Talking biodiversity in Cali

Ahead of its second session, our Litigation and Advocacy Officer, Stefania Carrer, shares her informal thoughts on the first session of COP 16 to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Late last year, delegates of 196 countries, gathered in Cali, Colombia, for the 16th UN Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which took place from 21 October to 2 November 2024. This global summit, less known and less glamourous compared to its climate twin, has the goal to halt and reverse the rapid destruction of our planet’s biodiversity.

This global summit, less-known and less glamourous than its climate twin, has the goal to halt and reverse the rapid destruction of our planet’s biodiversity.  

If the previous COP 15 was crucial for the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), enshrining four overarching goals and three targets to halt the global biodiversity loss by 2030, COP 16 focused on the implementation process, the actions needed to ensure that the objectives are met within the agreed time. 

Under the slogan ‘Peace with Nature’, governments and UN officials were tasked with the negotiations of key agenda items, including the ‘monitoring framework’, a plan to track progress of the implementation process through specific indicators, and ‘resource mobilization’, an agreement on how to raise and disburse the financial resources necessary to ensure implementation. With general disappointment, the parties were not able to reach consensus on these very two priorities, which remain unresolved and marked as thorny agenda points for a Second Resumed Session of COP 16, that will reconvene from 25-27 February, 2025 in Rome, Italy, at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Other crucial issues which parties more efficiently dealt with in Cali included the creation of a multilateral mechanism to share more broadly the profits that come from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources and traditional knowledge (so-called fair and equitable Access and Benefit Sharing), and the plan of work and institutional arrangement of the Working Group on Article 8j, which became a permanent Subsidiary Body. Article 8j is the provision of the CDB tackling issues related to rights of indigenous peoples and other communities, and their traditional knowledge.

A poor haul of national delegations should not be pointed out as the only memorable feature of the first part of this COP, which was launched and designed under the auspices of being ‘the COP of the people’. The COP venue opened its doors to ten thousand representatives of accredited organizations (including Minority Rights Group), indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities, academia and youth groups, press, finance institutions and business actors who could access the so-called Blue Zone, to take part to the discussion and try to influence its outcome.

The Blue Zone is the formal conference and negotiating space managed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and was located in the second largest event space in Colombia, about 10 km away from the city center, offering many opportunities to network, meet allies and exchange views. I was struck by its modular infrastructure, combining indoor spaces and architecture with the natural landscape allowing participants to enjoy their short breaks outdoors. Those of us with the most foresight were equipped with binoculars to observe the different species of birds chirping in the foliage of the trees scattered around the venue.

As accredited observer for MRG, I could assist in discussions in the plenary as well as in other rooms where the parties meet in formal and informal groups. I appreciated how, in some of these settings, representatives of the different caucuses (such as the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity) were able to sit at the negotiating table and intervene to advocate for their desired outcomes. However, a reported incident on the suppression of a peaceful demonstration organized by a young indigenous activist demonstrates that we are still a long way from achieving full and effective participations of civil society.  

The negotiation process can be frustrating, with parties dwelling on the nuances of a proposed text or even single word for hours without being able to reach any agreement. When this happens the document to be approved remains fully or partially bracketed, meaning that it is not final and will require further work, as happened for the unresolved issues mentioned above. Moreover, the content of the discussion is mostly confidential and cannot be disseminated externally, nor used to openly call on a party to abide by specific obligations or commitments taken in other spaces, which may conflict with a position expressed in the COP negotiation. 

Being in the room allows observers to get to know the national delegates, understand their reasoning and political motivations, and use this information to build alliances and tailor their advocacy actions. For example, observers like me usually approach identified friendly delegates to ask them to support specific demands or to suggest specific text in negotiations or, on the contrary, to convene meetings with representatives of parties standing in the way of a desired outcome in an attempt to change their mind.  

Caucus meetings, side events, press conferences, exhibitions and many other gathering opportunities make the official COP schedule very thick. I took part in several events discussing how to ensure that the GBF is implemented according to a human-rights-based approach, ensuring that indigenous peoples’ rights and the rights of other marginalised communities are safeguarded and advanced throughout the process.  I took part in several events discussing how to ensure that the GBF is implemented according to a human-rights-based approach, ensuring that indigenous peoples’ rights and the rights of other marginalised communities are safeguarded and advanced throughout the process.

These events are useful to draw the attention to specific aspects of biodiversity conservation, that may only marginally arise in negotiations but are in fact crucial for communities whose territories and rights are affected by conservation policies, such as the much-debated policy of biodiversity offsetting, contested due to evidence of offsetting projects dispossessing communities of their lands as well as doubts as to its environmental benefits.

I believe that these talks are much needed, although turning lip service into legally binding tools and serious human rights commitments from states remains the biggest challenge.  

Besides the Blue Zone and its complex dynamics, COP 16 offered the Green Zone, an amazing location open to the public and located in the heart of Cali, on the river boulevard and other places in the city. Here, a parallel agenda of conferences, meetings, roundtables, artistic performances and concerts, and a plethora of open spaces allowed the participation of citizens, students, curious passersby and members of non-accredited institutions and organizations who could gather to discuss biodiversity and learn about it, try local delicacies, or just enjoy the festive atmosphere. Having witnessed the high level of participation and engagement of civil society in the Green Zone, I can perhaps say that the objective fully achieved by this COP was indeed to be remembered as the ‘COP of the people’.  

Featured image: An Indigenous man at the COP16 opening ceremony. Credit: UN Biodiversity (CC BY 2.0) via Flickr.