Between Oct. 21 and Nov. 2, Cali, Colombia hosted some 23,000 people at the UN biodiversity summit. Political leaders from nearly 200 countries were joined by representatives from Indigenous communities, youth groups, business leaders, NGOs and others. All came for a shared purpose: to halt Earth’s rampant biodiversity loss.
Momentum going into the summit seemed strong. At the last biodiversity conference in 2022, national leaders reached a historic agreement to protect 30% of the world’s land and water by 2030 and to mobilize billions of dollars for nature conservation. This year’s summit, COP16, offered a chance to put forth concrete plans for achieving those goals.
But while the “People’s COP” in Cali brought diverse voices to the table and highlighted growing urgency around the biodiversity crisis, progress on its core objectives came up short. Negotiators faced gridlock over key finance decisions and many countries showed lagging ambition. The summit ultimately ended before Parties could reach agreement on a range of issues — most importantly, how to finance conservation at the scale needed.
Still, COP16 offered a pulse check on the world’s biodiversity efforts to date. It revealed how far the world has come toward its collective targets and what exactly needs to be done this decade to safeguard the world’s precious remaining species.
COP16 Revealed Some Progress on Conservation — but Major Financial Potholes
The first official progress report on the global “30×30 goal,” which calls on countries to protect 30% of the world’s land and water by 2030, was released during COP16. It found that just over 17% of the world’s land area and a mere 8% of marine and coastal areas are currently protected.
This shows progress: Over 2.3 million square kilometers were added to the total since 2020, an area twice the size of Colombia. Yet, the road ahead remains steep. To meet the target, countries must collectively protect another 16.7 million square kilometers of land (an area nearly the size of Russia) and over 78 million square kilometers of marine and coastal areas (more than twice the size of Africa) by 2030.
Much of the discussion at COP16 focused on how to pay for conservation and restoration at this speed and scale — particularly in developing countries, which house much of the world’s biodiversity but have the fewest resources to protect it.
In 2022, developed nations promised $20 billion per year by 2025 to support developing countries’ biodiversity efforts. They delivered $15.4 billion that same year (the latest data available) and made additional pledges at COP16. But these total in the millions rather than the billions still needed. And negotiations stalled around how to mobilize the funds; specifically, whether they should be channeled through a new dedicated vehicle, as some developing countries have asked for, or through the existing Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.
Other tools to raise public and private finance for nature also proved divisive. Much talk was spent on whether companies should have to pay countries for digital genetic information (known as “DSI”) used to develop vaccines, medicines and other products, if it originally came from organisms within their borders. This was seen as a potentially enormous new source of money for nature in developing countries. But while negotiators succeeded in creating a new DSI fund (the Cali Fund) at COP16, contributions were made voluntary. This means it’s unlikely to deliver the amounts hoped for.
In short, countries are nowhere near closing the $700 billion annual gap in finance for nature.
The world needs to see much more clarity on how leaders plan to close these gaps in action and finance. All 190+ countries represented in Cali were expected to submit National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by the end of the summit outlining concrete steps to meet their collective goals. Yet just 44 did so. More than 100 put forth high-level biodiversity targets, but without formal action plans to achieve them.
What’s Still Needed to Meet Biodiversity Targets on Time?
Halting biodiversity loss will require billions more in finance to protect and restore nature by 2030. But that’s just one piece of the puzzle. Leaders also need to:
Boost conservation and restoration, especially in ‘megadiverse’ countries
While all countries should deliver ambitious, actionable biodiversity plans in line with meeting the 30×30 goal, a few are critically important. The vast majority of species inhabit a relatively small swath of the planet, from the tropical rainforests of the Amazon, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia to coral reefs in the Pacific’s “Coral Triangle.” Countries that house these megadiverse ecosystems have an outsized impact on species health and survival worldwide.
Some have already submitted national biodiversity strategies. Colombia’s aims to expand protected land area from 24% to 34% and grow the country’s bioeconomy from 0.8% to 3% of its GDP, helping ensure that healthy ecosystems go together with economic benefits. Others, such as Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have yet to put forth national strategies (though Brazil aims to do so in 2025). Many megadiverse countries are developing nations that will need increased financial support from developed countries to set and meet bold targets — a message that rang out at the summit.
Fulfil promises to support traditional land management
COP16 shined a light on the critical role that Indigenous Peoples and local communities play in protecting nature. Many areas traditionally managed by these groups are among the most biodiverse on the planet — often more so than publicly or privately managed lands. Yet, few have seen their customary land tenure rights reflected in law.
This year’s summit elevated the voices of Indigenous and local communities in high-level discussions. Representation was more diverse than in the past, and countries agreed to create a new permanent body to ensure these groups’ participation in the negotiations moving forward. Now, governments need to translate talk into action by ensuring that Indigenous and local communities have a say in national conservation policy (as they agreed to do under the Global Biodiversity Framework) and enshrining their traditional land rights into law. Countries should also fulfil their promise to direct at least $1.7 billion in nature finance to Indigenous groups; in a step forward at COP16, nations committed to spend 50% of money raised in the Cali Fund on activities linked to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Bolster biodiversity efforts with economics, policy and data
Even the best-laid plans will not succeed without policy and enforcement backing them up. To meet their goals, governments must shift toward economic models that work with rather than against nature. That starts with fulfilling their promise to reform $500 billion per year in nature-harming subsidies (such as those for unsustainable farming and fishing practices), on which almost no progress has been made so far.
Countries also need stronger measures to suppress organized nature crime — including illegal forms of logging, land clearing, mining, fishing, and wildlife exploitation and trade — as well as associated financial crimes, corruption and human rights violations. Addressing these threats is critical to enabling progress on biodiversity conservation.
Finally, biodiversity efforts and finance need to be paired with transparent monitoring and tracking to hold governments and other stakeholders accountable.
With Nature on the Brink, Leaders Can’t Delay Any Longer
Formal talks at COP16 proved slower and more contentious than hoped. But outside the negotiating halls, along Cali’s crowded streets, the summit took on a life of its own. From song and dance to networking and open discussions, people from around the globe gathered to celebrate biodiversity and build momentum for protecting it. A raft of new initiatives emerged from this broader engagement, including on cities, restoration, food and land use, finance for tropical forests, and more. The summit proved that a diverse array of people is already rising to the task of tackling the biodiversity crisis.
Now, the question is whether governments, companies and other leaders will harness that energy and urgency to help enable transformative action on a global scale. They know what needs to be done. Now it’s time to act.
