The COP16 biodiversity summit was a major flop for nature protection

Biodiversity loss is a crisis – and it is now clearer than ever that the world is not moving fast enough to solve this problem. The COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia, went into extension last weekend, with still too few countries present to agree on a global plan to halt the decline of nature.

“Unfortunately, too many countries and UN officials have come to Cali without the urgency and level of ambition needed to secure the results of COP16 and address the most pressing existential issue of our species,” said Brian O’Donnell from Campaign for Nature, an environmental advocacy group. group.

Signs of no progress were clear from the start of the meeting, with almost all countries missing a deadline to submit official plans on how they will achieve the ambitious biodiversity targets set at COP15 two years ago, including protecting 30 percent of the planet’s land area. and oceans by 2030. During the two weeks of the summit, a few more of these plans trickled in, including those from major countries like India, Russia and Argentina, but most countries’ strategies are still missing.

At the start of COP16, it was clear that the world is not on track to achieve these goals. Since 2020, the area of ​​the planet’s land and oceans under formal protection has increased by just 0.5 percent, according to a UN report released at the summit. That’s a pace far too slow to protect 30 percent of the planet by the end of this decade.

And that protection is desperately needed. A report from the Zoological Society of London and the World Wildlife Fund, released ahead of the summit, shows that vertebrate population sizes have declined by an average of 73 percent since 1970, an increase of 4 percentage points since 2022. a grim report: from which the International Union for Conservation of Nature announced during the meeting that 38 percent of the world’s tree species are threatened with extinction.

Many lower-income countries said their inability to develop and submit plans by the deadline, let alone begin implementing them, was due to a lack of financial resources. While higher-income countries made pledges at COP16 – totaling around $400 million – to support these efforts, resources remain billions short of the $20 billion target promised by 2025.

A clear plan to close this financial gap and monitor progress toward goals remained unresolved as talks went into overtime early Saturday morning. As the delegates left, the number of countries present dropped below the minimum number needed to make decisions, and the meeting was adjourned without a resolution being reached. The agenda will be taken up at an interim meeting in Bangkok in 2025.

“Nature is on life support and not reaching a strong financial compromise here in Cali increases the risk of collapse,” said Patricia Zurita of Conservation International, an environmental nonprofit.

Although COP16’s inability to move on the financial side disappointed observers, the meeting still managed to reach one important agreement: an agreement on how to collect revenue from products developed using the genetic data of the planet. Before the meeting was suspended, countries agreed to encourage pharmaceutical and other biotech companies that use such “digital sequence information” to contribute 0.1 percent of sales or 1 percent of profits to a “Cali Fund.” . This fund will be used to protect the biodiversity that is the source of such genetic data.

The deal, which came after almost a decade of negotiations, was less sweeping than the African Union and some lower-income countries had hoped, and the fact that it is voluntary means that much will depend on the response of individual countries and companies. But UN estimates suggest the fund could raise up to $1 billion a year for biodiversity. “It could achieve something, but nowhere near the size or speed required,” said Pierre du Plessis, a longtime negotiator for the African Union. Before the meeting he started a discussion New scientist that the fund should be much larger.

Indigenous people also saw a victory before the meeting was suspended, with the creation of a formal body that will give them a stronger voice in biodiversity negotiations.

But the general mood was somber. “That’s a real shame about COP16 [debates on] digital sequence information sucked up the last drops of energy and time,” says Amber Scholz of the Leibniz Institute DSMZ in Germany.

One reason for the apparent lack of urgency is that the world treats climate change and biodiversity loss as two separate issues. The annual global climate summits are better attended and receive much more attention than the biodiversity negotiations. Only six heads of state attended COP16, compared to the 154 who went to last year’s climate summit in Dubai. That’s a problem when the two issues are intertwined: climate change is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity, and the most biodiverse ecosystems are often also the best at storing carbon.

“I think the most important thing we need is to change the continued neglect of biodiversity, especially compared to climate change,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the summit. “They are all connected and indivisible.”