COP16 Biodiversity Summit: Delayed crucial agreements may hamper Global Biodiversity Framework implementation

Writes Dr. Christian Tiambo, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

Progress at COP16

The “People’s COP”, COP16 summit concluded on the 2nd of November in Cali, in the Valle del Pacífico Event Center, the second largest and most modern event space in Colombia and the most modern in the Latin American Pacific region. The outcome included a new fund for digital sequencing information called the “Cali fund” and a new permanent body for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, allowing them to advise and offer their view at biodiversity COPs directly for the first time.

Despite all the energies invested by the negotiators, it is frustrating that a decision on Resource Mobilization was not adopted, but that should not shadow the fact that very important decisions were adopted toward the Goal of “Making Peace with Nature”:

1. Acknowledging the vital role of digital sequence information on genetic resources, and open access to digital sequence information on genetic resources, in scientific research and sustainable development, open access was recognized as important to research and key to the operation of the databases (a key principle through the reference to decision 15/9).
2. The multilateral mechanism will be executed to be reciprocally loyal of and adaptive to other international access and benefit-sharing instruments on digital sequence information on genetic resources, to avoid the stacking of obligations and, where appropriate, to streamline processes. Other international access and benefit-sharing instruments are invited to collaborate with the multilateral mechanism and where appropriate, to streamline processes. The provisions of the mechanism will not affect the rights and obligations of any Party deriving from any existing international agreement.
3. Users of digital sequence information on genetic resources in sectors that directly or indirectly benefit from its use in their commercial activities should contribute a proportion of their profits or revenue to the global fund, according to their size. Academia and public research will not be required to contribute monetary benefits. However, all users of digital sequence information on genetic resources should share non-monetary benefits fairly and equitably, as appropriate. Non-monetary benefit sharing should support self-identified capacity and technical development needs and priorities including, inter alia, capacity building for the generation of, access to and use and storage of digital sequence information on genetic resources, as well as the self-identified needs of indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth within those communities.
4. Without prejudice to national Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) measures, where Parties put in place national measures on access and benefit-sharing from digital sequence information on genetic resources, they are invited to align them with the multilateral mechanism, such that there is no duplication of expectations to share the benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources under the multilateral mechanism. The public data repositories are not expected to be the “ABS compliance police”. The decision includes language on legal clarity vis a vis other international ABS systems, including some door opening to synergies/harmonization
5. The need to do capacity building to support the use of DSI and the importance of supporting scientific research is recognized. Some of the Cali Funds may support capacity building and technology transfer. Unfortunately, the specific earmark for funding for capacity building was not retained.
6. Establishment of the Subsidiary Body on the Full and Effective participation of IPLCs on the work undertaken under the Convention on Biological Diversity
7. Adoption of the new programme of work on Article 8j and other provisions of the CBD related to IPLCs to 2030. The adoption of the Article 8(j) work program and the Subsidiary Body is a momentous decision to guarantee the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the work undertaken under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The recognition of the Afro-descendant people embodying traditional lifestyles in conserving biodiversity is essential for the implementation of the Convention. It is a step forward to achieve peace for nature”.
8. Recognition for the 1st time in the history of the CBD, the role of people of African descent in the implementation of the The “People’s COP” has seen increased participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, Afro-descendants, women, and youth, all fairly and equitably raising their concerns for “Making Peace with Nature”. Their voices were being heard by all both at the blue and the green zones of the COP16.
9. COP16 adopted a decision to establish the “Cali Fund”, where companies making revenue or benefit out of the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) will be required to contribute to this fund and money therein will be used to advance conservation action including supporting the work of IPLCs. The decision on the ‘Cali Fund’ states that companies using digital sequence information (DSI) from genetic biodiversity resources in their products should pay a portion of their profits or revenues into the fund. Under the agreed guidelines, large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from DSI uses should contribute to “the Cali Fund,” based on a percentage of their profits or revenues. The model targets larger companies most reliant on DSI and exempts academic, public research institutions and other entities using DSI but not directly benefiting. Public databases, academic, and public research institutions are not expected to make monetary contributions to the global fund. Funding to Parties will be disbursed through direct allocations to countries
10. Having agreed at COP 15 to establish a multilateral mechanism, including a global fund, to share the benefits from uses of digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI) more fairly and equitably, delegates at COP 16 advanced its operationalization. This complex decision addressed how pharmaceutical, biotechnology, animal and plant breeding and other industries benefiting from DSI should share those benefits with developing countries and Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
11. While the disbursement details are still being finalized, it has been agreed that 50% of the fund will be allocated to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, either directly or through governments. This will enable these communities, including women and youth to finally share in the profits. It can be recognized that the Cali Fund” still has many imperfections to be corrected, but it is a significant step forward. Funding should support the realization of the objectives of the Convention in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing states and economies in transition, in particular the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including through the delivery of activities described in national biodiversity strategies and action plans, contribute to scientific research on biodiversity,  benefit Indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth within those communities, and support the building of capacity under Article 16 of the Convention, to generate, access, use, analyze and store digital sequence information on genetic resources according to capacity needs.
12. However, discussions around the establishment of a new wider biodiversity fund, as well as other key decisions have been postponed because there were no longer enough negotiators in the room to take decisions. This outcome, which not only denotes the lack of trust and confidence, may also translate an issue of inequity in in the negotiations and on the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
13. A Decision to promote synergies in biodiversity and climate policy instruments and initiatives on the ground was adopted. Considerable progress was made in integrating nature and climate efforts. However, with the Baku’s COP29 just at the doorstep of CBD COP16, worries can be fairly expressed about the capacity of Parties without NBSAPs to explore efficient associations between the climate and biodiversity conventions. Furthermore, with limited pledges in the biodiversity funds, what should be done differently to better track funding sources for climate finance that could simultaneously support the KMGBF targets?
14. Synthetic biology was a prominent topic at COP 16, with an eye toward its potential benefits while considering the risks. To address inequity in the participation of developing countries in the synthetic biology field, the decision introduces a new thematic action plan to help address the capacity-building, technology transfer and knowledge-sharing needs of Parties, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. By helping countries assess and apply synthetic biology technologies, COP 16 fostered innovation while safeguarding biodiversity. An expert group will guide the identification of synthetic biology’s potential benefits and review the potential impacts of recent technological developments.
15. COP 16’s decision on invasive alien species addresses one of the top five direct drivers of biodiversity loss, highlighting the need for international cooperation, capacity-building, and technical support for developing countries.  It proposes guidelines for managing invasive alien species, touching on issues such as e-commerce, multicriteria analysis methodologies, and others.
16. COP 16 agreed on a new and evolved process to identify ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs). Under the CBD, work on EBSAs, which identifies the most critical and vulnerable parts of the ocean, began in 2010 and became a central area of ocean-related work.
17. Among the most crucial areas of discussion was the protection of wild species. A decision on sustainable wildlife management underscored the necessity of monitoring, capacity-building, and the inclusive participation of indigenous peoples, local communities, and women. To this end, the decision called for the cooperation of international bodies like CITES and FAO to be implemented. The framework encourages research on how wildlife use, biodiversity loss, and zoonotic diseases are interconnected, a vital area for a world increasingly aware of the public health implications of biodiversity loss.

