The COP16 UN Biodiversity Conference in Rome has ended with a plan for nations to contribute $200 billion a year for the protection of the planet’s biodiversity by 2030, but critics say it’s not enough.
The countries came to an agreement on how to contribute the funds. The accord also includes a plan for raising $20 billion annually to finance conservation in developing nations starting this year, with the amount rising to $30 billion a year by 2030, reported The Associated Press.
Following hours of tense discussions, delegates at the conference applauded when the deal was finally reached.
COP16 President Susana Muhamad cried as she ended the meeting, calling it a “historic day,” The Guardian reported.
“We achieved the adoption of the first global plan to finance the conservation of life on Earth,” Muhamad said.
While progress was made at the summit, important issues were deferred, such as the creation of a fund to distribute the money, the existence of subsidies that destroy nature and reducing climate pollution.
[embedded content]
Some leaders said the result of the meeting was a win for collaboration.
“Our efforts show that multilateralism can present hope at a time of geopolitical uncertainty,” said Steven Guilbeault, Canadian minister of environment and climate change, as reported by The Guardian.
Calling COP negotiations the “least bad” process, Jean-Luc Crucke, climate and ecological transition minister from Belgium, said the agreement showed that international cooperation on biodiversity was still possible.
“So there is a great significance to these negotiations,” Crucke added, saying that, if humans want to save nature, “there is no other solution than this one.”
The conclusion of COP16 came over two years following the landmark global initiative to safeguard 30 percent of the planet’s land and seas by the end of the decade.
Other summit participants expressed their frustration at a lack of determination concerning the climate crisis.
“Biodiversity cannot wait for a bureaucratic process that lasts [forever], while the environmental crisis continues to get worse,” said Juan Carlos Alurralde Tejada, negotiator from Bolivia. “Forests are burning, rivers are in agony and animals are disappearing.”
Alurralde Tejada expressed concern about the text of the agreement “diluting” biodiversity commitments and creating a path to “indefinite discussion” of who will fund conservation and how the money will be distributed.
The reality of halting biodiversity loss by 2030 is a daunting task, with wildlife populations worldwide having fallen 73 percent from 1970 to 2020, the most recent assessment said.
“Honestly, it’s almost impossible when you see the trends of where things are going,” said Max Fontaine, Madagascar’s environment and development minister. “We are not going in the right direction, we all need to strengthen efforts.”
Datuama Cammue, negotiator from Liberia, said five years was not enough time to implement the conservation targets.
“It will take a lot of financial input and expert input to get it done. With this type of spirit, I really don’t think that it’s possible,” Cammue said.
Wealthy signatories to the previous COP15 agreement had provided just $10.95 billion in funding for biodiversity as of 2022, a report from Campaign for Nature and the Overseas Development Institute said.
Norway’s minister for climate and environment Andreas Bjelland Eriksen said countries needed to “do everything we can” to achieve the 2030 finance goal.
Thursday’s decision presented two major goals: Putting together additional billions in biodiversity funding and deciding which institutions will deliver the money.
The Finance for Biodiversity Foundation, along with a collection of financial institutions, announced an initiative this week to better incorporate biodiversity loss into sovereign debt financing, Bloomberg reported. However, it is still an area financial institutions have a difficult time monetizing, saying they can’t act without profitable opportunities and clear government guidance.
The final text of the COP16 agreement called for contributions from all sources, including financial institutions and the private sector. It put an emphasis on “innovative schemes,” including debt-for-nature swaps, biodiversity offsets and carbon credits.
The global nature pact and new strategy are not legally binding.
Juliette Landry, senior research fellow at thinktank the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, said the global accord didn’t amount to “perfect accountability, but it provides some blocks to build from.”
[embedded content]
