiversity crisis is fundamental to ensuring the effective implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,” the Bolivia delegate said.
Main highlights:
Today, the high-level segment began with an estimated six heads of state, more than 115 ministers, and numerous high-level officials entering the negotiations.
The day commenced with an opening plenary, including speeches from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs Luis Gilberto Murillo and UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
They all reiterated the importance of the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16), the issues facing our current economic systems and the need to make “peace with nature.”
“We must combine our national and international efforts towards balance and harmony with nature, protecting nature, conserving, restoring and sustainably using and sharing biodiversity at the global level,” said Guterres.
Murillo launched the “World Coalition for Peace with Nature: a call for life,” a call for national and international action to achieve a balanced and harmonious relationship with nature.
He also emphasized the importance of Colombia youth, describing them as “ambassadors of peace with nature,” before handing over to representatives of children, youth, Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
It’s clear that discussions will not come to a full conclusion in Cali this week, so the contact group on resource mobilization continued to debate how they will move forward during the inter-sessional period between COP16 and COP17.
They also further discussed ways to mobilize more finance, the financial mechanism and a dedicated global instrument for biodiversity finance. Discussions covered a wide range of issues within these topics.
The main concern raised in this contact group was the possibility of double-counting climate and biodiversity finance.
Investment in biodiversity almost always has climate benefits, but could this result in less money being made available as two boxes are ticked with the same funds?
The contact group on digital sequence information (DSI) had considerable discussions throughout the day and into the evening.
Delegates debated non-monetary benefit sharing, implementation and contributions, the role of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and traditional knowledge, and more.
This contact group considered a draft decision based on a Subsidiary Body on Implementation recommendation.
Discussions focused on recognizing specialized international ABS instruments, with a divide between Global North countries, who argued that the COP/MOP is the sole authority for recognition, and Global South countries, who opposed establishing a recognition process.
As delegates made little headway, the contact group made a call for submissions by parties to the CBD and Nagoya Protocol.
There were also contact groups on planning, monitoring, reporting, and review (PMRR) and scientific and technical needs.
The afternoon plenary of the high-level segment opened with Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Ibrahim emphasized the biodiversity-positive skills, knowledge and experiences that already exist in Indigenous communities. She then called on more finance to go directly to these communities.
“Indigenous Peoples are already living in peace with nature,” she said.
“Despite the fact that Indigenous Peoples have proven resolve in ecosystem protection, only a very little fraction of climate biodiversity finance is dedicated to the direct support of their communities. It is not acceptable. “
Astrid Puentes Riaño, special rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, then spoke on the importance of human rights expertise in implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
This was echoed by Shaw La Mun of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN), who emphasized the key role of human rights and equity.
“We call on you to ensure that the decisions coming out of COP16 leave no room for false solutions, for exclusionary mechanisms for implementation and reviewing collective progress or for denying the key role of equity and human rights in living in harmony with nature,” he said.
Martha Rojas Urrego, executive secretary of the International Whaling Commission, highlighted the need for collaboration across conventions, a key theme across this year’s three COPs (on biodiversity, climate and desertification).
Various high-level speakers then took the floor, highlighting issues that we’ve seen throughout the conference such as Article 8(j), DSI, benefit sharing and more.
Common themes included the need for synergies among the Rio Conventions as well as national biodiversity strategies and action plans.
In other news, 2023 Restoration Steward Ysabel Agustina Calderón Carlos received the prestigious Midori Prize for Biodiversity alongside alongside Vera Voronova, executive director of the Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan.
Since 2010, the AEON Environmental Foundation and the CBD Secretariat have awarded this prize to biodiversity champions at the CBD COP. The winners are awarded a plaque and USD 100,000 to support their work in safeguarding biodiversity.
“Looking to the future, we plan to expand our work with the Women Guardians of the Native Bees initiative, which will bring conservation and empowerment together across even more communities in our mountains,” Calderón said.
“I am deeply honored to be here, standing before you today, as a recipient of the Midori Prize for Biodiversity,” she said after accepting the award.
Read Calderón’s article on ThinkLandscape here.
Main highlights:
It’s week two of the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16). Today was dubbed ‘finance day,’ and it focused strongly on financial mechanisms and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.
