COP16, one more step but with an undercurrent of frustration

COP16 will go down in history as another step in the negotiation of actions that should enable us to preserve the world's biodiversity and reverse its loss. But it can no longer become the essential starting signal for action. The lack of a final agreement on most of the fundamental aspects means that the Colombia summit will become just one more element in an extensive procedure, which involves resuming negotiations in 2026 in Armenia, with COP17. "COP16 was by no means a failure, we have made important small advances, but we have not taken the giant step forward that we need and that many of us expected", assesses with some frustration Alicia Pérez-Porro, head of Political interaction and institutional relations at CREAF, who attended the COP as part of a CREAF delegation and has been present at some negotiation sessions. “It is frustrating to see live how aspects of geopolitics are mixed in the negotiations”, says Pérez-Porro, while recalling that" some countries try to dilute the scientific content, eliminating any reference to the 1, 5 °C temperature increase limit of the Paris Agreement, for example". 

One of the consequences of this situation is that "the voice of science has been heard in a very discreet way” at the recent world summit on biodiversity, according to a first assessment made by Pérez-Porro, who has attended both the COPs on biodiversity and climate in recent years. "There have been many negotiations in which more scientific voices have been missing", she says, emphasizing the relevance of science informing political action based on evidence, knowledge and rigor.

Despite the host country's efforts to bring creative ideas and solutions to the working groups, contact groups and plenary sessions, no final consensus was reached on the monitoring framework - which defines indicators and methodologies to measure progress in biodiversity protection and preservation - or on financial mechanisms - basically, who will pay what, how and how much. 

1. Biodiversity and climate change have been treated as two different currencies, instead of as what they are: two sides of the same coin.
2. There is a lack of coordination between climate and biodiversity in all aspects of science and policy action and the fragmentation of policies weakens coordinated approaches.
3. Restoration and conservation (on biodiversity) should be at the same level as zero emissions (on climate).
4. Elaborating and agreeing on an action plan is an important step, but its implementation is critical.
5. There is a clear gap between knowledge and implementation of biodiversity policies.
6. More channels are needed to increase the presence of science at COPs.
7. There is a need to increase synergies between multilateral environmental agreements and a greater presence of science in their processes: not only before and after the negotiations, but also while they are taking place.
8. Science diplomacy is a critical tool for improving the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. 

The lack of a final agreement often overshadows the milestones achieved by COP16. One of the historic ones is, on the one hand, that indigenous and local communities intervene permanently in the negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and, on the other hand, to include people of African descent as custodians of nature. "It is one of the biggest differences between action linked to biodiversity and the climate, because it is necessary to provide the sub-national governments with the tools to implement the commitments, one of which is the scientific component", according to Alicia Pérez-Porro. This historic reparation "marks the beginning of a new era for the Convention on Biological Diversity and puts an end to 26 years of claims by indigenous peoples and local communities", she says.

An upcoming milestone of the Colombia conference is to have approved a biodiversity and climate change plan, which recognizes the close relationship between both issues and underlines the importance of generating more synergies to address the crisis contexts of the two areas. For example, organizations such as the UNFCCC, IPCC and IPBES and, on another scale, European projects such as RESPIN, which held a workshop at COP16 and seeks to identify the barriers to the knowledge of these large intergovernmental platforms come to efficiently inform political action.

And it also highlights the formal consensus on the interrelationships between health and biodiversity, recognizing that the implementation of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework contributes to improving health and well-being, both physical and mental. As well as the fact that after 8 years of negotiations, the Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and Island Biodiversity has been approved, relevant to meeting the 30x30 objective of the global biodiversity framework of Kunming Montreal.