COP16 on biodiversity marked an important milestone in global discussions on nature protection, but it also highlighted the considerable challenges that persist in turning ambitions into concrete actions.
The 16th World Biodiversity Conference (COP16), which recently took place in Cali, Colombia, marked an important milestone in global efforts to protect nature. This conference was based on the Kunming-Montreal Agreement (GBF) adopted in 2022 during COP15, which set ambitious objectives for the protection of global biodiversity. COP16 has been dubbed the “implementation COP” noting an intensification of efforts to protect ecosystems, recognize the rights of indigenous populations and financially support the countries richest in biodiversity. While we remain optimistic, the question remains: Can these goals lead to real, concrete progress, or are they only symbolic victories?
The 30×30 initiative: an ambitious but vague objective
The 30×30 objective taken at COP15 in 2022 aims to conserve and protect 30% of land and 30% of oceans by 2030 through protected areas or other effective conservation measures. The success of this 30×30 initiative remains a challenge. The great variety of global ecosystems and the conservation of such an important part of the land and ocean require approaches adapted to each region. Technical complexity makes it difficult to apply a single model, particularly in areas heavily impacted by human activity (intensive agriculture, infrastructure, extractive industries). Indeed, the formal protection of a territory does not automatically guarantee the sustainability of its ecosystems. To ensure that conservation efforts are truly effective, it is essential to have a dynamic and proactive approach to natural resource management to ensure effective conservation. Some observers fear that the 30×30 initiative could become an exercise in “greenwashing”. They highlight the risk of seeing officially protected areas continue to be exploited due to a lack of enforcement of regulations.
Ahead of COP16, it appeared that the vast majority of countries (85%) were behind schedule in the development of their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) due to various challenges. This situation particularly concerned 12 of the 17 so-called “megadiverse” countries, which are home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity. For example; Brazil and Colombia highlighted the lack of time to carry out in-depth consultations with stakeholders and indigenous peoples. India mentioned the difficulty of adapting global objectives to the local context and the United Kingdom attributed its delay to its numerous changes of government. By the end of COP16, only 44 out of 196 countries had produced new NBSAPs, and around 119 countries had set national targets. Challenges persist as countries have not reached agreement on a “global review” of progress for COP17 (in 2026) and COP19 (in 2028). They also did not clearly detail the actions to be taken after the exams. Finally, no agreement on the indicators of the monitoring framework was found. This is partly due to the lack of concrete financial commitments.
Therefore, it appears that the old Aichi objectives set in 2010 for the period 2011-2020 have not achieved their initial ambitions for three notable reasons: the significant delays taken by many countries, the absence of mechanisms for restrictive quantitative monitoring and the lack of international supervision of protection standards. These gaps raise concerns about achieving the 30×30 goal.
The challenges of financing biodiversity
As with the climate, financing needs remain one of the obstacles to overcome to take effective action on biodiversity. While COP16 established a roadmap for mobilizing financial resources, the promises of the richest nations have still not reached the $200 billion needed each year to achieve global biodiversity targets. The pledges of contributions announced during the conference only amounted to 163 M USD. Many developing countries said the lack of timely funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a major multilateral environment fund, had prevented them from producing new national action programs for the environment. environment.
The COP16 approach to financing biodiversity focused on three main sources: international aid, private sector investment and new financial instruments, such as biodiversity credits. These tools are innovative, but their impact will largely depend on the extent to which they are adopted globally. Additionally, relying on private sector funding raises questions about ethics. Without clear guidelines and oversight, these financial mechanisms may serve the interests of private investors over those of vulnerable ecosystems and communities.
Recognition but lack of protection of the rights of indigenous peoples
One of the most notable advances at COP16 was the focus on the rights of indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities are recognized as “custodians of nature,” playing a vital role in protecting biodiversity given their close, ancestral ties to nature. Thus, the creation of a permanent group, or “subsidiary body” for indigenous peoples was put in place in order to ensure their continued representation and allow them to contribute directly to the negotiations.
While recognizing indigenous contributions is an important step, it does not guarantee the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. In the absence of enforcement measures, indigenous communities could continue to be marginalized or exploited by more powerful interests, including governments or corporations seeking access to land rich in natural resources. COP16 emphasizes that indigenous communities are partners in conservation, but does not offer binding agreements to protect their sovereignty and livelihoods.
The major challenge: bridging the gap between commitments and concrete actions
The results of COP16 revealed the familiar Achilles heel of environmental governance: the gap between commitments and actions. The history of climate COPs has shown that ambitious environmental agreements often fail at the implementation stage, locked in political, economic or logistical obstacles. Countries must not only align their policies with the COP16 goals, but also commit resources and engage with indigenous communities and the private sector to overcome persistent challenges to its implementation. The financial sector can play a crucial role in promoting biodiversity goals by focusing on financing mechanisms and frameworks that align financial flows with conservation needs.
During COP16, leaders highlighted the importance of mobilizing private capital to support biodiversity protection, given the huge funding gap. Discussions focused on expanding biodiversity credits, improving financial transparency and integrating nature-related financial information, which would help investors understand and manage biodiversity-related risks. During these two weeks, several initiatives were widely welcomed:
- the development of the first scientific objectives for nature,
- establishing a plan for public nature data installation and plans to transition TNFD to nature,
- the increase in the number of adopters of the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures) to more than 500,
- the launch of the International Advisory Group on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB) framework,
- the first assessment of the NA100 corporate bond benchmark,
and many more. However, challenges remain, including developing standardized metrics to assess biodiversity ensuring they are consistent with national and international policies. In addition, it is crucial to establish sufficiently attractive financial mechanisms to mobilize private investments.
Future prospects: Towards effective implementation
COP16 on biodiversity marked an important milestone in global discussions on nature protection, but it also highlighted the considerable challenges that persist in turning ambitions into concrete actions. The absence of binding measures, lack of funding and limited regulatory frameworks hinder real progress. To close the gap between ambitions and realities, several actions are necessary. The future of global biodiversity will depend on the ability of nations to transform their commitments into tangible and effective measures on the ground. Unless great progress is made, the 2030 goals are unlikely to be met.
