As we come to the end of 2024 and look ahead to the work that needs to be done in 2025, we are reflecting back on COP16. When it comes to conservation finance, where did COP16 deliver results, where did it miss the mark, and where do we go from here? To answer these questions, Nature Investment Hub sat down with partners who were on the ground at COP16 in Cali, Colombia in October 2024. Interviewees included Shaughn McArthur from Nature United, as well as Gia Paola and Jim Brennan from Ducks Unlimited Canada.
Set against a backdrop of green hills and blooming flowers in Cali, COP16 saw far more attendees than anticipated, with one partner estimating that 23,000 attended – far exceeding the 12,000 expected. This could be a signal of increasing interest in biodiversity COP, and growing acknowledgement that biodiversity is as critical as climate. “One of the many conversations happening at the biodiversity conference was the convergence of climate and biodiversity,” said Gia Paola, National Policy Analyst at Ducks Unlimited Canada. “(T)he world is coming to the realization of the interlinkage between the two crises, and the need to find solutions to both.” Partners reported an overwhelming sense that there was a lot to accomplish in a short time, in a microcosm of the biodiversity crisis itself.
COP16 delivered some notable successes, including some important agreements. The first was a new permanent Subsidiary Body. “(T)he identification and establishment of this new subsidiary body (related to Article 8J) that elevates the voice of Indigenous peoples and communities in the negotiations, and the level of Indigenous people’s participation in this COP was quite remarkable,” said Jim Brennan, National Director of Industry & Government Relations at Ducks Unlimited Canada. “This includes from Canada, but it wasn’t limited to Canada. The establishment of this new subsidiary body and a new program of work to make sure that Indigenous Peoples and Rights and traditional knowledge are reflected in the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework.”
Another noteworthy success was the creation of The CALI Fund, where users benefiting from digitized genetic information on species share at least 50 per cent of revenues with stewards of nature. Called “a historic decision of global importance” by the Convention on Biological Diversity, this voluntary fund focuses on pharmaceutical, biotechnology, animal and plant breeding industries fairly sharing the benefits from digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI). Large companies and major entities benefiting commercially from DSI should contribute to The Cali Fund based on a percentage of their profits or revenues to Global South countries, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities. This precedent for benefit-sharing in biodiversity conservation was a greater success than anticipated.
Thirdly, along with 17 other countries, Canada launched and joined the mainstreaming champions group to accelerate key sectors becoming more active participants in driving biodiversity outcomes and solutions. This is to make sure that globally we mainstream biodiversity into policies and plans, and bring biodiversity on to the balance sheet sheets of companies and governments.
Finally, the conference saw progress with the commitment on the merger of climate and biodiversity outcomes, particularly through the government of Brazil, meaning this will be a core objective of the next climate COP30 in Belém next fall. That wasn’t an official outcome of the discussions, but was identified by partners as a major positive development.
The main failure at Cali was the lack of resource mobilization. There was hope and expectation amongst many nations and actors that there would be a commitment and a path forward to mobilize resources to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework. This agenda item was for a catalog of actions, measures, and policies that can be implemented to scale up finance for biodiversity across the board, and that now gets punted to the next COP. We’ve got a long way to go with respect to financing, which is instrumental to ensure that ambitious commitments can be resourced, particularly those led by Indigenous peoples who are guardians of a substantial percentage of the world’s biodiversity.
Secondly, as Shaughn from Nature United noted, “COP16 was suspended due to lack of quorum after an all-night session on the last day took the conference into overtime. Unfortunately, not all of the decisions that were on the table were able to be agreed upon and gaveled through.”
The monitoring framework that was developing successes and indicators for each target under the global biodiversity framework was not fully adopted. This means that the planning, monitoring, reporting and review mechanism for ensuring that all countries are implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework in the right way, and that they’re reporting against the same indicators. In Canada, this matters because reporting is crucial to ensure Biodiversity-related markets make strides on data, disclosures and narrowing information asymmetries so that capital can be allocated more efficiently.
Another disappointment was the number of countries who failed to submit biodiversity strategies and action plans. “Canada unveiled their updated biodiversity targets, but we were in the minority,” Jim said. “There were only about 44 countries that completed this process by the time they got to Cali. There were also some issues around timelines to deliver biodiversity targets and plans for the remainder of the world.”
The gathering in Cali may be in the rearview mirror, but work and momentum at home in Canada needs to continue. The mixed outcomes at COP16 have sharpened the Hub’s focus on three pressing priorities for Canada’s Conservation Finance agenda:
One: Private and philanthropic financial contributions to nature need to be mobilized and mainstreamed with urgency. It is clear that governments cannot go it alone on financing. “We need some type of a path forward on financing,” said Jim. “That’s not a hundred percent the responsibility of governments. The private sector is really going to have to work to make that a reality. Seeking out and developing new and innovative financial investment mechanisms for biodiversity with the private sector is a huge undertaking.” Shaughn concurred, adding, “It’s going to take everybody working together to align private financial flows with the needs of nature, upon which over 50% of businesses depend. Government has a really important role to play in setting the direction of change, and in enabling investments in nature from a wide variety of sources, not just private philanthropy as in the case of the PFPs, but also other sectors and parts of society.”
Two: Our impact ecosystem needs investment. This requires a joined-up approach for investments in data, biodiversity reporting and commitments and metrics. Jim said, “We heard a lot from the financial community about the need to address the data deficit, with a need for more robust data collection and management. We’re going to have to advance significant progress through renewed investments in completing things like habitat inventories. We don’t have a completed grasslands or wetlands inventory in Canada and many countries don’t have those. We need upgraded geospatial data systems.”
“We have to continue to advance the core objectives from Montreal because we’re not done, through biodiversity strategy and action plans, as well as a monitoring framework,” he continued. “We need robust, verifiable measures of biodiversity. It is important to continue to move forward with our systems of national environment-based accounting. If we can’t measure or manage our assets, it’s going to be very difficult to drive investments into them moving forward.”
Importantly, in Canada we need to focus on implementation of the updated action plans for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global Biodiversity Framework. “We need to see that implementation start in earnest,” insisted Shaughn. “There are a few areas where Canada can really plow forward, and those are essentially delivering on the 30 by 30 commitments that were made two years ago when the world convened in Montreal. We need to implement Indigenous-led conservation.”
When it comes to mainstreaming, the land based productive sectors in Canada can make a real impact in terms of advancing both our biodiversity and climate goals.
Three: Governance innovation can position Canada as a global leader on conservation finance.
There are currently four Indigenous-led Project Finance for Permanence (PFP) projects in Canada, which make major Indigenous-led contributions to our 30 by 30 targets. The second of the four PFPs was closed upon returning from COP16, with the Northwest Territories Project Finance for Permanence, which shows meaningful progress on a conservation economy and economic reconciliation in Canada.
We need to see more nature agreements in Canada. Nature agreements can offer a valuable model for other federal jurisdictions seeking fit-for-purpose governance arrangements that ultimately benefit scaling finance for nature. “The Government of Canada has signed nature agreements with several provinces and territories, and there are a few more where we see a real alignment between the federal government, provincial governments, and indeed Indigenous nations and organizations in those provinces,” explained Shaughn. “Quebec played a very, very substantial role at COP 16, and they’ve just launched a nature plan to 2030.… (T)he final one where we really need to see both the Governments of Canada and Manitoba leaning in with a nature agreement.”
By mobilizing and mainstreaming financial contributions, investing in our impact ecosystem, and innovating on governance, we can build on progress made and continue the hard work ahead to position Canada as a leader in conservation finance.