From the Biodiversity COP16 to the Climate COP29: Building Equitable Accountability, Alignment, and Adequacy on Finance

The United States just went through its most consequential election. While the outcome raises questions about what the re-election of Trump means for U.S. engagement in global climate talks moving forward (in view of his previous stunt), the game is still on, with or without him. Despite the challenges, local communities, cities, states, private actors, and the public more broadly have embarked on an unstoppable journey-upholding the spirit of the Paris Agreement.

The world's biodiversity agreement just faced its first big test in Cali, Colombia, at the United Nations' 16th Biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP16). The results were decidedly mixed, with some breakthroughs but also critical missed opportunities. Ultimately, it left the international community with a suite of urgent priorities to address our rapidly closing window to halt biodiversity collapse and to align the protection of nature with action on climate change.

With countries rapidly pivoting to the U.N. climate conference (COP29) next week, they will need to build on COP16's successes and mitigate its failures, prioritizing the equitable delivery of main "AAA" objectives that are relevant to both: Accountability, the alignmentof biodiversity and climate plans, and the adequacyof resource mobilization and access to finance.

COP16 in Cali was the first Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP since the December 2022 adoption of the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework(KMGBF or, commonly, GBF). The GBF set forth a plan to reverse and halt biodiversity loss by 2030 through the achievement of 23 action-oriented targets and to live in harmony with nature by 2050 by meeting four overarching goals.

COP16 offered a chance to make progress on the AAA objectives, as they are essential to delivering on the GBF, while also ensuring equity is built into each of them. These objectives manifest in some of COP16's most notable outcomes, including the adoption of a work program and the creation of a permanent subsidiary body on Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) under the CBD, with a recognition of the role of Afro-descendants. The outcomes also included decisions on a historic and long-overdue fund to foster equitable benefits sharing from their knowledge.

Overall, however, the international community left Cali with a long road ahead for meaningful, enduring, equitable implementation.

Accountability

A long history of failed promises on biodiversity cast a broad shadow as the international community began negotiations at COP16. None of the biodiversity conservation targets set for 2010-2020 were fully met, making the challenge of halting and reversing biodiversity loss in the following decades much harder. While parties to the CBD have had two years since adopting the GBF to revise their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are supposed to detail how they will fulfill their GBF obligations, only about 22 percent of countries had done so by the conclusion of the COP.

Developed countries have been particularly notorious for sidestepping accountability, especially on forest commitments. For decades, international policy has largely focused on addressing deforestation in the tropics while allowing the wealthier countries of the Global North to evade scrutiny for their own forest degradation. As countries chart their ambition under the GBF and related commitments at the intersection of nature and climate, voicesfrom the Global South, including the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment, have begun calling for frameworks to drive more equitable accountability.

The GBF's monitoring framework presented an opportunity to begin correcting this imbalance through the adoption of concrete, shared indicators to guide biodiversity protection and restoration. Instead, in the months leading up to COP16, negotiators began building a monitoring framework that risks cloaking business as usual under the guise of progress. Ultimately, without additional revisions and willingness to strengthen the indicators, the monitoring framework will be subject to the same inequities and weaknesses that have plagued policies for decades.

As countries look to build accountability, the enhanced transparency framework and global stocktake under the U.N. climate convention can provide models for how to bring more teeth into the CBD process and foster responsibility for all parties. In addition, wealthy countries need to ensure their NBSAPs are action-oriented and to hold themselves to the same standards on deforestation and forest degradation that they expect in the tropics.

There may also be opportunities to channel success elsewhere into greater accountability on biodiversity conservation. One example is the progressing ratification of the new high seas treaty, which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for biodiversity conservation at a global scale. The treaty must be ratified by 60 nations to come into force and then be effectively implemented, both of which saw progress at COP16 with the announcement of Panama's ratification during the COP and several countries confirming the signing of the treaty and announcing intentions to start working on the first round of high seas marine protected areas.

