We didn't design economic systems (capitalism or anything else) to pay for Nature. But Nature can no longer be free and that needs to change now. That was a key message I took away from one of the side events focused on financing biodiversity protection and restoration, a big focus of the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Cali, Colombia over two weeks in October and November, 2024

The Olympics For Nature

The CBD is an international treaty aimed at promoting: conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use, and the fair sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. It was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and has since been signed by nearly all countries in the world (but not the USA). Similar to the better-known Climate COP, the CBD COP is like the Olympics for Nature. Every two years the CBD COP brings together thousands of stakeholders - over 180 countries, in 2024 more than 25,000 participants including over 1,000 Indigenous Peoples, around 1,500 businesses and over 1,000 NGOs.

The main goals of CBD COP16 were to finalise plans and confirm financial commitments for global biodiversity conservation efforts; progress the mainstreaming of biodiversity protection and restoration into sectors like agriculture, fisheries, and urban planning; enhance the capacity of countries and communities to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted at COP15 in 2022; and ensure the involvement of indigenous peoples, local communities, and the private sector, in biodiversity conservation.

NZ's Representatives

And who did the New Zealand government send to this meeting of such significance? Well, there was going to be a delegation of around ten officials, but only five were allowed to go in the end. And the big gap was in the area of Indigenous Peoples' rights, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Department of Conservation (DOC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials who did attend did their best. Te Puni Kōkiri is the "National Focal Point" (a UN term for subject matter experts from Governments assigned to an issue) for the articles of the CBD focused on Indigenous Peoples' full and effective participation, along with benefit-sharing and governance.

The GBF that emerged from COP15 had set 23 targets to be met in just over five years from now. They include placing 30% of land and sea areas under protection and 30% of degraded ecosystems under restoration by 2030, reducing pollution, and phasing out agricultural and other subsidies harmful to nature.

Funding Question Shelved

The Canada summit had also agreed that $200 billion per year be made available to protect biodiversity by 2030, including the transfer of $US30 billion per year from rich to poor nations. Unfortunately, participants stopped short of making a decision on one of the biggest asks of the summit - agreeing on a detailed plan to increase funding for biodiversity.

Just over $US200 million was committed at this COP, a fraction of what is required. The majority of countries, including New Zealand, failed to meet a deadline ahead of COP16 to submit new implementation plans for achieving the framework's targets, with only 44 out of 196 parties - 22% - having provided new biodiversity plans by the summit's conclusion.

An intersessional process aimed at developing risk assessment guidelines for gene drives - organisms modified to spread gene edits - seems to have been co-opted by industry scientists. They reformed the original biosafety recommendations to favour a more streamlined approach, reducing precautionary measures.

Nations aligned with biotech and agribusiness interests - known as CANJAB (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina, and Brazil, with the UK included) - celebrated this shift at COP16. They subsequently formed a limited expert group to propose additional guidance while delaying substantial progress for another two years. Consequently, a previous agreement to create risk assessment guidelines for genetically modified (GM) fish was abandoned.

Compromise On Precautionary Initiative

Simultaneously, a more precautionary initiative from the Cartagena Compliance Committee sought to compel member nations to acknowledge that gene-edited crops qualify as "living modified organisms" under the protocol, thus requiring regulation. However, CANJAB opposed this recognition, as deregulating gene-edited crops is central to their agenda. They managed to negotiate a compromise text that postponed any further discussions on this critical issue for another two years. By that time, national and regional strategies for gene editing deregulation, including in New Zealand, will likely already be in place, effectively circumventing oversight and limiting future regulatory frameworks.

The conference concluded unexpectedly when countries could not reach an agreement on establishing a new fund during an extensive ten-hour final plenary session that went all night and past dawn on the morning of 2 November. Delegates engaged in intense discussions late into the night, trying to address the numerous items on the agenda. However, as the talks extended into the Saturday morning, many delegates from developing countries had to leave for flights, resulting in a lack of the necessary quorum to achieve consensus on critical issues.

Benefit-Sharing Mechanism

Despite these challenges, delegates did reach an agreement on a new benefit-sharing mechanism for genetic resources, termed the "Cali Fund", following extensive negotiations and last-minute amendments proposed by India to safeguard sovereign rights. Additionally, a new permanent body for Indigenous Peoples was established, enabling us to provide direct input at future biodiversity COPs for the first time. However, the contentious issue of creating a new fund under the COP, as well as a framework for monitoring nations' progress in addressing biodiversity loss, will need to be revisited in upcoming intersessional meetings in 2025.

The next COP, number 17, will be held in Armenia in 2026. Hopefully a lot more progress can be made ahead of that meeting to figure out how the global financial system and Governments of the world are going to set policies that cease funding destructive activities and direct more capital into initiatives and businesses that restore Nature. One example from the UK is essentially development contributions for biodiversity offsetting but that require not just the equivalent area to be restored as has been lost, but another 10%.

Other countries are taking this kind of arrangement much further, with up to 200% required. At the other end of the intervention continuum, a number of countries are starting to monitor how much finance is going into businesses, projects and activities that damage the environment and these are being reported on in a global dashboard.

As part of the Indigenous Caucus at COP16, I was involved in contributing to negotiations on the issues around Digital Sequence Information (DSI) governance and the establishment of a voluntary levies mechanism for companies that are profiting off genomic data from biological resources. We got agreement for the fund and it will require participating companies to contribute 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue.

Everyone Went Home Equally Disappointed

We had a clause that would have required pharmaceutical companies to prove they did not use DSI to opt out, but that got lost in the final hours of negotiations as Switzerland (where a number of the world's largest pharma companies are based) said it would not agree (consensus is required) if the opt out requirement was not removed. We won and lost some other key elements in those negotiations, as well as in the effort to establish a permanent body within the CBD for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. So, every country, company and NGO representative probably went home equally disappointed.

Small Wins But Nowhere Near Fast Enough

I'm not sure how much closer we got to the overarching goals of halting biodiversity loss and promoting truly sustainable development globally. These meetings are equal part profoundly inspiring and infuriating. Humanity's best and worst tendencies of selflessness and selfishness, cooperation and competition, all trying to work out arrangements that are good for all the creatures, communities and ecosystems of the world. No small task, but small wins are happening and momentum feels like it is heading in the right direction - just nowhere near fast enough.

Watchdog - 167 December 2024