Unfortunately, new pledges have fallen short of expectations. While billions of dollars need to be mobilized, only USD 163 million more was pledged from seven countries and one sub-national government. Nonetheless, there was still some positivity around new pledges being made.
“I want to thank the national and subnational donors who stepped forward today to contribute to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. We know that the fund is needed now more than ever,” said Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Today also saw Working Group II addressing various conference room papers and several contact groups running throughout the day.
Working Group II discussed a conference room paper on invasive alien species, removing references to the Global Invasive Species Database and agreeing on a draft decision, which is expected to be approved in the next plenary.
However, delegates did not come to an agreement on the strength of the language around the acceptance of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (IPBES) assessment.
The working group also tackled various elements related to the Cartagena Protocol (CP). They approved conference room papers on compliance, risk assessment and risk management, and the detection and identification of living modified organisms (LMOs), following an amendment.
Delegates also approved most of the draft decisions for a conference room paper on biodiversity mainstreaming, but divisions remained over a list of actions to be taken, so discussions continue.
Working Group II addressed a conference room paper on biodiversity and health. Delegates agreed on various aspects but did not reach a consensus over how the plan will be adopted, specifically regarding access and benefit sharing.
The contact group on biodiversity and climate change met in the evening and concluded most of their work. Questions remain over resource mobilization in support of the work and collaboration between the Rio Conventions.
The contact group on synthetic biology continued with a discussion on horizon scanning, which is a method for anticipating new developments and the challenges or opportunities they might bring.
Delegates debated the need for a new horizon scanning process, as technology is developing much more rapidly than envisioned.
Delegates continued negotiations over a list of requests to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), agreeing to request the enhancement of country and local ownership.
They also agreed on several other requests to GEF, notably to ensure the engagement and participation of Indigenous Peoples, women and youth.
The contact group on Article 8(j) made significant progress on the new work program, agreeing to prioritize tasks without the low/high categorization and merge tasks for a more streamlined approach.
Delegates also heard a report from a ‘friends of the co-chairs group,’ noting that a draft decision on the role of people of African descent will be issued separately. Discussions continue.
Delegates heard about the weekend discussion on monetary contributions, funding allocations/distributions and the governance of the multilateral mechanism. They then dove into the issue of database governance.
A requirement was proposed for obtaining permission for publication from the national authorities of the country of origin of genetic resources.
Discussions also centered on the importance of country of origin of genetic information and ‘biocultural metadata’ related to traditional knowledge.
There was also debate over whether the Biodiversity COP has authority over databases, with many stressing the importance of individual parties when it comes to compliance.
They also considered issues around databases outside the jurisdiction of CBD parties and public versus private databases. Concerns were raised over so-called ‘digital biopiracy.’
The GEF Secretariat announced new pledges to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund from Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, the U.K. and the Canadian province of Québec, which were made earlier in the day.
Delegates the discussed options for the intersessional process and considered an informal document that offered solutions to close the biodiversity finance gap.
This included tapping all sources and instruments; assessing the financial mechanism, including benchmarking against other multilateral environmental agreements; and the design of a dedicated global instrument for biodiversity finance.
There were also contact groups on capacity building, as well as planning, monitoring, reporting and review (PMRR).
In other news, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) reported that 38 percent of the world’s tree species are at risk of extinction due to logging and deforestation for farming, infrastructure and extractive industries.
This isn’t just a threat to the trees themselves but also to the plants, fungi and animals that rely on them. Trees are also vital for carbon, water and nutrient cycles, soil formation, climate regulation and the livelihoods of many communities.
“Today, we are releasing the global assessment of the world’s trees on the IUCN Red List, which shows that more than one in three tree species are threatened with extinction,” said IUCN Director General Grethel Aguilar.
“Trees are essential to support life on Earth through their vital role in ecosystems, and millions of people depend upon them for their lives and livelihoods.”
Main highlights:
Day five marked the end of the first week of the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16), with Working Groups I and II continuing textual negotiations and multiple contact groups meeting throughout the day.
It ended with a plenary that heard progress reports ahead of a two-day break in negotiations over the weekend.
