The UN biodiversity summit – the world’s largest biodiversity summit, known as COP16 – last weekend in Colombia ended in disarray.
Many developing country delegations left the talks “early” due to the 14-hour over run. Developing country delegations were enraged at how the talks were organised, leaving crucial issues undecided at the final hour. Despite this, several landmark decisions were reached.
ABRUPT END: COP16 nature talks in Cali “ended in disarray on Saturday” after nearly 12 hours of overtime, “with some breakthroughs”, but without consensus on key issues such as nature funding and how this decade’s targets would be monitored, the Guardian reported. Many developing country delegations “were forced to leave the talks early”, it added, due to the 14-hour over run. Those delegations “expressed fury” at how the talks were organised, leaving “crucial issues undecided at the final hour”. Those issues – and COP16 itself – will have to be picked up “next year at an interim meeting in Bangkok”.
For a breakdown of events, see Carbon Brief’s detailed summary of COP16’s key outcomes and watch back the wrap-up webinar where Cropped journalists explained what happened in Cali and answered audience questions.
‘CALI FUND’: One of the “breakthroughs” that countries managed to agree on was a “global levy on products made using genetic data from nature”, the Guardian said. Pharmaceutical, cosmetics and agricultural technology companies that “presently enjoy free and extensive access to this data” now “should contribute” 1% of their profits or 0.1% revenue to the new “Cali Fund”, the Financial Times explained. While this “would essentially be voluntary contributions by companies, rather than [a] mandatory levy”, the decision “could create significant moral and reputational pressure on companies to comply”, it added. Global pharmaceutical industry bodies quoted in the outlet “hit out at the decision” that could have raised a “$67m payment last year from Switzerland’s Roche…alone”. At least half of the money is “meant to support Indigenous people and local communities, especially in low-income parts of the world”, Vox reported.
NO NEW FUND: A key issue on which “no common ground was found” was “how to close the gap in biodiversity finance”, Climate Home News reported. While “unlocking” new and additional finance was a key challenge for COP16, “very little fresh cash was forthcoming” in the two-week summit, the outlet wrote, observers calling $163m in new pledges a “drop in the ocean”. It added that African countries, Brazil and Bolivia “demanded a new fund”, while “Canada, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand and the EU opposed it, instead offering an assessment of the current set-up by COP18”. Wealthy nations “appeared to hit a limit with how much they are willing to pay” to protect nature at COP16, Reuters wrote, “instead shifting their focus” towards “private money filling the funding gap”.
A PERMANENT INDIGENOUS VOICE: In one of the historic wins at COP16, negotiators agreed to “establish a subsidiary body that will include Indigenous peoples in future decisions on nature conservation”, the Associated Press said. The outlet explained that the subsidiary body “recognises and protects” Indigenous knowledge and practices for the “benefit of global and national biodiversity management”. According to the text adopted by the COP, the subsidiary body will have two co-chairs: one nominated by Indigenous representatives and one nominated by parties within a rotating UN regional grouping.
EXPLICIT RECOGNITION: In a separate decision, the COP “finally explicitly recognised the role played by the Afro-descendant population in the care and preservation of biodiversity”, Colombia’s El Espectador reported. The Spanish-language daily said that the issue “had cost [delegates] several hours of negotiations”, as Colombia’s proposal – backed by Brazil – was strongly opposed by the African Group. The newspaper noted: “In practice, this recognition also means that they will be able, in the future, to access funds related to the protection of biodiversity.”
Source: Carbon Brief, November 2, 2024. https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop16-key-outcomes-agreed-at…/
All reactions:
22
China Environment News 