So that happened.

What an interesting experience!

Apparently, over 16,000 people gathered in Cali, Colombia, for COP 16, a figure that so exceeded the Colombian government’s expectations that emergency accommodation had to be found…including, apparently, a few nights in a “love hotel” for some delegates!!!

Setting aside such minor glitches, I have to say that this was an extremely well-run event, and we were made to feel very welcome in Cali.

What was COP 16 all about?

The 16th meeting of the bi-annual Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 16) finished last weekend – sadly with a whimper, rather than a roar!

COP 16 brought together a combination of government representatives and the great and the good of the conservation world to negotiate the next steps for the Global Biodiversity Framework finalised in Montreal two years ago.

That agreement was widely considered to be a great success and the starting point of serious efforts to reverse the global decline in biodiversity that is gathering pace as climate change impacts grow. This time, the idea was to discuss how to actually operationalise the treaty, focusing on the means of implementation and how it is all going to be funded.

Key successes of COP 16

Two outcomes from the conference are being hailed.

First, there is a new mechanism to ensure that when companies make money from biodiversity resources, some of that money goes to the country from which the biodiversity resource originated.

So, say a US company develops a new drug using a plant they found in Malaysia – Malaysia will get some of the profit from the sale of the drug.

Guidelines indicate that the company pays either 1% of profit, or 0.1% of revenue into a fund set up for the purpose. Research suggests that such a fund could raise US$ 1 billion per year for biodiversity conservation.

The second key outcome was agreement on a new permanent body for indigenous peoples, which for the first time creates a platform for indigenous peoples to voice their views on biodiversity conservation issues.

Yet to be decided during COP 16…

However…many other important topics were left unresolved as the talks ran over time, and had to be abandoned due to lack of quorum!

Only 15% of nations submitted updated national biodiversity policies before COP started, making it difficult to monitor progress against targets. Several questions on funding were also left unresolved.

So what were my main takeaways from this whole exercise?

The time to act for biodiversity is now

Without exception, the scientists and NGOs I listened to and spoke to are very clear on this: we are facing a crisis that literally threatens life on Earth and we need to act NOW.

No hand-wringing about how “they” ought to do “something”, instead a clear message: we have to act. At least there is consensus on that!

Funding, funding, funding for biodiversity

Another point that everyone agrees on is that we need to significantly increase funding available for biodiversity conservation.

The concept of “the biodiversity funding gap” seems widely accepted – it refers to the difference between the amount of funding currently available and the amount needed for biodiversity conservation.

The problem is…it has been estimated at US$ 700 billion per year!

That’s a lot of money!! Where is it coming from?

Alone in the conservation battle

Frankly, despite all the apparent progress and good news…I came away with a feeling that we are on our own.

There have been years – decades, even – of promises from the developed “global north” to provide funding to protect “essential” biodiversity in the under-developed “global south”. But it has never materialised in the amounts needed.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying there has been NO funding, but we have to admit that it has been nowhere near the funding promised at numerous international conferences on biodiversity.

In Montreal two years ago, there was an agreement to increase “total biodiversity related international financial resources from developed countries…to developing countries…to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030” (my edits to shorten it!).

These were essentially “stepping stones” to the greater funding target of US 700 billion per year. Right now, it doesn’t look like we are going to make the 2025 target…how can we seriously expect to reach US$ 700 billion per year???

Next steps for Malaysia’s biodiversity?

If I am right, Malaysia needs to develop its own approach to funding the conservation of its biodiversity.

As the delegate from the World Bank pointed out during one session I joined – these are national assets; the national government should play a significant role in protecting them for the future benefit of the nation.

Fair enough? How do we do that? Nature bonds? Biodiversity stewardship schemes?

More to follow so stay tuned!

______________________________________________________________________________________

If you’d like to support us, you can follow our social media pages for any updates on our work and volunteering opportunities, or you could also donate towards our cause.