Working Group I heard updates from its various contact groups including those on Article 8(j), digital sequence information (DSI), resource mobilization, the financial mechanism and more.
Discussing the financial mechanism and resources, delegates diverged over requests to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for both the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CP) and the Nagoya Protocol (NP) on access and benefit sharing.
Working Group I also discussed a document and draft decision on cooperation with other conventions and international organizations. Delegates celebrated the existing synergies between CBD and the other Rio Conventions but were divided over the specifics of how collaboration should occur.
Working Group II heard updates from the contact groups on marine, coastal and island biodiversity; synthetic biology; and climate change and scientific and technical needs, among others. Delegates approved various conference room papers with little change but remained divided over decisions on the detection and identification of living modified organisms (LMOs).
Working Group II also considered a conference room paper on invasive alien species (IAS) with delegates remaining divided over references to CBD articles on financial resources and a financial mechanism.
In an attempt to streamline the process, the contact group co-chairs suggested addressing the operational aspects of the draft decision so as not to repeat safeguards in every paragraph.
They also recommended that the Conference of the Parties adopt the 2025–2030 resource mobilization strategy, which would guide mobilizing resources to implement the CBD and achieve the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) goals, while considering national priorities.
In line with other days, delegates emphasized the need to mobilize new resources, harmonize public and private finance and leverage domestic and international finance.
The contact group on climate change addressed a revised non-paper. Delegates debated whether they should refer to the Paris Agreement or “limiting global average temperatures” to avoid further biodiversity loss.
They also addressed various GBF targets related to the climate crisis, but divisions emerged over the prioritization of ecosystems and species important to carbon capture. There was also debate over financial resources.
There were also contact groups on synthetic biology and planning, monitoring, reporting and review.
The day closed with a plenary, where delegates addressed organizational matters, came to various agreements, including on sustainable wildlife management, and heard progress reports from the Working Groups, contact groups and the budget committee.
Summarizing progress so far, COP16 President Susana Muhamad explained that delegates had opened all agenda items, established 16 contact groups, prepared 24 conference room papers and adopted six decisions in the evening plenary.
She called the work so far “remarkable,” noting that there has been “very good progress.”
Muhamad made special mention of Article 8(j), noting that while it hasn’t been concluded, there has been positive movement.
“We have made very good progress [on Article 8(j)] and I look forward to a powerful decision to further strengthen the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the work of this convention,” she said.
Main highlights:
Negotiations have continued on day four, with the proposal for the inclusion of Afro-descendant communities finally under discussion.
While numerous side events drew crowds throughout the blue zone, Working Group II covered several conference room papers related to the Nagoya Protocol (NP) on access and benefit sharing, including a substantial discussion on capacity building.
Within this, delegates emphasized the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities but removed a broader reference to human rights protections. They also removed a paragraph on the theory of change.
The largest divergence in views centered on the access to and transfer of technology, with the EU and U.K. arguing that this should take place on mutual agreed terms, while several countries argued this requirement would hinder transfer.
They eventually agreed to promote access according to existing CBD and NP articles.
The contact group on Article 8(j) – on the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities – made progress on a draft decision for a new work program.
Delegates agreed to request parties to mobilize financial resources and provide non-financial resources to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities in implementing national biodiversity strategies and action plans.
They also agreed on “establishing” rather than “strengthening” a global network of national focal points related to Article 8(j).
The proposal to include people of African descent has been streamlined and brought back to the table, though some delegates argued that the language on local communities already covers Afro-descendants.
There was a lot of support for establishing a permanent subsidiary body for Article 8(j), but some delegates feared this would lead to exclusion rather than integration into the CBD process.
Meanwhile, the blue zone saw the first International Afro-descendant Forum to take place at a Biodiversity COP.
“This COP16 in Cali has set a historic milestone: it is the first time since the CBD [was signed in 1992] that there is an official forum in the blue zone that acknowledges and talks about the rights and contributions of the Afro-descendant community,” Francia Elena Márquez Mina, vice president of Colombia, said of the forum.
The contact group on digital sequence information (DSI) continued their discussions, with presentations from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office. Most of the discussions centered on data governance.
The contact group on resource mobilization focused on a proposed new instrument dedicated to biodiversity finance.
