Peace with nature? Some thoughts about the CBD COP16

By Zsolt Molnár

The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) took place from 21st October to 2nd November 2024 in Cali, Colombia. BIOTraCes expert Zsolt Molnár from the HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research (CER) in Hungary participated in the conference. In this article, he shares his insights.

Two weeks is extremely long for a conference, away from one’s family, grandchildren, colleagues and students. However, the 16th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) reached important decisions that were worth of this effort. Being a scientist, the atmosphere of the negotiations was tough, countries and other parties fought tenaciously for their interests. Marginalized groups, like Indigenous Peoples and local communities, joined with their allies and fought for their people, lands, natural resources and livelihoods. I was one of the members of the EU presidency group given by Hungary, and I was responsible for issues related to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

The slogan of the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP) was ‘Peace with Nature’. This COP is called: People’s COP. (Source: CBD)

The slogan of the 16th COP was ‘Peace with Nature’. Photo by CBD

During COP16, several key decisions were adopted to advance on-the-ground conservation and the implementation of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). These include:

    • Establishing a permanent subsidiary body on Article 8(j) and related provisions, enabling Indigenous Peoples and local communities to better negotiate their role in biodiversity conservation;
    • Adopting a comprehensive programme of work of this body, setting tasks for parties, the CBD Secretariat, and others through 2030;
    • Recognizing the role of people of African descent embodying traditional lifestyles in implementing the Convention;
    • Creating a network of regional Centers for Scientific and Technical Cooperation;
    • Developing a global action plan for biodiversity and health;
    • Integrating UN-level climate action and biodiversity efforts;
    • Setting procedures for describing ecologically and biologically significant marine areas, essential for the BBNJ Agreement and protecting 30% of ocean areas by 2030;
    • Mainstreaming biodiversity across key sectors;
    • Addressing synthetic biology;
    • Issuing guidance on Invasive Alien Species, plant conservation, and sustainable wildlife management;
    • Operationalizing the multilateral mechanism for the sharing of digital sequence information with the launch of the ‘Cali Fund

COP16 was, however, unable to adopt key decisions after the meeting lost quorum on the last day, extending into the morning of the following day. As a result, two critical issues remained unresolved: the mobilization of financial resources and the establishment of a global framework for monitoring and evaluating progress. COP16 will need to reconvene to address these outstanding issues, including: (1) Resource mobilization; (2) Instructions for the Global Environment Facility; (3) The monitoring framework and the planning, monitoring, reporting, and review system for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF); (4) The multi-year programme of work of the Conference of the Parties; (5) Administrative matters and the Secretariat’s budget for the coming biennium. This unresolved outcome risks undermining confidence in, and the effective implementation of, the KMGBF.

"The suspension of the COP without any agreed-upon finance strategy is alarming"​


This summary focuses on issues relevant for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and how their indigenous, traditional and local ecological knowledge can help local to global conservation efforts, and how the Convention can support IPLC’ knowledge systems and livelihoods.

Article 8(j) on Indigenous Peoples and local communities

A key objective of IPLC and many others was to strengthen the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in implementing the KMGBF. COP16 decided on three key points:

  • Establishing a new permanent subsidiary body to ensure the meaningful, inclusive and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the Convention on Biological Diversity;
  • Adopting an ambitious programme of work until 2030;
  • Recognizing the role of people of African descent embodying traditional lifestyles in the Convention’s

Experts debated for over 42 hours in seven sessions of the contact group, three Friends of the Chair meetings and three “informal consultations” during COP16. Due to opposition from Indonesia and Russia, the European Union and its Member States (EU+MS) tied the subsidiary body decision to that of people of African descent, motivating Colombia to find a solution. While the EU+MS approach was supported by the Western European and others group (WEOG), the Pacific Small Island Developing States and Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the room, some parties and the media misrepresented it, claiming EU+MS undermined the rights of people of African descent. Ultimately, a compromise was reached, leading to the establishment of a permanent Subsidiary Body at the next Conference of the Parties to better reflect the need for continuous engagement and contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities at all levels of the implementation of the Convention. This is a significant step forward, as it was the first time that a UN environmental agreement adopted and established a permanent Subsidiary Body for Indigenous Peoples and local communities on traditional knowledge, and the Convention is legally binding.

