COP16 on biodiversity flatters to deceive

After having begun on a rather positive note, the 16th global meet on biodiversity protection, known as COP16 and held in Cali, Columbia, last week ended with a mixed bag.
The meeting, which preceded the global climate change summit known as COP29, which is set to open on Nov. 11 in Baku, Azerbaijan, began with a major breakthrough. Member countries almost immediately and with broad consensus agreed on the key issue of companies, especially drug manufacturers, sharing profits with local communities when they use their natural resources, recognizing the equal, if not predominant, stake of local communities over natural resources under their guardianship.
This is a key breakthrough as, first and foremost, it recognizes the stake of the communities that have depended for centuries on forests, lakes and other areas rich in natural resources that are today being exploited by various companies.
Not only do the local communities depend on these resources, but they have also been their guardians, protecting and conserving them at a time when the rest of the world was being ravaged by corporate greed, which has little stake in long-term conservation and instead focuses on short-term gains, solely with shareholder interests in mind.
Recognizing the stake of the local communities in these resources is a milestone step as, up to now, they have been deprived of any benefits from the use of these resources, while companies made billions of dollars in sales and profits and governments collected taxes. It is also the communities that have traditionally borne the brunt of the impact of these exploitations, while never really receiving any compensation, let alone a share of the profits or even an acknowledgement that their lives were impacted in any way by these actions.
It is in this context that the outcome at Cali was extremely significant. However, while this important breakthrough was achieved, the member countries failed to reach any agreement on another key issue: rich countries delivering on their commitments to finance developing countries’ efforts to preserve their biodiversity.
For centuries, rich countries have ravaged their own biodiversity and, when little was left, they turned toward the developing world. Today, a number of global giants, especially in the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and food domains, depend on and exploit the natural resources and traditional knowledge of developing countries.

The rich countries — despite having committed to pay up — did not present a detailed plan on who would pay, how much and by when.

Ranvir S. Nayar

Since the rich countries bear the primary responsibility for the destruction of biodiversity, they have been forced to acknowledge their moral responsibility and hence agreed to pay under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as per a deal reached at the last biodiversity summit. Under the agreement, the rich countries had committed to finalizing a strategy to secure $200 billion annually for biodiversity by 2030.
However, despite the urgency of the climate crisis, COP16 concluded without the securing of vital agreements on financing and monitoring the progress of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
As has been witnessed at the annual climate change meetings for several years, the rich countries — despite having committed to pay up — did not present a detailed plan on who would pay, how much and by when. In the absence of a clear financing plan, the COP16 negotiations were embroiled in deep divisions over funding mechanisms.
These disagreements reflected the lack of trust that has emerged between rich and poor countries due to the developed nations’ failure to fulfill their commitment to provide $20 billion of international public finance annually by 2025.
Tired of such dilatory tactics, a few developing countries have suggested setting up a new dedicated biodiversity fund managed by the Conference of the Parties, citing governance and access issues with the existing Global Environment Facility.
In the face of the consistent failure of the rich countries to keep to their commitments, what is worrying for the developing world and the local communities is that even the profit-sharing deal agreed as part of a “Cali Fund” is voluntary and the rates under this agreement have no legal standing, being merely indicative.
In such a scenario, it would be foolhardy on the part of the developing nations and the local communities to maintain hopes of any real profit-sharing. Going by their track record of broken promises, the rich countries and their companies are likely to either break this commitment or fudge it in a way that means the profit-sharing remains entirely on paper.
The impact of the failure of the biodiversity meet is serious enough on its own, but as it came just days before the climate change summit gets underway in Baku, the lack of trust and the consistency with which the rich nations have broken their commitments will leave the coming negotiations under a thick cloud of mistrust. When any meeting opens under such negative circumstances, the chances of a breakthrough or even a low-level agreement look remote.
This is despite the fact that the impact of climate change is ever more visible and ever more intense all over the planet. It is time the rich nations stopped playing Russian roulette with the fate of the Earth.

• Ranvir S. Nayar is the managing editor of Media India Group and founder-director of the Europe India Foundation for Excellence.