The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) was held from 21 October 2024 to 1st November 2024 in Cali, Colombia. Its aim was to operationalise the monitoring of the implementation by States of the commitments made at COP15 with the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GFB). The establishment of a monitoring mechanism aims to assess progress on the targets of the global framework and to step up efforts if they are not on track to meet the targets set by 2030.

The states committed themselves to producing national biodiversity strategies (NBS), or at best national targets, in line with the 23 GBF objectives, including the 30×30 target: to conserve 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030, through the creation of protected areas or other area-based conservation measures . [1]

A COP16 with mixed results

Generally speaking, the four major achievements of COP 16 are as follows:

  1. The updating by 44 new countries, out of 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), of their national biodiversity strategies and the publication by 119 new countries of national targets[2] . The WWF has also set up a tool for monitoring these strategies at international level, as well as a comparative analysis of their content and quality (available here: WWF NBSAP Tracker).
  2. The creation of a new subsidiary body to ensure the full and effective participation of local and indigenous populations in the negotiation processes of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
  3. An agreement between countries to align their biodiversity/climate policies at a national level and to establish mechanisms for collaboration between the CBD and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
  4. The creation of the “Cali Fund”, a fund financed by voluntary financial contributions from companies to ensure that the profits generated by the digitisation of genetic data, such as those derived from the sequencing of plants for the cosmetics and pharmacology sectors, are redistributed equitably to the countries of origin and the “guardians of nature”. The funding received by this fund, placed under the aegis of the United Nations, will be divided equally between the countries and the indigenous peoples and local communities that have preserved these natural resources[3] . This mechanism will also enable the multilateral framework for the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from genetic data, adopted at COP15[4] , to be finalised and made operational.

However, the negotiations failed to address the challenges linked to financing. While target 19 of the Global Biodiversity Framework[5] calls for the generation of 200 billion dollars per year by 2030[6] for the conservation of biodiversity, the strategy for achieving this objective is struggling to achieve consensus.

The countries of the Global South supported the creation of a new international fund for biodiversity, because of their criticism of the operation and access to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), under whose aegis the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) is currently managed. On the other hand, several countries in the Global North considered that creating new bodies would be costly and time-consuming, and felt that it was irrelevant given the existence of mechanisms already in place .[7]

In the end, only contributions totalling $163 million1 were made to the GBFF, bringing the fund’s total endowment to $400 million. [8]

The question of financing remains a crucial issue for both decision-makers and civil society. Given that this funding cannot come from public funds alone, the search for the 200 billion dollars a year needed to achieve the GBF objectives requires the mobilisation of innovative financing solutions. Among these solutions, biodiversity credits stood out at this COP. The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Finance (IAPB), led by France and the United Kingdom since 2023, presented a framework for high-integrity biodiversity credit markets. This framework is based on 21 principles focusing on the need to guarantee concrete results for nature, equity and justice, as well as good governance for these markets .[9]

However, the notion of biodiversity credits remains controversial within civil society, which is struggling to be convinced. In particular, civil society prefers the term “biodiversity certificates”. The French Committee of the IUCN has published a position paper[10] on this issue, pointing out that “most of the pitfalls of carbon credits also concern biodiversity. In particular, there is a significant risk that the purchase of biodiversity certificates will replace the avoidance, reduction and offsetting of impacts, which remain priorities”. It also believes that the term “certificate” is more appropriate, as it better reflects the idea of a positive contribution to biodiversity rather than a simple offset between biodiversity losses and gains.

Finally, while one of the major objectives of this meeting was to determine a monitoring and assessment mechanism for the Global Framework for Biodiversity, the final plenary session failed to resolve the disagreements that led to its creation. This item on the agenda will therefore require another interim session of the COP before the next session, scheduled to take place in Armenia in 2026. This session will be held from 25 to 27 February 2025 in Rome, Italy .[11]

Integrating ecological connectivity since COP15: progress and challenges

Since COP15 and the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, the importance of ecological connectivity as a major conservation tool has been increasingly recognised.

As a reminder, ecological connectivity is included in several of the framework’s objectives and targets, including :

  • “Objective A: As a fundamental requirement for the proper functioning of ecosystems ;
  • Target 1: As a key criterion for achieving “participatory, integrated and inclusive spatial planning for biodiversity”.
  • Target 2: As an impact indicator of the benefits and outcomes of restoration for all landscapes, including seascapes;
  • Target 3: As a crucial element in achieving “well-connected” protected and conserved areas to meet the 30×30 targets;
  • Target 12: As important to increase the benefits of “green and blue spaces” in urban and densely populated areas;
  • Target 14: As a contribution to “the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values […] within and across all levels of government, in all sectors.”” [12][13]

The issue of connectivity therefore naturally became part of the biodiversity agenda during the negotiations:

  • Integrating Ecological Connectivity into National Biodiversity Strategies

In September 2024, ahead of the COP, the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) estimated in a briefing note that, of the 20 countries2 and the European Union that had submitted updated versions of their SNBs, 19 contained a reference to the terms “ecological connectivity”, “ecological corridors” or “ecological networks” and/or specific objectives for maintaining, improving and restoring connectivity[14] . This positive finding was an encouraging starting point ahead of the forthcoming COP.

