Two years after coming to a historic agreement to “halt and reverse” nature loss, countries are preparing to gather in Cali, Colombia for the latest round of UN biodiversity talks.
The COP16 biodiversity summit – officially, the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity – will run from 21 October to 1 November. Around 14,000 delegates are expected to attend the talks in Colombia’s third most populous city.
At the previous summit, COP15, which was held in Montreal in December 2022, countries agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The GBF is a set of four goals and 23 targets with the overarching mission of reversing the decline of biodiversity around the world by 2030.
Up for negotiating in Cali will be a range of issues, including some traditionally contentious topics, such as finance for nature and the rules governing the access to digital sequence information.
But other issues, such as a global review of progress towards the goals and targets agreed at COP15 and the monitoring framework needed to assess said progress, will be new to the negotiating agenda in Colombia.
Unlike at COP15, around 10 heads of state are expected to attend the Cali summit, Carbon Brief understands.
To produce a “who wants what” interactive table, Carbon Brief has conducted an assessment of the key negotiating issues and the positions that various countries and negotiating blocs hold.
The first column shows the country, negotiating bloc or non-state actor. Note that negotiating blocs at UN biodiversity summits are far less formal than they are at climate summits.
The second column shows the major topics that will be discussed during the negotiations, while the third column lists more specific issues that fall under each of these topics.
The final column indicates the position that each grouping is likely to take on a particular issue at the summit. This ranges from “strongly support” – meaning the grouping is likely to be strongly pushing the issue – to “red line”, which means the grouping is likely to oppose this issue and show no room for compromise.
After the interactive table below, some of the key negotiating topics are explained.
(This is a “living document” that will be updated during the course of the summit. To suggest additions or amendments to the table, please email [email protected].)
Biodiversity finance
Finance is expected to be the running undercurrent throughout the COP16 biodiversity talks.
One biodiversity finance topic that will be closely watched is the level of commitment made by developed countries towards raising “at least $20bn a year” by 2025 for conservation in developing countries.
To date, only seven developed countries have contributed to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), for a total of $244m.
In the run-up to Cali, Colombia’s environment minister and COP16 president Susana Muhamad “urged” governments from the global north to “make a gesture to increase trust in the conference and actually put their money” in the fund.
At the same time, some developing countries have reiterated their call for a separate fund under the direct authority of the COP to meet their needs.
Just as some countries are cautioning against “double-counting” of biodiversity development finance, others are calling for better monitoring of “private financing”, underlining that market mechanisms such as biodiversity offsets and credits cannot substitute for public finance flows from north to south.
Market mechanisms have also received increased pushback from countries and Indigenous groups in the run-up to Cali.
NBSAPs, global review and global report
At COP15, countries agreed to publish new plans for how they will tackle biodiversity loss and meet the goals of the GBF. They are called “national biodiversity strategies and action plans”, or “NBSAPs”.
The publishing of new NBSAPs was meant to ensure that countries actually implement the targets of the GBF within their borders. A lack of implementation was widely cited as one of the major factors behind the failure of the last set of global biodiversity rules, the Aichi targets agreed in 2011.
But Carbon Brief analysis shows that the vast majority of countries are set to miss the deadline to publish a new NBSAP ahead of COP16. Only a handful of countries have so produced NBSAPs, although Carbon Brief understands that several more will publish them during the summit.
In Cali, negotiators will need to grapple with countries’ collective failure to produce new NBSAPs and decide how to move forward.
At COP15, countries also agreed that a global analysis of NBSAPs should take place at COP16 and “subsequent COPs”.
A “global review” should then take place at COP17 in 2026 and COP19 in 2030, according to documents signed off by countries in Montreal.
At COP16, countries will need to negotiate the finer details of how these global reports and reviews should be conducted.
Digital sequence information
A subject that will be key to the success of COP16 is the negotiation on digital sequence information (DSI) from genetic resources – and how to fairly and equitably share the benefits derived from biodiversity’s rich genetic wealth.
