By: Cat Clarke, affiliate PhD researcher
Between 21 October and 1 November 2024, Cali hosted the largest UN Biodiversity conference to date, with delegates from 177 nations and 25,000 registered participants attending the Blue Zone, where official negotiations took place.
Participants included observers from accredited organisations – NGOs, Indigenous Peoples and Local Community organisations, academia and research institutes, philanthropy, multi-laterals and a record number of private sector delegates (pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, etc).
Presented as the “Peoples’ COP”, Cali engaged the general public – over 125,000 people – in a series of vibrant parallel events in the Green Zone, located in a pedestrianised area on the city’s riverbank.
Blue Zone
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (K-M GBF), adopted in December 2022, is an ambitious though non-binding international biodiversity agreement which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 – the focus of COP16 was on its implementation.
Expected outcomes of the Cali COP revolved around defining the delivery mechanisms of the Framework, including reaching agreement on programmes of work, the monitoring framework, and, crucially, the Framework’s finance mechanisms.
Despite the focus on implementation, 85% of countries missed the deadline to deliver their national-level plans (called NBSAPs), which detail how they will meet their commitments under the CBD. 78% of countries had still not done so by the end of the COP.
Outcomes of the COP itself were mixed, with important issues left unresolved. Negotiations were finally suspended when quorum was lost following an all-night session, before key decisions on finance and monitoring were made.
Huge finance gap
Financial commitments remain unfulfilled, with the proposed establishment of a new dedicated biodiversity fund blocked by wealthier nations. Developing countries lack sufficient financial resources to implement their biodiversity plans and criticized the GEF for inefficiency. Cali contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the interim funding mechanism, were less than expected, with developed countries off target to meet their financial commitments of 20 billion USD annually by 2025 (and 200 billion USD by 2030).
Cali Fund
More positively, COP16 saw the establishment of the “Cali Fund” for the use of genetic information from plants, animals and microorganisms. Companies are expected to pay 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenues derived from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) into the fund. The Cali Fund is expected to raise up to $1 billion yearly. Half of the funds generated are intended for IPs and LCs in the countries which house the genetic data, although the details of how the fund will operate – both in terms of incentivising companies to pay into it, and distribution of funds – are still under negotiation.
Monitoring framework
One small win was the agreement of a land tenure indicator for Target 22 in the draft framework. However, COP16 ended without the formal adoption of the Monitoring Framework and its full set of indicators, leaving question marks over how progress will be tracked prior to COP17 in 2026.
Target 3 – Indigenous and traditional territories?
At the 30×30 Action Day several participants mentioned the reluctance of Indigenous peoples and groups to report their lands and territories as OECMs. One panellist from Standard Charters framed this as a financial risk, potentially hindering biodiversity funding: “Some stakeholders are sceptical about OECMs – for us as financial institutions, that’s terrifying”.
Despite lack of clarity around the terminology within the 30×30 Target, no advances were made on how “Indigenous and traditional territories” should be recognised and reported under Target 3, alongside Protected Areas and OECMs. Several audience questions highlighted this grey area, but they were not picked up by panellists.
The Subsidiary Body – Inclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities
The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), the official representative body of IPs and LCs to the CBD, also known as the Indigenous Caucus, pushed hard for the establishment of a permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8j.
Article 8j of the CBD recognises the contributions of traditional knowledge to the successful implementation of the Framework.
“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.” – Article 8j
The Subsidiary Body on Article 8j was agreed to celebrations and cheers – despite early opposition from Russia and Indonesia – and will replace the ad hoc Working Group, which has temporarily housed this programme of work for over 20 years. It has been called a ‘historic win’, as no other UN environmental convention has a permanent and dedicated space for Indigenous peoples and local community representatives.
The Subsidiary Body’s two co-chairs will be elected every 2 years, one nominated by representatives of Indigenous peoples and local communities, and one by Parties. Representatives of Indigenous peoples and local communities will also be invited from each of the seven sociocultural regions identified by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to participate in the work of the Subsidiary Body, as friends of the Bureau. Questions remain on the nomination and selection process, and how the rotation and renewal of selected representatives will be ensured.
Afro-descendants
COP16 not only secured a permanent working group for Indigenous peoples and local communities, it also recognised Afro-descendant peoples’ role in biodiversity conservation. Prior to this, Afro-descendant peoples were recognised neither as “Indigenous peoples” nor as “local communities”. This recognition has further opened debate on the definition of “local communities” and the need (or not) to make specific reference to other minority ethnic groups or tribal peoples.
Diverse Values
Parties adopted a new text recognising the findings of IPBES’ Methodological Assessment Report onDiverse Values and Valuation of Nature. The text notes the relevance of “integrating diverse knowledge and value systems, valuation methods and concepts and world views of nature in policymaking and decision making” and encourages Parties to take steps in response to the Assessment’s findings.
Despite the adoption of this text, divides between developed and developing nations were stark, across agenda items, with global south nations showing strong leadership on key issues such as establishing the Subsidiary Body on 8j, recognising the role of Afro-descendent peoples and DSI benefit sharing. Bolivia was particularly vocal, calling out the CBD’s Eurocentric practices, both ontologically and procedurally.
Forest Tenure Pledge 2.0
On the side lines, discussions took place on the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Forest Tenure Pledge, launched three years ago at the COP26 in Glasgow. 25 public and philanthropic donors pledged 1.7 billion USD to support IP and LC tenure rights from 2021-2025.
The results show that 79% of the total Pledge has been disbursed ($1.34 billion), but that relatively little of this money reached IP and LC groups directly – only 2.1-10.6% of funds in 2021-2023 – showing little change in funding flows. Discussions and consultations are now underway to improve the next version of this pledge, to be launched at COP30 in Brazil in 2025.
