What just happened at COP16? NbSI reports from Colombia
What just happened in Cali? Quite a lot. The COP16 agenda was enormous. The Oxford team worked around the clock to cover the core negotiations, as well as important discussions from civil society taking place in the green zone. Here, we reflect on some of the takeaways on the main agenda items, and as well as on the key issues we tracked over the past two weeks.
Billed as the “People’s COP” where we would make “peace with nature,” this COP was also intended to be the one where resources for implementation and methods for tracking progress on goals would be finalised. While the conference, with delegates from 196 nations, delivered on the first front (people), it failed on the second (finance), leaving many disappointed and frustrated. Only limited new funding was announced (taking the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund to just $396 million, far short of the billions required), and no consensus was reached on a mechanism to mobilise resources. Disagreements over whether to create a new fund or continue using the Global Environment Facility (GEF) caused delays. A new proposal supporting a dedicated fund surfaced very early on Saturday morning—yet without a majority of Parties to approve it. This has led some to question the process, the political will, or both.
The Peoples’ COP
The room was filled with jubilation as parties reached an agreement to establish a new subsidiary body—an essential UN organisational structure—to facilitate the “full and effective participation” of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). This decision marks a genuine breakthrough in recognising the vital, practical, and transformative roles that many Indigenous Peoples and local communities play in protecting and restoring biodiversity, and, by extension, supporting the health of the biosphere. This milestone includes the adoption of a comprehensive work programme under Article 8(j) to guide IPLC participation through to 2030, focused on principles like biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and a human-rights-based approach. Importantly, it also aims to enable direct access to funding for biodiversity initiatives by IPLCs, further empowering them as active stewards of nature. Also critically important was the recognition of the contributions of people of African descent, particularly those who embody traditional lifestyles, in conserving biodiversity and implementing the CBD.
In addition, the parties agreed to create the Cali Fund, a measure aimed at ensuring the equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic data. Pharmaceutical, cosmetics, agribusiness, nutraceutical, and technology conglomerates that profit from genetic resources are expected to contribute either 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue to this fund. However, concerns remain around the use of the word “should” in the decision text, which suggests these contributions may be voluntary rather than mandatory. The final text on Digital Sequencing Information, DSI, that was adopted specifies that “at least half of the funding of the global fund should support the self-identified needs” of IPLCs, “where appropriate and subject to national circumstances.”
Another positive development is the inclusion of the IPBES Values Assessment within the CBD framework. This assessment encourages governments to integrate diverse methods of valuing nature into their decision-making processes. While the decision text fell short of calling for direct institutional reforms, this step is a critical move toward broadening the appreciation of nature within policy contexts.
Holistic approaches
We were pleased to see COP16 showing clear signs of a more holistic approach, with a focus on aligning climate, biodiversity, and health agendas. In particular, building on the COP28 joint statement from the UNFCCC and CBD presidencies and creation of the Rio Trio, parties demonstrated strong international support for alignment between climate and biodiversity policy, which was reflected in the decision text for agenda items 11, 13, and 25. Progress was made toward establishing a joint work programme to institutionalise these synergies, or more specifically the text requests “the Executive Secretary to invite Parties, observers and other stakeholders, to submit by May 2025 their views on options for enhanced policy coherence, including a potential joint work programme of the Rio conventions”. The text also highlighted the importance of ecological integrity and of nature-based solutions as a way of bridging the climate and biodiversity agendas, so long as they support biodiversity and local communities.
There were signs that Latin America is stepping up its leadership on biodiversity-climate synergies, which is highly important given that so much of the world’s biodiversity and land-based carbon is found within the region. Over 70 global leaders urged Presidents Petro of Colombia and Lula of Brazil to lead efforts on climate, nature, and food security, and Brazil renewed its pledge to restore 12 million hectares of native ecosystems by 2030. While some are celebrating the growing supported for the proposed Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), we are aware there are concerns that TFFF’s focus on market-driven solutions may prioritise carbon metrics over biodiversity and community needs, and might not deliver the benefits it aims for given it is loan-based. Something to keep a close eye on!
We are also happy to report recognition of the deep interdependency between biodiversity and human health, still largely overlooked in policy spheres, with a new voluntary action plan agreed upon after four years of negotiations. The Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health, backed by countries and NGOs, supports governments in integrating biodiversity-health connections into national policies, promoting sustainable agricultural practices and advancing understanding of chemical and waste impacts on human health.
