top of page

UN Biodiversity Summit COP16 Concludes With Little To Report

Daisy Moll



On Saturday morning the UN biodiversity conference came to an unusual end. The two week summit held in Cali, Colombia, was scheduled to end on Friday evening. However, a lack of consensus around key issues meant discussions continued well into the night. Annoyance was expressed as many participating countries were unable to reschedule their travel plans. Some countries were left out as they did not have the budget to reschedule their flights.  


Biodiversity, defined by GreenPeace as the variety of life found on Earth, including bacteria, plants, fungi, insects, animals, and humans. It has increasingly become part of the sustainability discourse after being ignored and regarded as separate from climate discourse. Increased interest comes as species are estimated to be going extinct between 1000 and 10,000 times faster than standard rates. This has led some experts to believe that the sixth mass extinction is underway. To apply some context, global wildlife populations have fallen by 69% since 1970. Human activity and climate change are believed to be the leading causes of this decline. Not only that but without this biodiversity the environment reduces in resilience to climate pressures. 


The key target of the summit is to protect 30% of the earth for nature. There were two key achievements reached. First, a global levy was established on products made using genetic data from nature, creating a biodiversity conservation fund. Companies with profits over $5 million must now contribute 1% to the Digital Sequence Information (DSI) fund. Second, Indigenous communities were granted permanent representation in UN biodiversity processes.


However, there were setbacks. Developing nations voiced concern that wealthier countries may not meet their $20 billion funding pledge, with the deadline just two months away. Further, the summit ended with no further clarity over how biodiversity should be measured and thus no clear metrics in place to ensure accountability.


Discussions around measuring biodiversity and funding its protection are gaining momentum. Biodiversity credits have been floated as a viable option. Recent research highlights a staggering $700 billion annual shortfall between current funding levels and that required to maintain ecosystem integrity. 196 countries adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, pledging to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. This framework commits to redirecting $500 billion in environmentally harmful subsidies toward biodiversity efforts and aims to mobilise an additional $200 billion annually for conservation and restoration. While governments have largely shouldered this financial burden, there is now a push for private sector engagement through biodiversity credits, allowing companies to fund conservation activities as part of their own nature-based commitments.


However, implementing biodiversity credits raise their own challenges. There is the difficulty of measuring biodiversity and concerns over greenwashing. Additionally, there is a risk of commodifying practices that certain communities have traditionally upheld. For example indigenous groups have long used controlled burning which risks being demonised yet used sustainably for centuries. Diverse approaches to nature must therefore be respected and protected.

To ensure effective and credible biodiversity credits, a standardised process is essential. An article published in Nature in October argued that  projects must establish a baseline for biodiversity, implement a robust monitoring strategy, and create a transparent, economically feasible verification process. This structure could enhance the appeal of biodiversity credits to investors, thereby increasing their impact on conservation efforts. This therefore, needs immediate attention.


References 









Aide, T.M. The Biodiversity Credit Market needs rigorous baseline, monitoring, and validation practices. npj biodivers 3, 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-024-00062-6




Comentários


bottom of page