Some parties pushed to move the debate towards practical discussions on how a new instrument would be established and operate, underscoring their support for one. Other countries focused on the issue of whether a new instrument is needed at all.
There were other contact groups that met today, including those on planning, monitoring, reporting and review; financial mechanism; scientific and technical needs; and marine and coastal biodiversity.
In other news, Colombia ratified the International Plant Treaty, making it the 152nd country and 153rd contracting party to do so.
“The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is a treaty that allows us sustainable development and food sovereignty for communities and strengthens the human right to decent food,” said Geidy Xiomara Ortega, deputy minister of agricultural affairs of the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, in a press release.
Main highlights:
Negotiations continued at a steady pace on day three. As planned, Working Group I did not meet, while Working Group II finished the first reading of all its agenda points.
Meanwhile, multiple contact groups continued their discussions throughout the day and into the evening.
The two issues that dominated today’s discussions were digital sequence information (DSI) and Article 8(j), relating to Indigenous Peoples, local communities and traditional knowledge.
The contact group on DSI focused on how distributions from the DSI fund could be managed, highlighting two potential approaches: direct allocations or project-based allocations through a country- or community-driven process.
They also discussed what indicative elements could be used to allocate funds and agreed that a fixed percentage of the fund should be allocated to the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, although the specifics will need to be discussed further.
The contact group on Article 8(j) continued discussions but, to the dismay of some delegates, remained stuck in the details of the new work program rather than tackling key issues.
There was progress on elements of benefit sharing, but divisions remained over funding for the work of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
The group heard an amended proposal on the role of Afro-descendant peoples and communities in the implementation of the CBD. An additional session has been scheduled for tomorrow.
Contact groups also continued to discuss climate change; risk assessment and risk management; marine, coastal and island biodiversity; and capacity building.
The biodiversity and health contact group finished their work, which will be revised by Working Group II. Meanwhile, the resource mobilization contact group began textual negotiations on a revised resource mobilization strategy for the CBD.
Main highlights:
Negotiations were in full swing today: Working Groups I and II continued through agenda items including resource mobilization and financing for the CBD, as well as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CP) and the Nagoya Protocol (NP).
Various contact groups tackled some of the most pressing issues of the conference including digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources, marine and coastal biodiversity, resource mobilization and Article 8(j), which relates to the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Note: COP16 operates with a running agenda, opening with a plenary and then breaking into two working groups (I and II), which run in parallel. Each working group covers different agenda items in an attempt to address the many issues in a relatively short amount of time.
If an agenda item or sub-item needs further discussion, a contact group is established. Contact groups are led by two co-chairs – one from a Global North country and one from a Global South country. These are more informal meetings designed to move the negotiations along and are open to all parties and observers.
Working Group I met in the morning to continue discussions on the CBD financial mechanism. Some countries praised the Global Environment Facility (GEF), including its Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Fund, and dismissing the proposal for a standing committee on the issue as too resource intensive.
Other countries, however, pushed for a dedicated financial mechanism for biodiversity, rather than relying on GEF, which serves multiple conventions and the GBF Fund. They argued that the existing mechanism is cumbersome and change is needed to make funds easier to access.
One point most countries did agree on was the need to increase contributions.
A contact group was established to discuss the CBD financial mechanism further. The two other protocols discussed, the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol, both moved to conference room papers.
Working Group I also discussed Item 12 on capacity building, which generated much discussion and resulted in a contact group.
Countries also discussed cooperation, focusing on how the CBD can work with other multilateral environmental agreements, the rest of the UN and more.
They highlighted existing efforts and opportunities, including the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ Agreement) and the other Rio Conventions. Specific attention was drawn to synergies with recent decisions from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Mexico and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, meanwhile, emphasized the connections between biodiversity, food and nutrition.
Working Group II also examined items from the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol, as well as hearing reports from the contact groups on mainstreaming biodiversity and on biodiversity and health.
For the Nagoya Protocol, they looked at cooperation with other organizations. For the Cartagena Protocol, they looked at risk assessment and risk management – specifically, whether there is a need for guidance on living modified fish, for which a contact group was created.