At COP 16, the IUCN WCPA’s Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group (CCSG), which is a member of the International Coalition Biodiversity Corridors in Africa, carried out a major advocacy campaign to continue encouraging countries to include connectivity in their national biodiversity strategies, on the basis of guides developed ahead of the COP. These guides, aimed at decision-makers, highlight the benefits of including connectivity in national strategies in order to meet certain requirements of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and facilitate access to funding[15] . As well as good practices for including connectivity in NBSs, such as taking account of local communities and indigenous populations, ensuring adequate spatial planning, participating in the collective effort to develop specific connectivity indicators, etc.[16]  However, among the strengths of COP16, the CCSG does not mention any new contributions in this area in the strategies and objectives submitted by the countries.

  • Optimisation of Connectivity indicators in the follow-up to the Kunming-Montréal Framework

Agenda item 10 of the negotiations included discussion of “planning, monitoring, reporting and review mechanisms” related to the framework[17] . In response to the proposed draft monitoring framework, the CCSG published an information note[18] highlighting gaps in the proposed connectivity indicators, and proposing recommendations for better measuring and reporting on ecological connectivity.

They have also produced a practical guide[19] presenting summaries of the indicators identified, with in-depth information on the advantages and disadvantages of these indicators, particularly with regard to connectivity.

Among the other noteworthy developments highlighted by the CLLC and CCSG following the COP was the release during the negotiations of the “Protected Planet Report 2024″[20] by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which assesses the state of protected and conserved areas worldwide. In particular, because this report devotes chapter 6 to the connections between protected areas and to measuring the state of these areas at global level. The report concludes that the global network of protected areas is not yet sufficiently well connected, and reiterates the importance of the notion of “well-connected” protected and conserved areas to ensure that the 30×30 target is achieved.

Finally, the COP also adopted a decision on plant conservation efforts, accompanied by an annex detailing additional voluntary actions to be implemented, including connectivity .[21]

In conclusion, more than a month after the COP, the consensus emerging from civil society and media statements is that the conference did not fully achieve its political objectives. Although significant progress was made, the negotiations on key points of the agenda, such as financing and the creation of the monitoring mechanism, did not enable a consensus to be reached. On the other hand, the issue of ecological connectivity is gradually finding its way into the discussions, although further efforts are needed to ensure genuine connectivity between protected areas and the achievement of the targets set for 2030. It should also be noted that COP16 saw an unprecedented level of participation[22] and that the Colombian public showed great interest in the event. It is clear, therefore, that a collective determination to preserve biodiversity and to take the necessary measures to achieve this remains present and constantly evolving, both among governments and political leaders and in society in general.

 

1From France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Canadian province of Quebec.

2Malta, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Burkina Faso, Jordan, Cuba, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Suriname, Italy, Canada, Uganda, Austria, China, France, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg and Spain.

[1] Convention on Biological Diversity (2022). DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4.

[2] Conservation International. COP16 READOUT.

[3] French Committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Latest feedback from COP16 Biodiversity.

[4] Convention on Biological Diversity(2022). DIGITAL SEQUENCE INFORMATION ON GENETIC RESOURCES. CBD/COP/15/L.30.

[5] Convention on Biological Diversity (2022). DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4.

[6]  French Development Agency. AFD Group at COP16.

[7] French Committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Latest feedback from COP16 Biodiversity.

[8] Ministry for Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (03/11/2024). COP16 Biodiversity: France welcomes several significant advances but regrets the absence of key decisions for implementing the framework.

[9] Ecoact(07/11/2024). COP 16 Biodiversity: despite the enthusiasm, a mixed record on delivering on commitments.

[10] IUCN French Committee (28/10/2024).COP 16: Position of the IUCN French Committee on biodiversity credits and certificates.

[11] Convention on Biological Diversity (2022) Notification 2024-110.

[12] IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group(2024) Brief: Ecological Connectivity in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

[13] Center for Large Landscape Conservation (2024), Convention on Biological Diversity COP 16.

[14]Center for Large Landscape Conservation (2024). Ecological Connectivity in Updated NBSAPs As of September 2024

[15]  IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group(2024). Information Note: Supporting Connectivity Conservation at National Levels through NBSAPs and GEF financing.

[16] IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group(2024) Ecological Connectivity: Guidance for revised NBSAPs.

[17] Convention on Biological Diversity – Provisional Agenda. CBD/COP/16/1/add.1.

[18] IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group(2024). The Need for Disaggregated Indicators for Ecological Connectivity in the KMGBF Monitoring Framework.

[19] IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group(2024) Practical Guidance on Indicators of Connectivity for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

[20]UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2024). Protected Planet Report 2024. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge, United Kingdom; Gland, Switzerland.

[21] Convention on Biological Diversity (2022).PLANT CONSERVATION.CBD/COP/16/L.3

[22] Conservation Corridor (09/12/2024). CCSG Overview of Outcomes from CBD/CoP-16.