Historic platform for Indigenous Peoples, but finance failure at COP16
At the conclusion of the UN biodiversity talks, IIED’s delegates at the summit reflect on what the final COP16 outcome means for nature, for people and for the upcoming climate negotiations in Azerbaijan.
Members of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity celebrate the adoption of the decision on the new Subsidiary Body for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities at the closing plenary of COP16 (Photo: Florian Doerr)
IIED issued a mixed verdict on the outcome of the United Nations biodiversity conference, COP16, which ended last weekend following a fortnight of talks in Cali, Colombia.
Negotiations at the biennial summit focused on efforts to conserve biodiversity and halt the destruction of nature around the world.
It resulted in a landmark agreement recognising Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) as protagonists in biodiversity conservation, and that created a permanent subsidiary body for them. This body is expected to enhance IPs’ and LCs’ engagement and participation in decision-making on tackling biodiversity loss.
IIED delegates praised this outcome, hailing it as an historic moment for IPs and LCs. However, there was disappointment at COP16’s lack of resolution on finance, with concerns over how this would affect IPs and LCs.
A major win and a disappointment
Barbara Lassen, senior researcher in IIED’s Natural Resources research group, said: “In one way, the ‘COP of the people’ delivered, with a major win for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the creation of a new permanent body, which will allow them to defend their rights and traditional knowledge more effectively.
“However, it’s disappointing that the two main implementation mechanisms of the Convention on Biological Diversity – namely the resource mobilisation and financial mechanism, and the monitoring framework – could not be finalised.”
Nicola Sorsby, researcher in IIED's Climate Change research group, agreed: "It is disappointing that a decision couldn't be reached on a financial mechanism which will ensure that funding for biodiversity can be channelled directly to IPs and LCs. This issue needs to be given higher priority and more urgency.
“IPs and LCs have been highlighting concerns with accessing Global Environment Facility funds for many years and many of these same issues remain within the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the flagship fund set up to deliver finance to accomplish the global biodiversity framework (GBF) targets.”
Sorsby continued: “Without a resolution on this issue, funding for biodiversity will continue to be channelled mostly to intermediary organisations, and IPs and LCs have little power over how it is spent or what on. The longer this continues, the longer funding will not reach where it really matters.”
Biodiversity fund pledges fall short
Current pledges to the GBFF fell drastically short at COP16. Only US$163 million has been pledged versus the 2023 target of $30 billion per year from developed to developing countries. This is only 0.5% of the target amount required within the next six years. Without direct channels to enable nature finance to reach IPs and LCs, it risks stalling any progress, says IIED.
Commenting on the shortfall, Sorsby said: “This sets a poor precedent for the upcoming agreement of the new climate finance target (New Collective Quantified Goal) at COP29 in Baku. Underinvestment in nature will undermine any decision made on climate finance, since nature and climate are so closely linked and nature is vital to maintain a healthy climate.”
Elsewhere, there was some positive news on finance with the establishment of the Cali Fund, which will compensate countries for the use of genetic information derived from biodiversity around the world.
“It will be crucial to ensure that the proceeds from this fund reach the IPs and LCs who are the stewards of this biodiversity and possess the best knowledge and practices to conserve it," said Sorsby.
Threats to human rights and gender equality language
During COP16, efforts were made to weaken language on human rights and gender equality. IIED believes this signals a troubling shift that could affect the integrity of future biodiversity actions.
Lassen said: “The negotiation sessions were… marred by persistent attempts by some governments to water down language on human rights and gender equality across several key issues, with little push back from Parties present. This is a worrying trend compared to what was agreed in the GBF.”
Similarly, efforts to integrate gender considerations faced setbacks, with some parties resisting language on gender equality and on gender-responsive approaches.
Karen Wong Pérez, senior researcher in IIED’s Climate Change research group, said: "Although there was some progress in recognising women’s crucial roles in preserving biodiversity, gender equality is still often treated as optional rather than a core issue of the talks.
“Advocates successfully promoted more inclusive language, but without specific funding or required measures there’s a risk that gender equality goals won’t be fully tracked or addressed, limiting the potential for real progress."
