Resource mobilization has always been the most sensitive and contentious agenda item on which to reach a consensus
First published on 11/25/2024, and last updated on 11/28/2024
By Rudrath Avinashi (Kalpavriksh, ICCA Consortium Member)
The 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) took place at one of the most crucial times. With its call for ‘Peace with Nature,’ the CBD COP16 needed to be solution-driven to advance the Global Biodiversity Framework—the international agreement reached at COP15 that aims to halt biodiversity loss with a holistic approach by 2030.
The parties at CBD COP16 had several draft decisions on important issues to contend with, such as Digital Sequence Information (DSI), implementation of Article 8(j), mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting, and review, among others, and how to do so by including the voices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, and youth that facilitate the operationalization of the Global Biodiversity Framework.
Resource mobilization has always been the most sensitive and contentious agenda item on which to reach a consensus. Article 20 of the Convention states that it is the responsibility of developed countries to ensure the flow of financial resources through various channels. Diverging views on the subject arise regarding the modalities of administering the resources.
This was also one of the primary bones of contention observed during the negotiations between the developed and the developing countries, particularly least developed countries and small island developing states. The discussion on resource mobilization during the first week of CBD COP16 started with developing countries expressing concerns over the existing instrument of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) under the Global Environment Facility that has been ineffective until now in channeling funds to them.
They sought a separate financing instrument that is dedicated to biodiversity. However, developed countries are cautious about establishing new mechanisms and urged other parties to reflect on how existing ones can be utilized to close the biodiversity financing gap. During the discussion on a strategy for resource mobilization, the parties further deliberated on the need for a new financing instrument. They discussed the criteria for its establishment in the future.
No consensus was reached on the recommendations adopted at the fourth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation.
Towards the end of the first week, the co-chairs of the Resource Mobilization contact group tried to streamline the overall negotiations. They prioritized finalizing operational parts of the strategy’s text and worked on creating an alternative paragraph that would encapsulate most of the suggestions shared by the various parties, reflecting a consensus approach.
The newly proposed paragraph would include references to Article 20 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which outlines essential principles of financial resources relevant to the negotiations. Additionally, it would consider the existing obligations that the parties have committed to, ensuring that the new proposals align with the existing frameworks.
Most parties echoed the point of using this strategy as a flexible guidance document in line with national circumstances and priorities. There was also an in-depth discussion on the enabling actions for the strategy for resource mobilization, in particular, the role of national central banks in conducting nature risk assessments and enhancing their reporting on environmental and social risks. There were counterarguments and concerns about not stepping into mandates of national central banks and even about the entire procedure of operationalizing this action, as it may be cumbersome for many parties.
The contact group felt the slow pace of the negotiations for this agenda item; however, given the topic’s complex nature and criticality, the chairs stressed the importance of sufficient time for deliberations.
Interestingly, eight governments pledged an additional USD 163 million to the GBFF. To close the biodiversity finance gap, the co-chairs shared a proposal for establishing an expert advisory committee; however, no consensus was reached about the approach for an inter-sessional process that would develop the modalities of diving deep into the specifics of resource mobilization. The need to ensure timely access to financial resources and capacity-building for rights holders, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, and youth, is an essential point under enabling actions of the strategy, and some of these points in the text were resolved.
Given the multiple crises, including biodiversity and climate change, the CBD COP16 couldn’t have come at a more important time. With the 29th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification to follow, the parties in Cali could have set the tone through inclusive and ambitious targets but, more importantly, by acting on them. It would have had the potential to create positive ripple effects for the rest of the world in the times to come.
CBD COP16 made some landmark decisions, such as establishing a permanent subsidiary body on Article 8(j) and operationalizing the modalities of a global fund, now known as the Cali fund, for the fair and equitable benefit-sharing from using DSI on genetic resources; but contributions to the fund are voluntary.
However, parties unable to reach a consensus on resource mobilization would delay closing the biodiversity financing gap at this crucial moment. The lack of political will, especially in developed countries, is also reflected in their inability to mobilize the required $20 billion annually by 2025 until now. The effectiveness of the existing funding instrument, supported by the developed countries, will rely on their political consciousness and ability to act in time.
About the author
Rudrath Avinashi is a researcher and development practitioner. He participated in CBD COP16 as part of the ICCA Consortium’s delegation. Rudrath may be reached at rudrathavinashi16[at]gmail[dot]com