Additionally, it was decided that the next in-depth dialogue would focus on strategies to mobilize resources for the availability of and access to financial resources and funding to achieve on the ground conservation objectives. The COP also took note of the recommendations from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN PFII). These recommendations were problematic as they refer to eliminating the use of ‘local communities’ in conjunction with ‘Indigenous Peoples’. The decision on ‘taking note’ is important, as this gives a mandate to the CBD Secretariat to officially communicate with the UNPFII and mutually give recommendations to each other. The adopted text, with an additional footnote, however, states that nothing in the document can be interpreted as meaning the separation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This year's summit elevated the voices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) in high-level discussions: rrepresentatives of IPLC erupted in cheers after the adoption of the establishment of a formal body representing their interests in biodiversity negotiations (a permanent subsidiary body for Art. 8(j) – SB8j). Photo by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis

Picture: Representatives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) erupted in cheers after the adoption of the establishment of a formal body representing their interests in biodiversity negotiations. This body will create space for IPLC to develop international laws to protect traditional knowledge for future generations. It marks a pivotal moment in multilateral environmental agreements, offering a high-level platform to emphasize IPLC contributions to planetary protection. After over 20 years with an informal working group, IPLC now have a permanent body, allowing direct involvement in negotiations without relying on government goodwill.

Photo by IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis

Monitoring Framework of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
At the final plenary of the summit, the quorum was not met, preventing the draft decision on key issues, including monitoring, from being discussed. Some attendees pointed out that decisions were being delayed due to a lack of trust and understanding between parties.
A key part of the draft decision on monitoring, highly relevant for IPLC, is an addition of a new headline indicator on land-use change and land tenure in the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities; with an additional provision in the draft decision to request further intersessional work on developing a methodology to monitor this indicator efficiently. This is a huge success for IPLC.
Meanwhile, over 190 countries were expected to submit their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by the summit’s conclusion, outlining concrete steps to meet their collective goals. However, only 44 countries met this requirement. Over 100 others put forward high-level biodiversity targets but failed to present formal action plans to achieve them.

Sustainable Wildlife Management
COP16 encourages parties and others to use the IPBES Thematic Assessment on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species in implementing the K-M GBF’s goals and targets, and to consider the seven suggested policy actions or “key elements” from the assessment. The COP requested the CBD Secretariat to prepare draft global guidance on the sustainable management of wildlife applicable to multiple species and multiple practices, with a focus on:

  • inclusive and participatory decision-making;
  • the inclusion of multiple systems of knowledge and the recognition of rights; and
  • the equitable distribution of costs and benefits.

IPBES assessment on diverse values
COP16 adopted a decision in relation to the IPBES report on diverse values of biodiversity. Diverse values include the values of IPLC which must be the basis for human rights-based conservation and participatory conservation management in areas managed and protected by IPLC.

"The world doesn’t have time for business as usual"

Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources
Decision 15/9 of COP 15 had established that COP16 was to agree on the operational modalities of the multilateral mechanism (MLM) on benefit sharing from the use of Digital Sequence Information derived from genetic resources (DSI) and its global fund.
The decision contains an agreement on the essential elements of the MLM and its fund (Cali Fund) but will require substantial intersessional work for the MLM and its fund to become fully operational. The aim is any case is to have contributions received by the Fund before COP17. Highly profitable companies are asked to contribute to the Cali Fund’ To be tapped for money, these firms have to hit two of the following three criteria: they must have $20 million in assets per year, make $50 million in sales per year or make $5 million in profit annually, averaged over the preceding three years. Economic models show that the DSI agreement could bring in between $1 billion and $9 billion annually. Some key features of the decision relevant for IP&LC:

