Post match analysis COP16 – learn what happened and why it matters

What were the main outcomes of the UN Biodiversity Conference COP16 and what happened behind the scenes? Here are key takeaways from our webinar with negotiators, researchers, NGOs and other experts.

On 21 November, some 150 people tuned into the webinar Post COP16 analysis: From biodiversity commitments to action. The event was co-organized by SIANI, Focali, Stockholm Environment Institute, WWT, the Centre for Environmental and Climate Science (CEC) at Lund University and Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate (BECC) with researchers from Lund University and the University of Gothenburg.

The Focali – SIANI collaboration and partners held a similar post-match analysis after COP15 and Maria Ölund from Focali describes the importance of these dialogues:

“To translate commitments made to action going forward, it is important to unpack the outcomes and hear what they imply from a diversity of actors who have been directly involved in the negotiations and meetings.”

Watch the webinar here or scroll down to read a summary.

Here are some key takeaways

Setting the scene – dramatic loss of species

To set the scene, Professor Alexandre Antonelli Director of Science at Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and University of Gothenburg, described the dire state of global biodiversity, with a dramatic loss of species reported for example in the recent Living Planet Index from WWF. Noted how previous international agreements (The Aichi Targets) had failed to stem this tide, Antonelli outlined what was at stake at COP16.

The key objectives of COP16 were to review progress on the targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, to agree on a mechanism for benefit-sharing related to digitally sequenced information and to agree on a biodiversity monitoring framework.

Panel one – negotiation progress and disappointment

The day’s moderator, Stephen Woroniecki, from Focali and WWT, led two panel discussions, the first of which focused on the negotiation results, how they came about, and their implications.

Charlotta Sörqvist, chief negotiator for the Swedish delegation and chair of working group one, kicked off the first panel by pointing to both successes and disappointments. She noted how several quite challenging issues had indeed been resolved, with some important “historical firsts” on topics like benefit sharing, Indigenous Peoples’ representation, marine protection, invasive species and health. Yet, the meeting did not make the necessary progress on implementation to meet the timeline for reporting and a global stocktake. She believed the parties would have been able to reach further agreements had the conference not ran out of time.

Alexandre Antonelli echoed that sentiment, highlighting the agreement on digital sequencing information (DSI) as a genuine breakthrough after decades of discussions about benefit sharing. Companies that profit from the use of genetic data are now expected to contribute to the so-called Cali Fund, which will be an important fund for biodiversity conservation.

Similarly, Pernilla Malmer, Co-Chair of the COP16 contact group on Indigenous participation, described how the plenary exploded in joy at the agreement on a new Subsidiary Body for Indigenous peoples and local communities to participate in decision making on biodiversity. As Co-Chair, she had seen the advocacy in favour of such an institution but also the resistance from some parties, so the outcome was far from certain: “The never-ending cheers in the plenary was one of the highlights of COP16, we did not realize this would happen until near the end.”

Jennifer Tauli Corpuz was a negotiator for one of the most instrumental organisations behind this outcome, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB). In the panel she described how the forum worked to define its priorities and align an extremely diverse group, “we have built a reputation for being constructive and problem-solvers.”

The final panelist, Clarisse Kehler Siebert shared insights from her role as Co-Chair for negotiations on Biodiversity and Climate Change Synergies. The six-page decision on the topic was seen as a significant step forward in connecting the two topics and Kehler Siebert described it as the result of a combination of national politics, geopolitics, hard work, a bit of luck – and a sense of “now or never”. The decision mandated concrete actions within the next two years. Notably, it also included sticky issues, like nature-based solutions and geoengineering.

The audience asked about the fact that relatively few countries had submitted National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) ahead of COP, but Charlotta Sörqvist emphasized that the number of countries increased quite significantly during the conference itself, showing the power of the COP to galvanise action and momentum. In response to a question about finance, Alexandre Antonelli spoke about mobilising different sources of funding beyond the traditional revenue streams, with the Cali fund being one example of this.

Panel two – Translating commitments to action

The next set of panellists looked at key emerging themes in the conference, what happened outside of the formal negotiations, and what the outcomes of the conference will mean for implementation and action at national and local levels.

Focali researcher Jesica López talked about the growing interest from the private sector and the potential role of socially inclusive bioeconomies. At COP16, she spoke in a side event on this topic, Bioeconomy for biodiversity, organised by Stockholm Environment Institute, SIANI, Focali and others.

Ashanapuri Hertz, lead of the Climate Change and Ecosystems theme at SwedBio, described the role of human rights for meeting the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework, and shared some insights from a multi-actor dialogue process –Inclusive Conversations – on how this could take place. The approach has attracted significant attention, including from the United Nations.

The day’s final speaker, Bulimo Peter from Youth4Nature in Kenya, who also participated in the dialogue process, stressed how a human-rights based approach makes a real difference. Most importantly, it contributes to local knowledge-brokering which can reduce tensions and facilitate implementation He also highlighted the crucial role of indigenous people, youth and other underrepresented groups for effective biodiversity and climate action.

Final thoughts and reflections

At the end of the session, the panelists shared their main takeaways from COP16, both disappointments and decisions of lasting significance. Clarisse Kehler Siebert described COP16 as a watershed moment for the international recognition of biodiversity loss, just like the 2010 COP meeting in Copenhagen was for climate action.

Watch the video here to learn more about the many different decisions at COP16 and how they will be implemented.