COP16 or "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" of Global Biodiversity Efforts
At The ESG Institute, we have watched with both hope and apprehension the progression of the Conferences of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The 16th meeting, COP16, held in Cali, Colombia, stood as a testament to the complexities of global biodiversity governance, especially as we inch closer to 2030, a critical year for our planet’s environmental goals.
The title of this article, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” is of course borrowed from the iconic 1966 Western film, where three protagonists navigate a landscape filled with tension, conflict, and fleeting alliances. Much like the film’s intense journey, COP16 unfolded in a mix of triumphs, disappointments, and stark realities, as nations gathered to confront some of the most urgent environmental issues of our time. In both the movie and the conference, there’s an underlying theme: conflicting interests that make the path forward anything but straightforward..
Understanding COP: A Background
The COP framework under the United Nations has been central to global environmental governance, serving as a platform for countries to negotiate and commit to actions that can curb biodiversity loss. COP1 took place in 1994, soon after the Convention on Biological Diversity came into force, catalyzing a series of discussions that have shaped international policies. Major landmarks include the 2010 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which aimed to halt biodiversity loss by 2020, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, which ambitiously proposed 30% of the world’s land and seas should be conserved by 2030.
Yet, as COP16 demonstrated, commitment and action are two very different things. While many frameworks and targets have been established, actual implementation lags, revealing the disconnect between ambition and reality.
COP16 Objectives: Moving from Policy to Action
COP16 convened in a setting marked by urgency, set in a country that embodies both the beauty and peril of biodiversity. Colombia, one of the world’s most biodiverse countries, has also faced the highest number of environmental activist killings, with 79 murders reported in 2023 alone. The core objectives of COP16 were clear: to solidify the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, ensure equitable benefit-sharing, and secure the necessary funding to turn policies into practice. But achieving these objectives proved challenging. In your opinion, With each conference seemingly following a similar pattern, are global leaders genuinely committed to biodiversity, or are these gatherings exercises in diplomacy without the necessary accountability?
The intended outcomes included:
Increased financial support, particularly from developed nations, to support biodiversity conservation in lower-income countries.
Strengthening global and local governance structures by involving more Indigenous and local communities.
Establishing mechanisms to benefit developing nations from their genetic resources, primarily through fair use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI).
Measuring progress toward the “30 by 30” goal.
The Good: Celebrating Progress
Inclusion of Indigenous and Local Voices
One of COP16's triumphs was its unprecedented recognition of Indigenous and local communities. A permanent consultative body was established, providing a formal structure for these groups to be involved in biodiversity conservation decisions. This shift reflects a broader acknowledgment of traditional ecological knowledge as a valuable asset in the fight to preserve biodiversity. Indigenous communities often live in, manage, or depend on ecosystems that are vital for global biodiversity; thus, their involvement goes beyond token representation—it’s an essential factor in effective conservation. In your opinion, If Indigenous communities are among the most effective stewards of biodiversity, why have they been largely excluded from decision-making until now?
Research shows that 80% of the world’s biodiversity is found in areas managed by Indigenous peoples, demonstrating the profound influence of traditional stewardship on ecological health. Case studies from regions like the Amazon and the Congo Basin show that lands managed by Indigenous communities often have 10-15% lower rates of deforestation than similar non-Indigenous territories. This body, therefore, is a step toward institutionalising Indigenous perspectives, allowing them to bring traditional practices into international conservation policy in a meaningful way.
Digital Sequence Information (DSI) Fund
The DSI fund is another notable achievement. For years, genetic resources extracted from biodiversity hotspots have fueled industries in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agriculture, often with minimal to no compensation for the countries or communities from which these resources originated. The DSI fund addresses this imbalance by mandating companies to pay for the genetic information they use, a critical step toward fair benefit-sharing. In your opinion, Will this fund create a fair distribution of benefits, or will it face the same implementation challenges as previous initiatives?
The Bad: Shortfalls in Financial Commitments and Implementation
Funding Shortfalls and Lack of Investment
Financial support is the lifeblood of conservation, yet COP16 highlighted an all-too-familiar issue: the gap between pledged and actual funds. In 2022, the Kunming-Montreal agreement committed to mobilizing $200 billion per year for conservation. However, as of 2024, only an estimated $80 billion has been mobilized annually, with funding falling far short of promises.
Wealthier countries were called upon to step up, yet negotiations faltered, and COP16 ended with significant funding discussions unresolved due to a lack of quorum. The failure to reach binding commitments on finance underscores a persistent challenge in environmental governance: a lack of accountability mechanisms to ensure pledges become reality.
The Implementation Gap in the “30 by 30” Goal
The “30 by 30” initiative has become a cornerstone of global biodiversity strategies, aiming to protect 30% of the planet’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems by 2030. Yet, as of COP16, only 17.6% of terrestrial and 8.4% of marine areas have achieved protected status, far below target.
The UN Environment Programme estimates that an additional $700 billion annually is required to meet the biodiversity goals set for 2030. This implementation gap reveals not only financial limitations but also political hesitancy. Protected area designation often faces opposition from industries, including agriculture, forestry, and mining, which resist losing access to land and resources. For countries dependent on these industries, transitioning to a more conservation-centric economy requires international support—a level of assistance that has been, at best, inconsistent.
The Ugly: Political and Logistical Challenges
A Hostile Environment for Conservation Efforts
The choice of Colombia as the host country underscored the tragic reality that the defense of biodiversity often comes at a great human cost. Colombia, while home to 10% of the world’s species, recorded approximately 79 environmental defender killings in 2023 alone, making it the most dangerous country for environmental activism globally. In your opinion, How can we protect the courageous individuals who defend biodiversity when even international conferences like COP16 are held under the shadow of violence?
Global Disunity and the Missed Opportunities for Collaboration
Lastly, COP16 revealed a stark disunity among nations, especially when it came to financing mechanisms. Developed and developing countries remain divided on how responsibilities for biodiversity loss should be shared, reflecting broader inequalities that have permeated other environmental agreements. In your opinion, Will these persistent divisions ever be bridged, or are we bound to repeat the same conflicts year after year?
The Path Forward
As we reflect on COP16, it’s essential to recognize both the victories and the struggles. Yes, there were meaningful steps forward, especially in terms of Indigenous inclusion and benefit-sharing for genetic resources. However, the failure to secure binding financial commitments and the pervasive violence against biodiversity defenders are major setbacks. Without concrete actions, the promises of the Kunming-Montreal agreement and the 30 by 30 goal may remain mere aspirations.
"We are waging a war against nature. This is suicidal." —UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Looking ahead to COP17 in Armenia in 2025, the stakes will only grow higher. Nations must come prepared to address these unresolved issues with more tangible commitments and accountability mechanisms. We must remember that biodiversity is not just a scientific or environmental issue; it is a moral and economic imperative that underpins human survival. In your opinion, What role can each of us play in holding leaders accountable and driving change at a grassroots level?
Ultimately, the future of our planet’s biodiversity—and our own—depends on it.
Ready to take your career to the next level? Sign up here to obtain the Certificate in ESG Strategy.
For personalized guidance on integrating sustainability into your business operations, reach out to The ESG Institute. Our experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of ESG implementation and drive meaningful change.
