The Cali summit is suspended due to a lack of quorum during the final marathon session. The decision on the crucial dossier for nature finance is postponed. Progress is made on national plans, benefit-sharing from genetic resources, and representation of Indigenous peoples.
A new mechanism for benefit-sharing of genetic resources and genuine representation of Indigenous peoples. However, no agreement was reached on central issues such as funding for nature conservation and how to monitor progress toward the 2030 targets. After two weeks of negotiations in Cali, Colombia, the COP16 on Biodiversity ended with an incomplete agreement, postponing the most important and challenging issues to next year.
The Stakes at COP16 on Biodiversity
The Cali summit was the first international meeting after the adoption of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the agreement concluded at COP15 in Kunming-Montreal in 2022. The GBF:
- created a common framework with new 2030 targets to reverse biodiversity loss,
- mandated that each country submit a new national biodiversity plan by COP16,
- established a process to monitor the implementation of these plans,
- set new targets for nature finance (200 billion dollars per year by 2030, with 25 billion from wealthier countries by 2025 and 30 billion by 2030).
COP16 was primarily an opportunity to assess whether the 196 countries part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) were collectively on the right track, what needed modification, and how to achieve it. This began with the national plans, which translate global biodiversity goals into local action and define the means to reach them. Additionally, the Cali summit aimed to reach an agreement on nature finance, a critical component to ensure that developing countries have sufficient resources to do their part in nature conservation.
National Biodiversity Plans (NBSAPs)
COP16 did not resolve the main issue related to National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs): most countries had not submitted their plans in time. At the summit’s start, only 26 plans—just 15% of the total—had been submitted. By the end of COP16, the number increased to 44, still under 25% of the total. Another 115 countries presented only national targets, without outlining how they intend to achieve them. Given this delay, COP16 simply reiterated the request to submit NBSAPs “as soon as possible“ without specifying any deadlines, leaving room for interpretation.
The mechanism to review and assess progress on national plans during future biodiversity COPs also remained weak. In Cali, delegates approved a text detailing the review process. As usual, the assessment will be collective, without singling out specific countries. However, there are no mechanisms to hold countries accountable for any delays in meeting the targets. The global review, COP16 decided, will rely on input from national sources and third parties (such as civil society) but will not impose any obligations on states, who “may” revise their national plans.
Nature Finance
A complete impasse occurred on the issue of nature finance. COP16 on Biodiversity ended in deadlock during the extended plenary session on November 1–2, which was centered on this dossier. The final agreement contains no decisions on funding-related matters. The latest negotiation text, proposed last minute by the Colombian presidency, will serve as the starting point for the next preparatory meeting ahead of COP17.
On this point, the summit ended as it began. The Global South wanted a new dedicated fund for nature finance, with governance granting these countries more influence. The Global North wanted to keep the existing fund, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, established at COP15 two years ago. This fund, approved despite objections from some developing countries (including Congo in the final plenary), has not been effective, with promised resources reaching only 400 million dollars per year. Additional contentious issues include references to equity and the debt burden on less developed countries.
The Agreement on Genetic Resources (DSI)
There was, however, an agreement on Digital Sequence Information (DSI), the genetic information of animals and plants that is digitized and easily shared. For years, negotiations have aimed to establish a principle: some sectors (especially the pharmaceutical industry) use DSIs to create their products and should pay a fee to the countries that host the biodiversity from which these companies profit.
The issue is equitable benefit-sharing, given that companies, typically based in the Global North, exploit these resources derived from biodiversity, which is often concentrated in the Global South.
COP16 on Biodiversity approved a “Cali Fund” to collect payments associated with using DSI. However, these payments will be voluntary. Companies are encouraged to contribute to the fund in a highly criticised agreement clause. The text suggests a quantitative guideline—1% of profits or 0.1% of revenues—but these figures are non-binding. A further modification, considered by some as “biopiracy,” states that companies are no longer required to prove they did not use DSIs in their products. This effectively means companies can simply choose not to pay without any justification.
Role of Indigenous Peoples
Another agreement reached at COP16 on Biodiversity concerns the role of Indigenous peoples. The summit established the creation of a subsidiary body that guarantees Indigenous participation. This body will have a say in decisions related to nature conservation, effectively giving Indigenous peoples a more central role throughout the negotiation process.
Other Topics Discussed at COP16 on Biodiversity
The two weeks of negotiations covered many other topics. COP16 formally recognized the link between biodiversity and climate, although the language in the final text is softened compared to earlier drafts. Part of the final agreement includes initiatives to incorporate biodiversity considerations across all relevant policies, such as agriculture and infrastructure development (known as “biodiversity mainstreaming”).
Furthermore, next steps were outlined to approve a common framework on “synthetic biology,” including innovative techniques like gene drive. A standard method was also adopted for identifying ocean areas with high ecological value that should be prioritized for protection (Ecologically Biologically Significant Areas, or EBSAs). An action plan on biodiversity and health was approved.
Here you can find all the documents approved at COP16 in Cali.