Additionally, COP 16 saw a commitment to align plant conservation efforts with the KMGBF monitoring framework. This includes updating the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation with specific indicators and a standardized reporting template, ensuring that progress in plant protection is measurable and consistent with global biodiversity targets.

18. At COP 16, CBD Parties approved a Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health designed to help curb the emergence of zoonotic diseases, prevent non-communicable diseases, and promote sustainable ecosystems.  The strategy embraces a holistic “One Health” approach that recognizes the health of ecosystems, animals, and humans as interconnected. Recognizing that biodiversity loss and poor health often share common drivers, such as deforestation, pollution, and climate change. The plan emphasizes the urgency of tackling these threats to benefit both ecosystems and humans.

The strategy underlines the need for education and promoting understanding of the connections between biodiversity and health, and the need to strengthen policies that promote sustainable ecosystems, support traditional medicine, and reduce habitat destruction.

Special attention is accorded to vulnerable populations, including Indigenous peoples, who depend on local biodiversity for food, medicine, and cultural identity, as well as youth, seen as vital contributors to conservation and health initiatives.

At the heart of the plan is a collaborative framework that brings together health professionals, conservationists, and policymakers. The COP decision invites nations to designate national focal points for biodiversity and health, and to develop policies reflecting these interconnections, integrating biodiversity-health considerations in policies across the range of sectors from agriculture to urban planning.

The strong results, built on a spirit of compromise, and dialogue, demonstrate that multilateralism can still achieve results in a fractious time.  Parties at COP 16 will resume discussions at a later date and venue to approve a new “Strategy for Resource Mobilization” to help secure $200 billion annually by 2030 to support biodiversity initiatives and redirect the $500 billion per year in subsidies that harm biodiversity. Parties will also look at the possible creation of a new dedicated global financing instrument for biodiversity to receive, disburse, mobilize, and articulate funding needs.

What went sour at the COP16

However, The negotiations were suspended as the required quorum could no longer be reached, as only 44 out of 196 parties (22%) remained in the room, while numerous issues were still pending – comprising finance and the monitoring framework – and will resume at a later date.

Though the COP16 was by far the most attended and the most inclusive, early warning signs of the difficult situation lay in the fact that at the unset of the Summit, 85% of parties (170 out of 196 parties) were set to miss the deadline to release new NBSAPs, and 12 out of the 17 “megadiverse countries” (provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity) where not among those who submitted their new Biodiversity strategy and action plans. The major reason for most countries was the lack of timely funding available from the Global Environment Facility Fund (GEF).

NBSAPs are landmarks for how each country plans to tackle biodiversity loss within its territory, as well as ensure they meet the international targets outlined in the GBF. Countries are not legally obliged to submit it, but without NBSAPs, it was almost inevitable for the negotiations to very tough and blurred, leading to a sink.

The issue of non-monetary benefits was the most neglected of the COP and as a result, the two paragraphs on NMBs are unclear. There will be a lot to do in the next two years ( still trying to compile in the table below).

The new COP presidency and the CBD Secretariat should urge countries to finalize and submit their new NBSAPs, without which there is no Target 3 (Effective conservation and management of 30% of land and 30% of oceans by 2030) of the GBF.

Engagement on or before COP17 Yerevan, Armenia, 2026

October 2025 is the date of the next Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) meeting.

It is therefore vital that negotiators at COP16 include livestock as well as wildlife in their National Biodiversity Strategies and Adaptation Plans (NBSAPs), including local and Indigenous livestock digital sequences.

Therefore, we recommend parties to work on the following items:

COP16 documents : https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2024/cop-16/documents

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/wildlife-biodiversity/cop16-event-calls-for-integration-of-indigenous-livestock-in-global-biodiversity-framework

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1m/k1m8itoqwi