COP16 on biodiversity: an appraisal

The acronym COP (Conference of Parties) has come to be associated with the annual summit on climate change with such automatic conditioned reflex that other conferences held under the same rubric are easily confused with the former or ignored altogether. So, it was not surprising when the sixteenth conference of parties on the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) held in Cali, Colombia from October 21 to November 1 did not receive much coverage from media. The fact that the majority COP summit (COP29) on climate change to be attended by heads of states and governments was just around the corner (12 November at the Azerbaijani capital Baku) might also be a factor in overwhelming the publicity for COP16 at Cali on biodiversity.

Polemics apart, it has to be admitted that secondary billing given to COP on biodiversity is because of its smaller scope and status in the overall state of the planet compared to COP on climate. By definition, biodiversity is limited to life forms and organisms on earth's terrestrial space. Secondly, its preservation depends greatly on climate and though climate change is caused by factors like denudation of forests, the same cause and effect relation does not exist as it does in respect of biodiversity-climate nexus. But in terms of outcome for human security and welfare, biodiversity's role is significant by any reckoning. That makes a review of COP16 on biodiversity that has just concluded in Cali, Colombia worth going through. To provide a backdrop to the latest development on the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) it may be helpful to re-visit the genesis and trajectory of this convention.

It began in 1988 in a meeting of an Ad Hoc Working Group of experts convened by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to discuss the state of biodiversity in planet earth. The following year the legal text was drafted that addressed the issues of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the world as well as the sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation with sovereign states and local communities. In 1991, an intergovernmental negotiating team was formed to finalise the Convention's text. The following year a Conference for the adoption of Agreed Text of the CBD was held in Nairobi, Kenya. The conclusion from the Conference was documented in the Nairobi Final Act following which the Convention's text was opened for signatures at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in June, 1992, which was also known as 'Rio Earth Summit'. By its closing date on 4 June, 1993, the Convention had received 168 signatures. The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) entered into force on 23 December, 1993.

The CBD recognised for the first time in international law that the conservation of biodiversity is a 'common concern of humankind' and is an integral part of the development process. The agreement on CBD covers all ecosystems, species and genetic resources in the world. It links traditional conservation efforts to the economic goal of using biological resources sustainably. The Convention sets principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. It also covers the rapidly expanding field of bio-technology through its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety issues , technology development and transfer, benefit- sharing and biosafety concerns.

As of 2024 the Convention has 196 Parties, including 195 states and the European Union (EU). Among the Parties, the United States (US) has signed but has not yet ratified the Convention, the matter having been blocked in the US Senate.

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENTS: In addition to the main text of the Convention, there are two supplementary agreements signed by the Parties. The first is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biodiversity, which is an international treaty governing the movements of living modified organisms (LMOS) , resulting from modern biotechnology, from one country to another. The Cartagena Protocol, (named after the historic city of Cartagena, Colombia where the subject was first discussed) also known as the Biosafety Protocol, makes clear that products from new technologies must be based on the human safety principle and allow developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits. It will, for example let countries ban imports of genetically modified organisms if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence that the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities. The required number of 50 instruments of ratification/approval by countries was reached in May, 2003 and the Protocol entered into force on 11 September 2003 and had 173 Parties.

THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO THE CBD IS THE NAGYOA: Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation. The protocol provides a transparent framework for the effective implementation of one of the three objectives of CBD: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic process. The Nagyoa Protocol was adopted in October, 2010, and came into force on October 2014.

Implementation by the Parties to the Convention is achieved using two means: (a) National Biodiversity Strategies and (b) Action Plans. These are the principal instruments for implementing the Convention at the national level. The Convention requires that countries (Parties) prepare a national biodiversity strategy and ensure this strategy is included in planning for activities in all sectors where diversity may be impacted. By 2022, 173 Parties had prepared national strategies and action plans.

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 2011-2020: At the tenth meeting of the Parties (COP10). held in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan a revised 'Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020' was agreed upon. The published document included 20 targets that address each of the five strategic goals that coincided with the launch of Agenda 2030 by UN on Sustainable Goals (SDGs). The Convention on Biodiversity published a technical report mapping and identifying synergy between the 17 SDGs and the 20 Biodiversity target's.

POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK: A new plan, known as the post- 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), was developed to guide action through 2030s, the final draft of which was released in July, 2021.Reducing agricultural pollution and sharing the benefits of digital sequence information emerged as key points of contention among Parties during preparation of the new framework. The framework was finally adopted in 2022 and had a number of ambitious goals, including commitment to designate at least 30 per cent of global land and sea as protected areas.

