The newly released Living Planet Index report reveals a stark reality: global biodiversity has plummeted by an alarming 73%, underscoring the urgent need for intensified conservation efforts. This dramatic decline highlights the ongoing threats from habitat loss, climate change, and unsustainable resource use, which continue to erode the planet’s biological diversity at unprecedented rates. The report calls for immediate action to protect ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss, emphasizing that sustaining biodiversity is essential not only for environmental health but also for human well-being, as it underpins critical services like food security, clean water, and resilience to climate change.
Here, we highlight some of the achievements of COP16, the challenges, and the work that remains to protect and restore biodiversity, and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples in all conservation efforts.
Progress Made
In a Historic Decision, COP16 Establishes a Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j)
Photo credit: IIFB
The establishment of the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) is the most significant outcome for Indigenous Peoples from COP16. Previously, this work was carried out by the Working Group on Article 8(j), active since 1998. Negotiations for a Subsidiary Body began eight years ago at COP13 in Cancun, Mexico. This achievement represents a hard-fought and hard-won victory for Indigenous negotiators, who worked tirelessly, meeting with country delegates, and also engaged in a silent demonstration to secure support for its establishment.
The new Subsidiary Body for Article 8(j) marks a crucial step in advancing the Convention on Biological Diversity's commitments to Indigenous Peoples, and local communities. Its primary role is to advise the Conference of the Parties (COP) and its subsidiary bodies, guiding efforts to respect, preserve, and integrate Indigenous knowledge and practices in biodiversity conservation.
COP16 also approved Article 8(j)’s new program of work, which aims to make Indigenous-led initiatives central to global biodiversity efforts. Key objectives include conserving and restoring Indigenous lands, promoting sustainable practices, and ensuring fair benefit-sharing from the use of genetic resources. The program emphasizes protecting traditional knowledge, integrating it with scientific approaches, and upholding Indigenous rights. Additionally, it seeks to enhance direct funding access for Indigenous communities, empowering them to lead conservation and sustainable land management.
At least 50% of the Cali Fund Should Support Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities’ Self-identified Needs
The multilateral mechanism for benefit-sharing from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on Genetic Resources adopted at COP15, now called the Cali Fund, should receive contributions from companies in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, biotechnology, laboratory equipment (including reagents and supplies), information services (including artificial intelligence), and agribusiness. Users must contribute if they meet at least two of the following financial thresholds: total assets exceeding $20 million, sales exceeding $50 million, or profits exceeding $5 million. Contributions should be 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue. Public databases, academic institutions, and public research entities are exempt from monetary contributions.
The fund will be administered by the United Nations through the United Nations Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office, under the authority and accountability of the Conference of the Parties (COP). The first review of the mechanism is scheduled for COP's eighteenth meeting. At least 50% of the fund will be allocated to support the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including women and youth, through government channels or direct payments to community-designated institutions, according to national circumstances. A significant limitation is that companies are not required to prove they have not used DSI; a clause that would have required such proof was removed from the final decision. This omission could allow some companies to avoid contributing, potentially reducing the fund’s effectiveness in supporting Indigenous and local community needs.
COP16 Acknowledges the Contributions of People of African Descent in Biodiversity Conservation
A significant win at COP16 is the formal recognition of the role of people of African descent, particularly those embodying traditional lifestyles, in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Importantly, it ensures that this recognition does not diminish the rights of Indigenous Peoples, reinforcing a collaborative approach to biodiversity conservation. The decision also calls on parties to facilitate the full participation of these communities in biodiversity initiatives and to provide financial and capacity-building support to protect and promote their knowledge and practices.
Challenges
Low Submission Rate of NBSAPs
As of October 31, 2024, only 43 out of 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity have submitted their revised and updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) in alignment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Additionally, 119 parties have submitted national targets through the online reporting tool, which only sets targets but doesn’t require a plan on how to achieve them. The low submission rate underscores a significant gap in the global effort to meet biodiversity commitments. NBSAPs are essential because they transform global targets into concrete national actions, tailored to each country's unique ecological and socio-economic context. These plans play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability, enabling both the tracking of progress and the mobilization of resources needed for effective implementation. Without widespread NBSAP submissions, implementation of biodiversity targets is hindered, especially as developing countries depend on clear action plans to access the financial and technical support crucial for sustaining their biodiversity initiatives.
Biodiversity Credits Re-Emerged at COP16
At COP16, the concept of biodiversity credits re-emerged as a proposed mechanism to finance conservation efforts. These credits are designed to allow companies to invest in projects that protect or restore biodiversity, thereby offsetting their environmental impacts. Proponents argue that this approach can mobilize significant private sector funding for conservation initiatives. An International Advisory Panel has been established to explore the viability of biodiversity credits as a means to raise the necessary funds for meeting global biodiversity targets; the panel launched a report during COP16.
