"On November 1st, the international biodiversity summit in Cali will conclude. However, COP16 risks ending without an agreement on the financial resources to be allocated for the protection of nature and biodiversity.
Millions Instead of Billions. And Zero Agreements on the Fund That Should Collect and Distribute Them. These are the two issues that are blocking the work of COP16 on biodiversity currently taking place in Cali, Colombia. With just over 24 hours until the summit closes, these issues risk causing its failure. The final agreement may not contain any pact on financing for nature. And without adequate resources, achieving the 2030 goals is virtually impossible
Bridging the Financing Gap for Nature
During COP15 in Montreal in 2022, the nearly 200 countries participating in the negotiations set the financing gap for nature at $700 billion per year. Scientific assessments support this figure and corresponds to the volume of resources needed to sustainably manage biodiversity and halt the destruction of ecosystems and species.
The agreement reached in the Canadian city included a target of $200 billion per year by 2030, from any source (public and private). At the same time, developed economies promised to contribute $20 billion per year by 2025 in public funds destined for poorer countries.
However, at COP16, very few new resources have emerged. Before the summit began, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF)—the fund created in 2022 to manage financing for nature—had gathered a mere $244 million. In recent days, an additional $163 million has been promised by Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Quebec.
No Agreement on the Rules of the Game
Another contentious point in the corridors of COP16 is the rules governing the fund. The GBFF was established as an offshoot of the Global Environment Facility and has a governance structure that favors countries with advanced economies, along with rules that limit access to resources.
Countries from the Global South want to leave Cali with a drastic outcome: replacing the GBFF with a new fund that has a more balanced governance structure, particularly favoring “megadiverse” countries that host the majority of biodiversity.
This criticism was already raised during COP15. The representative of the Democratic Republic of Congo, during the final plenary session, objected specifically to the fund’s governance. In fact, he had vetoed it because decisions are made unanimously. However, the Chinese presidency of COP15 simply pretended not to have heard and approved the final agreement. This was a decidedly irregular and shocking move for many delegations, hinting at how deep the divisions regarding the management of financing for nature were even then.
