COP16 Round-up: What have we learned?

(1) DSI: Global Levy on products made using genetic data from natural ecosystems

The key achievement of this COP has been the creation of a global levy for 'digital sequence information' (DSI). DSI is genetic information that comes from wild animals, plants, and microorganisms. It is used frequently in research and development in the life sciences sector, underpinning the pharmaceutical, biotech, and cosmetics industries.

Currently, nations that are parties to the CBD can charge researchers for their access to physical samples of genetic information from nature (under the Nagoya Protocol, which was agreed at Biodiversity COP10 in 2010). In contrast, genetic information in digital form is completely unregulated, and researchers can access DSI for free on global databases. It is for this reason that DSI has been seen as a 'loophole' that needs to be closed.

An agreement was reached at COP16 to regulate DSI by way of a global levy. The agreement will encourage highly profitable businesses to voluntarily contribute 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue to the 'Cali Fund' if they use DSI. The Fund will be used to support the further use of DSI, the conservation and sustainable use of nature, and indigenous peoples and local communities.

Environmental groups have expressed the hope that the introduction of a DSI levy could generate $20 billion. However, more moderate estimates expect the sum to be in the low billons.

(2) Historic inclusion of Indigenous peoples into the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Prior to COP16, there was much discussion about the critical role that indigenous peoples play in protecting biodiversity. Although Indigenous peoples constitute just 5% of the global population, they are reported to manage or hold tenure over 25% of the world’s land and support 80% of global biodiversity. This role is enshrined in the CBD: under Article 8(j) parties have pledged to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous people and local communities relevant for the conversation of biodiversity.

(3) No progress made on implementing the GBF

It was hoped that COP16 would see the establishment of a monitoring framework to assess progress towards biodiversity goals, for example, the target to protect 30% of land and water by 2030. A monitoring framework is seen as critical to the success of GBF as the failure of a previous set of biodiversity goals (the Aichi targets) has been widely blamed on a lack of implementation by state parties. 

However, the parties could not reach an agreement on a suitable monitoring framework for the GBF before the conference concluded.

(4) No consensus on financing the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF)

As part of the GBF, countries committed to collectively mobilizing $200 billion annually to conserve biodiversity. The long-term goal should be for states to spend $700 billion a year. Of this, developed countries are expected to "substantially and progressively increase" their contributions "to at least $20bn per year by 2025, and to at least $30bn per year by 2030".

However, prior to COP16, only $250 million had been contributed by seven developed countries. During COP16, eight further countries – including the UK, France, New Zealand – pledged an additional $163 million. This leaves the total at $396 million, far short of the $200 billion target.

Unfortunately, no consensus was reached on how to remedy the GBF's funding challenges, and no resource mobilization strategy was agreed. Similarly, as the convention ended early, there was no time to approve the Convention on Biological Diversity budget for the next two years.