However, the reintroduction of biodiversity credits has sparked considerable debate and criticism. Critics contend that these credits may mirror the shortcomings observed in carbon credit markets, such as issues with transparency, accountability, and the potential for greenwashing. Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of biodiversity credits in delivering genuine conservation outcomes and their potential to undermine public finance commitments. Some experts and nature conservation groups have expressed skepticism, emphasizing the need for robust safeguards to prevent these financial instruments from repeating the pitfalls of carbon credits.
The Unfinished Work
Wealthy Countries Blocked the Creation of a New Global Biodiversity Fund
At COP16, finance emerged as a major point of contention, exposing deep divisions between developed and developing countries over securing adequate funding for global biodiversity goals. A proposed new global biodiversity fund under COP governance, championed by developing nations, failed to gain consensus due to strong opposition from developed countries and a lack of quorum on the final day. Many questioned why such a critical issue was left to the final moments of the conference. This setback has pushed crucial financial decisions to the next intersessional talks, leaving a significant gap in addressing the urgent biodiversity funding needs.
The global biodiversity funding gap is estimated at $711 billion USD per year, far exceeding the $200 billion per year target set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) for 2030. The remaining $500 billion USD is expected to come from redirecting harmful subsidies. Within this framework, developed countries committed to mobilize "at least $20 billion per year by 2025, and at least $30 billion per year by 2030" to support developing countries. However, a new analysis reveals that developed nations are currently mobilizing only about half of this amount. Criticism of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which administers the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), centers on its complex procedures and limited direct support for those most in need, particularly Indigenous Peoples. Many Indigenous leaders in Cali denounced the GEF as inadequate for supporting Indigenous-led conservation efforts and called for a new, more effective mechanism that ensures direct access to resources.
No Agreement was Reached on Indicators for the Monitoring Framework of the KMGBF
A monitoring framework for the KMGBF was established at COP15. This is essential for tracking progress, ensuring accountability, and guiding effective action towards biodiversity goals. It helps measure the impact of conservation efforts, provides transparency, and supports informed decision-making. COP15 also established an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators with the goal of providing specialized guidance and technical support in refining Indicators for the monitoring framework, ensuring they are practical and reflective of global biodiversity trends and challenges. Among the key indicators supported by Indigenous Peoples at COP16 are those in Target 22: "Land-use change" and "Land tenure in the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities." These indicators are vital for protecting and reinforcing Indigenous land rights, which are crucial for biodiversity conservation and the well-being of Indigenous communities.
Regrettably, no agreement was reached on the indicators for the monitoring framework at COP16. At the request of a party member, the entire document was bracketed (under discussion) pending a decision on resource mobilization. However, with no consensus on resource mobilization, the document’s adoption was deferred. This critical discussion will now resume at the intersessional meeting next year, delaying the formal adoption of tools essential for tracking and ensuring accountability for the protection of Indigenous territories. This postponement represents a significant missed opportunity to solidify commitments to track adequately, and as soon as possible, implementation of the targets of the KMGBF.
Discussions Around Transition Minerals at COP16
Colombia and Brazil Unveil Global Effort on Traceability and Accountability in the Transition Minerals Sector at COP16
During COP16 in Cali, Colombia, the Colombian government introduced a new declaration emphasizing the promotion of mining practices that harmonize with nature, focusing on traceability and accountability. This initiative, developed in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aims to transform mining into a sector that supports the energy and industrial transition while adhering to principles of sustainability, responsibility, and transparency.
The declaration proposes the formation of an intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder working group tasked with designing a framework for traceability and accountability in the mineral supply chain. This group is expected to present its proposals at COP30 in Brazil in 2025. The objective is to ensure that mining activities in Colombia and other nations adhere to the highest standards of human rights, environmental and social responsibility, and transparency. By implementing rigorous environmental parameters and a global traceability system, the initiative seeks to establish due diligence throughout the entire value chain, from extraction to recycling of minerals.
Final Reflections
Although COP16 did not fully deliver on all fronts to adequately address the challenge of biodiversity loss, and as we are yet to see if countries can implement the KMGBF, we must recognize that this was a special COP. Two COPs took place in Cali from October 21 to November 1. One was the governments' COP, which seems to be moving at a very slow pace to tackle one of the most important challenges we face and appears to be prioritizing economic interests over the well-being of humanity and the planet. The other was the COP of the people, which brought thousands together to learn, strategize, and build solidarity around this common threat.
At the SIRGE Coalition, we are inspired by the power of people; we are inspired by the resilience of Indigenous communities, the leadership of Indigenous women, the energy of Indigenous youth, and the courage of Indigenous human rights and environmental defenders who showed up in Cali to fulfill our shared responsibility to the Earth. It is this commitment that moves us forward, brings us closer together, and guides the work we undertake, each of us from our own trenches.
Members of the Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE) Coalition include: Cultural Survival, First Peoples Worldwide, Batani Foundation, Earthworks, and the Society for Threatened Peoples and affiliate member IWGIA - International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
