Progress at the UN’s biodiversity summit, Cop16, in Cali, Columbia, has been slow. Frustratingly so.
There were high hopes that the Colombian hosts could coordinate action between developed and developing countries towards reaching the landmark global biodiversity agreement reached in Montreal, Canada at Cop15 two years ago. But after two weeks and one long night, negotiations ended abruptly. Many delegates had to leave to catch flights home with key issues unresolved.
This conference started with alarming news that the latest edition of the red list – the official record of threatened species – shows that more than one third of tree species face extinction in the wild. That’s more than the number of threatened birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians combined.
Urging negotiators to recognise the seriousness of this nature crisis, Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro warned they were facing “the battle for life”.
There was certainly no shortage of people seeking solutions.
In the heart of the city, Cop16’s green zone hosted vibrant music, film screenings, indigenous arts and crafts. Local people, businesses and conference delegates discussed creative and collaborative ways to address the nature crisis.
Over in the blue zone, the official conference space, there was a notable increase in the diversity of communities participating across side events and pavilions. The links between biodiversity and human health were highlighted. So too was the importance of nature for water and food security.
In his opening video message, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres urged countries gathered to “engage all of society” as “la Cop de la gente” (a Cop of the people).
So protests from Indigenous people and local communities were particularly powerful. Including greater recognition for these groups in the final decisions from the meeting was a rare sign of progress. A new fund to ensure that these groups would receive a share of the profits from the commercial use of digital sequence information – genetic information from native plants and animals – was another victory.
A new set of principles developed by the UK government to prioritise gender issues in conservation and ensure fair access to the benefits biodiversity action for all marginalised groups received widespread support.
The focus on economic resilience was more prominent than ever, with two days dedicated to business and finance. In 2018, only 300 businesses attended Cop14 in Egypt. In Cali, this number was 3,000.
Private investors, pension funds, the insurance industry and public banks stressed the importance of creating robust measures of biodiversity improvement. Business sectors focused on transition plans that could support fair and transparent means of reporting progress. The nature tech sector is growing too, with start-ups expected to attract up to $2 billion (£1.5 billion) in investments by the end of 2024.
Back in the negotiating halls, delegates faced an uphill struggle. Only 44 out of 196 national plans to protect biodiversity have been updated to reflect the new targets. So, it’s no surprise that a gap is widening between current reality and the ambitious set of 23 targets which governments must reach by 2030. While countries agreed to a progress review in 2026, no consensus was reached on the indicators to be used. Progress was painfully slow.
Negotiators debated how the global agreement on biodiversity should interact with its sister conventions on climate and desertification. Further discussions next year might identify how this could work but this probably won’t lead to drastic change. Some countries, including India and Russia, still seemed unwilling to accept the critical risks posed to nature and society of exceeding the 1.5°C global target for climate change.
Many developing nations were concerned that greater integration between the climate crisis and biodiversity would lead to “double counting” of funding with the danger that developed countries could backtrack on their promises to support dedicated action on nature. Others, including the EU, argued that action to conserve and restore nature was an essential part of tackling all environmental and societal global challenges.
The deadlock between these positions continued for days. In the final hours of Cop16, negotiators reached a compromise that sets out a more integrated pathway for bringing action on climate and nature together. While the effects of climate change directly exacerbate biodiversity loss, restoring nature can be a powerful tool in the fight to mitigate the climate crisis and benefit biodiversity. Nature-based solutions – measures like restoring peatlands and wetlands, planting trees and mangroves – help build that resilience.
Heads of state and ministers joining at the midpoint of the meeting pointed out the need to ensure that nature is protected both for its own sake and for the communities that depend on healthy ecosystems for their livelihood and wellbeing.
But at the end of a long final night, these words were not accompanied by concrete plans for action or the financial commitments about how nature protection should be paid for that many at Cop16 were hoping for.
The global biodiversity agreement set in 2022 called for a whole of society approach to address the nature crisis. Cop16 certainly delivered. From local communities to huge businesses, there was a spirit of rolling up sleeves and putting investment and innovation to work using nature-based solutions to restore and conserve biodiversity.
The same energy and commitment was clear from many of the local and sub-national governments assembled at Cop16. The first gathering of Mayors for Nature demonstrated significant commitment to action.
Leaders from California and Quebec set the tone by investing in large-scale programmes, with Quebec not only committing to fund their own biodiversity action but also contributing to the global biodiversity fund – the first regional government to do so.
But national governments struggled to move forward. The complexity of addressing biodiversity and its necessary interactions with sectors such as agriculture, transport and mining, as well as concerns over historic injustices between developing and developed countries, was perhaps too much for Cop16 to resolve.
The risk is that, as governments navigate these challenges, the private sector could accelerate action without scrutiny. I worry that the lack of policy coordination could deter investors and slow the pace of action that local communities and regional governments want to make. Rather than waiting for global consensus, groups can catalyse change while holding each other accountable to make swift progress to save nature.
