Two years after the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, the progress on global biodiversity goals remains mixed. Despite commitments, a limited number of countries (44 out of 196) have submitted their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. The parties have agreed to submit their plans as soon as possible, with a global review scheduled for COP17 and COP19.
However, COP16 did witness important discussions, particularly around biodiversity financing and the protection of Indigenous rights.
One positive outcome: Indigenous Peoples are given an official seat at the negotiation table
Indigenous peoples, as defined by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), are among the most affected by biodiversity loss. On November 1st, Indigenous peoples and local communities were granted formal representation in a new permanent working group within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), based on an existing one that was temporary. This decision aims to further implement Article 8(j) of the Convention :
“Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices”
The newly established group comprises a program composed of eight elements focused on the protection, promotion, and respect of human rights and Indigenous culture, as well as the fair distribution of biodiversity benefits to Indigenous communities.
The enhanced integration of Indigenous rights within COP frameworks could impose new responsibilities on companies to consider Indigenous communities in their projects, particularly in resource extraction. This holds significant implications as over half of the metals needed for the energy transition are located near lands belonging to Indigenous populations. Between 2012 and 2023, 766 Indigenous people were killed for their environmental activism, accounting for 36% of all environmental defender deaths1.
Very little progress on closing the financing gap
Biodiversity financing continues to be a contentious issue, particularly between countries that contribute to biodiversity degradation and those that suffer its consequences. Following COP15, a temporary fund — the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) — was created under the auspices of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Over the past two years, this fund has received approximately $250 million from seven countries, representing only 0.06% of the ambitious $200 billion annual funding target for 2030.
Despite high hopes, COP16 did not yield a new financial instrument to "receive, mobilize, and coordinate funding from all sources" under the COP's authority by 2030. The conference highlighted the need for a robust and sustainable funding mechanism, yet no binding agreement was reached.
Alternative financing solutions were also discussed. Although biodiversity credits were not a focal point of COP16 discussions, they attracted considerable attention following the release of a report on October 28th by the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits. This report, pushed by France and the UK, proposed “high-integrity” principles for biodiversity markets. It sparked public protests around COP16 and drew criticism from scientists who identified significant flaws in such a system.
The impact of biodiversity financing on countries and stakeholders remains uncertain, as no binding agreement has been adopted at this stage. While mechanisms such as the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) offer some pathways for mobilizing resources, their voluntary nature and reliance on intermittent contributions leave gaps in predictability and adequacy of funding.
Another positive step on Digital Sequence Information and Genetic Resources
Another significant outcome of COP16 discussions was the issue of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) which refer to the genetic data of plants and animals. This topic is critical, as many genetic resources are heavily utilized and privatized by companies headquartered in the “Global North”, while the resources themselves originate from the “Global South”. These genetic materials are used in a range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food.
At COP16, parties reached a preliminary agreement to establish a fund financed by companies profiting from these genetic resources. Eligible companies (defined by specific thresholds: total assets > $20 million, sales > $50 million, and profits > $5 million) are expected to contribute around 0.1% of their revenue, although this contribution remains voluntary and indicative. The included industries are pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, biotechnology, laboratory equipment associated with DSI, and information and technical services related to genetic resources.
While this financial model represents a step toward equitable benefit-sharing, it is non-binding, reflecting resistance from certain countries concerned about competitive disadvantages. This concern is particularly pronounced against the U.S., which has not ratified the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
Nonetheless, this agreement provides financial institutions that want to invest in favor of nature conservation with leverage to engage their investees to make contributions according to this agreement.
Conclusion : all eyes on Azerbaijan and Armenia now.
COP16 concluded with a sense of incompleteness. Some key anticipated elements were absent, including comprehensive national plans, the implementation of essential indicators (such as those for pesticide risk), and a more binding framework for biodiversity financing. However, certain advancements are noteworthy, particularly the recognition of Indigenous rights, with their working group elevated to a permanent status within the CBD, thus gaining prominence within its structure. Additionally, the creation of a benefit-sharing fund for genetic resources was a highly anticipated development, providing a framework for investment by sector-relevant companies that wish to contribute, while also serving as an engagement tool for financial institutions.
The very little progress in closing the finance gap, where discussions remained mired in the usual North/South divide, is unfortunately not sending positive signals to negotiators that are about to head their way to Baku in Azerbaijan for COP29 on climate, where financing discussions are set to take the center stage. Once again this highlights the necessity of private sector funding, and the role investors may play in integrating both climate and biodiversity considerations into their investments.
As with the conclusion of each COP, there is already considerable anticipation for the next conference. In Armenia, national biodiversity plans are expected to be reviewed, along with, potentially, more ambitious financing solutions for biodiversity protection.