Other breakthroughs
On marine and coastal biodiversity
The text on ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) highlights their value for conservation planning, though it does not confer legal protection or economic impact. It allows for scientific updates to EBSA descriptions and the withdrawal of descriptions in disputed areas. After eight years of negotiations, this decision, seen as a step toward potential marine protected areas (MPAs), includes a 10-year review. A second text focuses on sustainable marine biodiversity, welcoming the High Seas Treaty (or BBNJ), key to the “30 by 30” ocean protection target. It promotes CBD collaboration with other conventions on marine governance and identifies priority areas like marine pollution, deep-sea ecosystems, and traditional knowledge.
On mainstreaming biodiversity
A new “mainstreaming champions” group, led by Mexico and Colombia with 17 member nations, was launched to drive collective action and learning through 2030 on how to integrate biodiversity considerations across policies that impact ecosystems, from infrastructure to agriculture, with a decision text reiterating the importance of mainstreaming biodiversity, encouraging nations to report their progress and address scientific and technical gaps that may hinder mainstreaming efforts.
On science and technical needs
Also much welcome and hard-won was decision text recommending that work be advanced on three really important areas: biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning, pollution and biodiversity, sustainable biodiversity based activities, and, critically, “equity, gender equality and the human rights-based approach relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources”.
Private sector momentum
Most private-sector activity at COP16 took place in the Green Zone, which was the largest ever at a biodiversity COP, with over 3,000 businesses and financial institutions calling for a fundamental shift in corporate sustainability. We were relieved to find consensus on moving beyond reporting to creating real-world impacts, and broad agreement on the need for stronger collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society, particularly to address deforestation—especially given that more than half of the Forest 500 financial institutions are without a single publicly available deforestation policy.
While it’s hard to pinpoint major breakthroughs from the private sector, it was encouraging to see strong calls for action and high-quality information on the state of nature. The Finance Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), launched at COP26, helped integrate nature into net-zero transition plans in Cali, working with the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to develop nature transition strategies. WWF, World Economic Forum (WEF), and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development released guidance on nature transition planning, and the Nature Positive Initiative introduced standardized nature-positive metrics. The UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI) and Finance for Biodiversity co-hosted a session on the ENCORE tool, and the TNFD launched a roadmap for its Nature Public Data Facility, aiming to consolidate reliable and publicly available nature data and metric sources.
While the advancements towards more accurate and reflective nature metrics are encouraging, we are concerned that an overemphasis on finding a single perfect metric could distract from much-needed action on the ground.
Still a long way to go
Despite these positive outcomes, the overarching situation at COP16 remains deeply concerning. Although the summit was the submission deadline, most countries have yet to share their updated national biodiversity plans (NBSAPs); by the close of COP16 on 2 November, only 44 of the 196 parties had done so. Among the submitted plans, there remains a significant gap in meeting the 30×30 conservation target. For example, the UK’s reassessment of habitat quality showed coverage at only 7%, underscoring the scale of work needed.
Concerns also arose around the lack of genuine integration between climate and biodiversity policy, despite mounting scientific evidence that alignment is critical. Although ministers at COP16 emphasised the importance of linking these agendas, the final text excluded explicit language on transitioning away from fossil fuels and omitted warnings on the risks of large-scale bioenergy plantations to biodiversity. This reflects a recurring challenge: while there is general support for coordinated climate and biodiversity action, political disagreements on specific strategies continue to hinder progress.
But perhaps the biggest blow was COP16’s failure to agree on a monitoring framework, essential for tracking biodiversity targets under the Global Biodiversity Framework. While many feared agreements over resource mobilisation might falter, no-one anticipated leaving Cali without an agreement on monitoring. Headline indicators were settled but consensus was delayed by huge disagreements on key metrics, such as pesticide use and the inclusion of coral reef indicators, and then time simply ran out and there were not enough voices in the room for a consensus.
What next?
Though key decisions on resource mobilisation and monitoring framework have been carried forward to the intercessional in June, there is much to build on from COP16. Looking ahead to COP29 in Baku and then to COP30 in Belém, we really hope that Latin American countries will continue to lead the way in promoting integrated climate-biodiversity action and respecting the leadership of Indigenous People, whose knowledges and world views are so important for protecting biodiversity and enhancing the wellbeing of all life on earth.
Written by: Nathalie Seddon, Cecile Girardin, Emma O’Donnell and Audrey Wagner
Last standing members of the Oxford Delegation seeing things through to the end…