  • Users that generate monetary benefits from the use of DSI during their commercial activity are expected to share a proportion, 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue, of these benefits through the global fund, according to their size. The Cali Fund will be administered by the UN through the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office, under the authority of the COP.
  • Although the decision is non-binding, parties and non-parties are invited to take administrative, policy, or legislative measures, consistent with national legislation, to incentivize contributions to the Cali Fund.
  • Funding should be allocated in a fair, equitable, transparent, accountable, and gender-responsive manner, and should support the realization of the objectives of the CBD in developing countries, in particular Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, and countries with economies in transition.
  • At least half of the funding of the global fund should support the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in all countries.
Altogether 23 000 people participated at the COP, attended plenary meetings, contact groups, hundreds of side events and formal and informal discussions. They were busy from 8 in the morning till 11 in the night. The atmosphere was sometimes warm, because of heated debates, in other times cold, because of excess air conditioning. The internet was often not functioning properly which hindered the negotiations. (Photo: Zsolt Molnár)

Picture: Altogether 23 000 people participated at the COP, attended plenary meetings, contact groups, hundreds of side events and formal and informal discussions. They were busy from 8 in the morning till 11 in the night. The atmosphere was sometimes warm, because of heated debates, in other times cold, because of excess air conditioning. The internet was often not functioning properly which hindered the negotiations.

Photo by Zsolt Molnár

Resource mobilization
The draft decision on resource mobilization included a revised strategy, a non-exhaustive list of voluntary actions to strengthen, simplify and reform existing biodiversity finance instruments, and discussions on a possible global fund for biodiversity finance and terms of reference for the Open-ended Working Group on Resource Mobilization which was not completed.
Most Global South countries pushed for a new global fund under CBD COP, outside the Global Environment Facility (GEF). In contrast, the EU+MS, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, the UK, and Switzerland opposed establishing a new global fund at COP16. Additionally, the GEF lacks adequate safeguards for Indigenous Peoples’ consent.
The Global Biodiversity Financial Fund´s (GBFF) portfolio so far is dominated by UN agencies and a select handful of mostly US-based conservation organisations and reinforces old and failing models of top-down, colonial conservation especially through the establishment of national parks. So far, the GBFF has approved 22 projects, mainly to be implemented in the Global South but nearly all managed by large accredited organisations including multilateral development banks, UN agencies and Global North green groups like WWF and Conservation International. For Indigenous Peoples and local communities, it’s still too hard to access funding.
Although around US$163 million was pledged in Cali to protect and restore nature, that amount is well short of the $200 billion per year that nations agreed 2 years ago at COP15 will be needed to attain the goal of protecting 30% of the world’s land and seas by 2030.

Cooperation with other Conventions and International Organizations
According to the final draft decision, which was, however, not adopted, parties decided to invite the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop tools and guidance on a human rights-based approach to the implementation of the K-M GBF and convey the results to the CBD Secretariat. Parties also decided to include an area of work on different value systems.

Human rights
A major new guidance document on conservation and human rights was launched during COP16, titled Conservation and Human Rights: An Introduction. It has been developed by the Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science (ICCS) at the University of Oxford, in collaboration with Forest Peoples Programme (FPP). This guidance offers a comprehensive overview of international human rights instruments and frameworks, and of their application to conservation. It provides much-needed resources and practical tools to help conservation professionals understand what a human rights-based approach to conservation involves, setting out relevant human rights of people who are particularly affected by the traditional ‘fortress conservation’ approach – Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and environmental human rights defenders.

Conclusions
COP16 ended in disarray and indecision despite biodiversity breakthroughs. My personal conclusion is that the glass is half full, half empty. A lot has remained to be done in the next 2+ years to bend the curve of global biodiversity loss. Observers said that despite the agreements, COP16 fell short of what was needed to halt the crisis in the natural world, warning that many governments and UN officials were not acting with the required urgency. We all, together with marginalized groups, such as traditional farmers, herders, fishers, local activists, but also like-minded decision makers need to make concerted efforts to urge governments and other key stakeholders to act more actively for a better, nature-positive future.

Picture: Iguana close to the fence of the venue. There was only minimal time available for nature walks, rest, cultural programs. Most of us was unable to attend the Green Zone in the city center of Cali, where lively events took place with many IPLC participating. The food during the COP was diverse on one side (Turkish falafel, Italian ice-cream, Colombian Nescafe), but very repetitive on the other side.).

Photo: by Zsolt Molnár