In August this year, negotiators met in Montreal for five days of gruelling talks to streamline options for a one-of-a-kind global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism (GMBSM) and a global fund.
While the meeting yielded a 29-paragraph draft decision for COP16, these options will need to be whittled down to reach a final outcome in Cali, in order to make both mechanism and fund operational.
Of these, the most critical and contested are whether benefit-sharing from DSI is voluntary or legally binding and how the mechanism will interact with national laws and measures around DSI.
Another key issue is whether the mechanism should cover all “public databases”.
While blocs such as the EU favour open-access databases, the African Group has proposed the CBD set up its own database, where DSI is made publicly available only with the prior consent of providers of genetic material.
Who pays into the fund, where the fund is housed, how benefits should be triggered, where money should flow and what it is spent on are other major points of divergence that observers expect will flare up in Cali, with ramifications for industry, academia and governments.
Countries have also differed on how the mechanism will promote access to non-monetary benefits, such as building capacity, sharing medicines or the transfer of climate-critical technologies developed with the use of DSI.
Monitoring framework
A critical component of assessing the world’s progress towards the goals and targets of the GBF is the monitoring framework.
For each goal and target, the current draft of the monitoring framework sets out options for one or more “headline” or “binary” indicators. (Headline indicators are based on sub-national, national, regional or global data, while binary indicators use yes/no questions to assess progress for targets that are not easily quantifiable.)
The framework also includes component and complementary indicators, which it says can be used to track specific aspects of progress that are not well-captured by the headline indicators.
In addition to holding differing opinions on how progress towards individual targets should be measured, countries are divided on how prescriptive the monitoring framework should be.
Many global-south countries feel that the monitoring approach should be flexible and voluntary, to account for differences in capabilities and resources between countries.
Additionally, lower-income countries are adamant that the monitoring framework must be accompanied by an ambitious finance package so that they can fulfil their obligations under the GBF.
Indigenous rights
Indigenous rights are set to be a priority theme at COP16.
Colombia’s presidency has stated that the summit “will contribute to the strengthening guarantees of recognition for Indigenous peoples and local communities” (IPLCs).
The inclusion of IPLCs within the negotiations is a priority for many countries, with some strongly supporting that they be “explicitly recognised” throughout the decisions.
Biodiversity financial mechanisms that benefit IPLCs are another major goal for these communities and bodies, with several constituencies requesting that IPLCs be able to directly access funds.
Several countries are also asking for the inclusion of “free, prior and informed consent” – namely, the right of IPLCs to be consulted on projects affecting their territories and grant or withhold their consent – within discussions about knowledge management, DSI and biodiversity finance.
Related to that is the recognition of traditional knowledge for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, held by IPLCs, including Afro-descendant and other ethnic groups.
Other issues
COP16 has a packed agenda, with various other issues for nations to discuss alongside the topics described above.
Countries could, for example, sign off on a global action plan on biodiversity and health, which has been negotiated over the past few years. This plan sets out a number of voluntary actions aiming to boost the profile of the ties between biodiversity and health.
At COP15, countries agreed to produce an updated version of the plan, based on inputs from different governments and stakeholders, such as Indigenous peoples and local communities.
A new draft has since been put together and is ready to be negotiated – and potentially signed off – in Cali.
Other items on the agenda include texts on the links between biodiversity and climate change, plus ways to combine efforts to tackle these and other interconnected issues.
At the COP28 climate summit in Dubai last year, the three presidents of the climate change, biodiversity and desertification COPs released a joint statement on climate, nature and people.
The countries that signed this statement promised “comprehensiveness and coherence” between their NBSAPs and their next national climate pledges, or NDCs, which are due to be submitted before COP30 in 2025.
Colombia has called for these pledges to be combined to ease the workload of putting them together and increase “synergies”, reports Reuters.
Invasive alien species, scientific and technical cooperation and challenges to the implementation of the GBF are among the other issues up for discussion in Cali.
Sharelines from this story