Alignment of biodiversity and climate efforts

Biodiversity loss and climate change are inextricably linked, requiring aligned, synergistic action. The U.N. biodiversity and climate conventions have historically been siloed, resulting in disconnected, sometimes conflicting decision-making and ambition. Last December, at the U.N. climate conference in Dubai (COP28), countries agreed to the first global stocktake,which emphasized the need to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 and to align with the GBF.

COP16 created an opening for fostering that alignment and ensuring coordination and complementarity. Parties agreed to establish a process, with submissions of views from all stakeholders by May 2025, for coordinating between the three Rio Conventions(addressing climate, biodiversity, and desertification). This creates a pathway for ensuring that climate mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity protection and restoration mutually reinforce each other's priorities.

At COP29, negotiators should build off of this leadership, elevating the need to integrate climate and biodiversity commitments and reinforcing the importance of an efficient, robust collaboration process. Particularly given next year's ocean and climate summits in France and Brazil, respectively, which will thrust oceans and forests to the forefront of the climate agenda, it is imperative that countries set the stage for the alignment between biodiversity and climate commitments, create opportunities for the exchange of lessons and best practices between the conventions, and deliver more robust and ambitious climate and biodiversity plans as soon as possible, and no later than in a year's time in 2025.

Adequacy of finance

As at COP15, the issue causing the greatest rift at COP16 was the question of how to fund the biodiversity conservation called for in the GBF. Since the signing of the GBF, positions-particularly divisions between developed and developing countries-have only hardened. The European Union announced in Septemberthat it was opposed to a key demand of developing countries: the creation of a new finance mechanism to distribute biodiversity finance. At the same time, the Ministerial Alliance for Ambition on Nature Finance released a statement from 20 Global South countriescalling on the Global North to meet the commitments it made in the GBF to ensure that at least $20 billion per year is delivered from developed to developing countries by 2025 and that at least $30 billion per year is delivered by 2030.

Unfortunately, discussions on these issues started too late in the negotiations and dragged into the last day of the COP, until the meeting ended abruptly for lack of a quorum. The aborted talks adjourned with no agreed-upon strategy for increasing funds to finance nature conservation. Countries will now continue talks next year at an interim meeting.

This result is unacceptable. The vast majority of countries in the Global South will not have the resources necessary to meet their obligations in the GBF if the Global North does not meet its funding commitments.

The problem is compounded given that some of the key sticking points of biodiversity finance echo discussions about climate finance. For example, under the U.N. climate convention, there have been similar disagreements around appropriate finance mechanisms, such as around the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund in 2022. During those and other discussions, diverging opinions around sources of finance, transparency, and access to funding have stymied progress. Now, with the inconclusive end of COP16 on these issues, there is even larger, more entrenched distrust between developed and developing countries.

At COP29, countries need to agree to a new, ambitious climate finance goalto build the needed confidence among governments and the private sector to pursue more ambitious climate action that also drives the protection of nature; the richest and most-polluting countries must therefore dramatically enhance their efforts.

This is not charity-it is investment for economic and social justice, a matter of national, food, and energy security, and it is essential to building a climate-safer world for all.

Ultimately, all countries will get hurt by climate impacts with billions' worth of damages. The richest countries are not immune to this (as we saw most recently in the United Statesand Spain), and they all need to step up. A deal on finance cannot just hinge on the United States. That was true before, and it's truer now.

Looking forward

For both climate and nature, 2030 is a deadline that will dictate our future. By then, the international community will need to have implemented transformative change across all sectors, establishing climate-safe, nature-positive economies, while ensuring equity and human rights.

Government progress, including at the subnational level, on accountability, alignment, and adequacy of finance is particularly critical given the unprecedented attention from the private sector on biodiversity and climate risks and outcomes. Companies and investors had a major presence at COP16-they are paying close attention to these negotiations and to the growing risks of failing to take action. Signals from the government are critical to pushing money flows and supply chains toward sustainable, equitable outcomes and building the structures that will transform business practices.

COP16 made important strides, but ultimately left far too much on the table. At COP29 and beyond, parties need to renew trust and pursue their resolve to rapidly scale up and invest in holistic, equitable, all-of-planet approaches that propel action at every level of society and government, finally turning global commitments into reality on the ground. COP29 needs to and can deliver.

Related Blogs