Various contact groups met throughout the day, including on biodiversity and climate change, biodiversity and health, and capacity building. Some of the notable contact groups were:
This contact group reviewed a draft decision, which includes four key annexes on a revised resource mobilization strategy, actions to close the biodiversity finance gap, a possible global instrument for biodiversity, and proposed guidelines for establishing a working group to explore these topics.
Delegates debated the relationship between the resource mobilization strategy and the actions listed, with some advocating for discussions on a new instrument for biodiversity finance.
However, others expressed skepticism about focusing discussions on a new instrument and suggested focusing on the existing strategy instead.
This contact group continued discussions on a new, expansive, program of work for how Indigenous Peoples and local communities can be incorporated into all areas of the convention.
While there was some progress, countries remained significantly at odds over the proposal to include references to people of African descent in the program.
This contact group looked into the question of monetary contributions to a global DSI fund and text proposals on thresholds for contributing to such a fund, including turnover, sales and profit.
They also discussed whether there was a need for a list of sectors or subsectors that benefit from DSI use.
This contact group is aiming to release a paper by the end of the week.
This group discussed modifications and further work on ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) and what any changes might mean for biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.
It also explored gaps in the program of work for marine and coastal biodiversity.
Synthetic biology is a rapidly developing field. This contact group discussed how protocols can keep up with these advances, as well as global inequities between rich and poor countries in the use of this technology and how this gap could be addressed.
Additional reporting by Eirini Sakellari
Main highlights:
Today was the first day of official proceedings at the Biodiversity COP16, kicking off with cultural performances followed by opening and regional statements.
Susana Muhamad, COP16 president and Colombia’s minister of environment and sustainable development, emphasized the importance of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) as a milestone in biodiversity conservation but warned that the job is not yet done.
“Kunming–Montreal was a very intense and successful negotiation. The level of commitment in implementing the Kunming–Montreal agreement is not to be diminished,” Muhamad said in her opening speech.
“This is not your standard environmental policy. This is not just national plans that will set targets. This requires a deep involvement of whole of government and whole of society.”
Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), has confirmed that this is the largest UN Biodiversity Conference to date, suggesting the growing importance of the biodiversity crisis on the international agenda.
The Secretariat also reported yesterday that 108 parties have submitted national targets, while 35 have submitted updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).
The various regional statements covered the expected topics of digital sequence information (DSI), the central role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, the need for synergies among the Rio Conventions, and – more than anything else – biodiversity funding.
Some regions also mentioned the need to advance work on marine and coastal biodiversity, with the Maldives, representing the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), urging parties to resolve outstanding issues around this and recognize the unique position of SIDS.
Speaking for the African Group, Senegal emphasized the fact that 41 African parties have submitted national targets, reflecting their commitment to implementing the GBF.
“We believe in Africa that it is absolutely vital to change the current paradigms in order to further strengthen our efforts in protecting biodiversity,” the Senegalese representative said.
Multiple speakers also noted the need for a solid program on Article 8(j), including the International Indigenous Forum On Biodiversity (IIFB), which called for a dedicated subsidiary body.
Article 8(j) of the CDB will be a recurring point of discussion over the next two weeks. It states that:
Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:
Subject to national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge innovations and practices.
Following the plenary, working groups met to review draft decisions and establish contact groups, including four that met in the evening to address draft decisions on Article 8(j), DSI, biodiversity and health, and biodiversity mainstreaming.
Notably, in working group I, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) stated on behalf of the African Group that they would not accept any revision of terminology related to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
More specifically, the DRC raised concerns about submission by Colombia and Brazil on the inclusion of Afro-descendants in the implementation of the CBD.
Finally…
…thank you for reading this story. Our mission is to make them freely accessible to everyone, no matter where they are.
We believe that lasting and impactful change starts with changing the way people think. That’s why we amplify the diverse voices the world needs to hear – from local restoration leaders to Indigenous communities and women who lead the way.
By supporting us, not only are you supporting the world’s largest knowledge-led platform devoted to sustainable and inclusive landscapes, but you’re also becoming a vital part of a global movement that’s working tirelessly to create a healthier world for us all.
Every donation counts – no matter the amount. Thank you for being a part of our mission.