MAIN CRITICISMS: The main criticism against CBD has been that its implementation has been weakened due to resistance of Western countries, particularly in respect of the provisions that protect the interests of the global south. As the perpetrators of greater damage to global biodiversity, the industrially developed countries of the north have been reluctant to make concessions with regard to their use of resources that impact on biodiversity. The Convention is also criticised for going soft from its original hard stipulations, making compromises under pressure. The argument to enforce the treaty as a legally binding multilateral instrument with the Conference of Parties reviewing the infractions and non- compliance is gaining ground.

The third criticism is about omissions and commissions. Although commitments have been made to contribute to a fund for protection of fragile ecosystems, contributions by developed countries have been paltry. Finally, in violation of CBD previsions that all life forms are to be covered, examination of reports and of national biodiversity strategies and action plans reveal that this is not happening. For example, the fifth report of the EU makes frequent reference to animals (fish and plants) but does not mention bacteria, fungi etc. As a result no document was assessed as 'good' or 'adequate' while less than 10 per cent reports have been found to be 'nearly adequate' or 'poor'. The rest have been described as deficient, seriously deficient or totally deficient.

SPECIAL AREAS OF INTERVENTION: In the area of marine and coastal biodiversity, CBD's focus is at present to identify Ecologically and Biologically Significant marine areas (EBSAs) in specific ocean locations based on scientific criteria. The goal is to create an internationally legally binding instrument involving area-based planning and decision-making to support conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Preserving mangrove and rain forests to protect the various ecosystems under them has received top priority in the activities of CBD. Even desert ecology has received due attention with the common goal of preserving biodiversity. Achievements of goals in all these respects have been frustrated by lack of due diligence by governments in enforcing the restrictions on the use of natural resources like plant and animals. Commercial interests of multinational companies in extracting natural resources have also been a great impediment. The upside is, without CBD and its regular monitoring, damage to biodiversity would have been greater and more alarming.

COP MEETINGS: The meetings of the Parties to the Convention are known as Conference of Parties ( COP). The first one ( COP1) was held in Nassau, Bahamas in 1994 and the most recent ones were held in Kunming and Montreal (COP15) in 2021-2022 and in Cali, Colombia ( COP16) on October-November, 2024.COP on CBD is held on alternate years unlike the COP on climate change that takes place annually.

The agenda of COP16 held in Cali, Colombia from October 21 to November 1 this year featured a variety of topics including discussions on how to implement the Kunming-Montreal (so named because COP15 was divided between the two cities) Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) to achieve the goal of living in harmony with nature by 2050.This involved operationalisation of the monitoring framework, mobilising financial resources, progress on restoration of 30 per cent of degraded land by 2030 and finalising a multilateral mechanism on Access and Benefit Sharing. In pursuance of this agenda, two dozens of global goals were earmarked for monitoring by Parties. But the most important item in the agenda was contribution by Parties, particularly developed countries to the $200 billion dollar fund to help developing countries to take measures for protection of endangered ecosystems and species.

After reaching some key agreements, the final negotiation of COP16 was suspended at the last minute, to be resumed at a future date. The Conference, while answering some major questions, left the main issue of funding open and unresolved. So, the roadmap for preserving endangered ecologies and species, remains to be drawn up in a future that remains uncertain.

The only good news to warm the hearts of environmentalists, particularly indigenous people, was the establishment of a new body dedicated to the Indigenous People's rights, roles, territories and knowledge. The creation of this subsidiary body for indigenous people as a participating entity in future biodiversity talks under the CBD is a recognition of the people who have, for millennia, co- existed with managed and enriched biodiversity through traditional knowledge. By fulfilling a demand of longstanding, COP16 was considered a success even though it failed on the funding issue.

On ocean protection, COP16 saw Parties agreeing to establish a standardised way to identify ocean areas with high ecological value. In doing so, COP16 helped pave the way for the Global Ocean Treaty to be ratified by June, 2025. Additionally, the interconnectedness between biodiversity and climate action was acknowledged, further clearing the way forward for protecting the ecosystems that sustain people and the planet.

Another achievement of COP16 has been a win for people power despite intense lobbying from Big Pharma and Big Agribusiness to pass a resolution requiring corporate bodies to pay for protection of nature. This means companies using genetic resources from nature to make products like medicine, cosmetics, genetic- engineered seeds and scientific research will now have to pay back to protect nature.

CONCLUSIONS: Clearly, in preserving biodiversity funding is of the essence. Public financing from developed countries has to come, sooner rather than later. How this will be achieved has now been left to leaders of developed countries who will be represented at the next meeting of Parties. COP17, to be held in Armenia in 2026, will have a crowded agenda, as usual. But like chickens coming home to roost, the funding issue will be on top.

[email protected]