Biodiversity COP16: Key achievements and critical gaps

As military, police, and volunteers continued searching for victims of the deadly floods in Valencia, Spain, the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Colombia was wrapped up on November 2 after 12 hours of overtime as delegates started leaving to catch their flights.

Unlike the climate-focused COPs, which center on reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change, the biodiversity COPs focus specifically on preventing and reversing species loss, protecting ecosystems, and promoting sustainable development.

However, climate change and biodiversity are deeply intertwined, each amplifying the impacts of the other. Rising temperatures disrupt ecosystems and endanger species, while biodiversity loss weakens natural defenses against climate shifts, reducing the ability to absorb carbon and regulate climate.

The flood death toll in Valencia has surpassed 200, and the count is still rising. Just a month ago, the United States experienced two 1-in-1,000-year storms in just a couple of weeks, claiming hundreds of lives.

These recent disasters underscore a stark reality: the world is changing.

Against the backdrop of escalating climate catastrophes, world leaders, environmental groups, Indigenous representatives, and corporate stakeholders gathered from October 21 to November 2, aiming to tackle the urgent issue of biodiversity loss at COP16.

This year’s conference was pivotal, with high hopes for game-changing commitments and action plans to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

Here’s a breakdown of COP16’s main discussions and key outcomes.

COP16 fails to finalize roadmap for global biodiversity plan

Two years ago, at COP15, more than 200 nations agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that set 4 overarching goals and 23 targets to be met by 2030, hereunder protecting 30% of the planet’s land and oceans.

Bio-COP’s Paris moment, it has been called.

A key focus of COP16 was developing a robust system to monitor progress on the ambitious biodiversity plan, but parties struggled to finalize a cohesive global tracking framework. Countries agreed on the need for measurable progress markers, including "stocktakes" in 2026 and 2030, and on implementing national biodiversity strategies (NBSAPs), but logistical delays prevented a draft plan from being formalized.

Without a proper global monitoring framework, evaluating progress remains challenging.

Critics argue that the 30x30 goal still lacks a clear roadmap, especially around enforcement mechanisms and how countries will independently monitor these areas. Some worry it could become another unfulfilled promise.

Funding gap threatens biodiversity goals at COP16

Funding emerged as a critical and contentious issue at COP16 (surprise).

While the GBF aims to mobilize $200 billion annually, including $30 billion from wealthy nations, commitments are still well below target. At COP16, countries pledged a combined $163 million, bringing the total to $400 million — far short of the goal.

With public funds from wealthy nations in decline, the conference emphasized attracting private investment to close the funding gap.

To meet the $200 billion annual target by 2030, countries explored mechanisms such as debt-for-nature swaps, where nations could refinance their debts at lower interest rates in exchange for dedicating savings to conservation projects.

Despite these innovative ideas, the reluctance of developed nations to increase public contributions led to significant frustration among developing countries, many of which struggle to finance their biodiversity goals without external support.

Inadequate national action puts the GBF goals at risk

As part of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), countries were expected to submit updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by the start of COP16 on October 21. These NBSAPs outline each country’s plans to achieve the framework’s goals and 23 targets within their borders.

However, by the end of COP16, only 44 countries had submitted these detailed action plans, while an additional 119 nations provided more general biodiversity targets without specific implementation strategies.

This partial participation, covering about 63% of the CBD’s 196 parties, marks progress but reveals significant gaps. Without full and coordinated action plans, the GBF’s ambitious targets face substantial implementation challenges.

Biopiracy turned into biodiversity funding with the Cali Fund

COP16 introduced a levy on companies using genetic resources, particularly targeting industries like pharmaceuticals and agriculture that benefit from biodiversity-derived data, known as digital sequence information (DSI).

This approach addresses the long-standing issue of biopiracy, where companies exploit biological resources or traditional knowledge from biodiversity-rich regions without providing fair compensation. Under the new system, companies meeting specific revenue or profit thresholds would contribute 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue to the fund, potentially generating over $1 billion annually.

This “Cali Fund” represents a notable step forward in biodiversity finance. However, the voluntary nature of the levy means its effectiveness will largely depend on how rigorously countries implement it within their national policies.

Indigenous voices gain formal role in biodiversity policy at COP16

Indigenous and local communities secured a historic victory at COP16 with their formal integration into decision-making processes within the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Recognizing the critical role these communities play in conserving biodiversity, the conference agreed to allocate 50% of the Cali Fund to support Indigenous initiatives.

Additionally, Indigenous representatives now have a permanent role in shaping biodiversity policy, ending their reliance on government goodwill to participate in UN negotiations. This milestone decision was one of COP16’s most celebrated outcomes, although some Indigenous leaders remain cautiously optimistic about the next steps for meaningful implementation.

Conclusion

COP16 in Cali marked some important milestones, including the historic integration of Indigenous voices in biodiversity policy and the establishment of the Cali Fund, which aims to combat biopiracy and channel corporate contributions to conservation efforts.

However, the conference was ultimately suspended with several critical issues left unresolved. Key challenges remain, particularly around securing sufficient funding and finalizing a robust monitoring framework to track progress toward the 30x30 target and other GBF goals.

As many countries fell short in submitting national biodiversity plans (NBSAPs), COP16 exposed an urgent need for stronger coordination, accountability, and concrete strategies. The absence of a finalized finance strategy and cohesive monitoring mechanisms has raised concerns about whether the ambitious goals set in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) can realistically be achieved by 2030.

While the conference underscored the essential role of private investment and innovative financial tools like debt-for-nature swaps, reliance on voluntary contributions may not bridge the significant funding gap.

Observers noted a troubling lack of urgency from major economies, underscoring that time is running out to address the rapid decline of global biodiversity.

COP16’s outcomes, while promising in some respects, reflect an ongoing struggle to match ambition with tangible action. With an interim meeting set for Bangkok next year, the path forward remains uncertain. If COP16 is to have a lasting impact, countries must translate the commitments made in Cali into actionable plans before the crisis in biodiversity becomes irreversible.