Opening plenary of the resumed meeting of CBD COP16.2 : Resources, financial instruments and gender

Rome, 25 February (Meenal Tatpati) - Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity reconvened on the 25th of February in Rome to concur on unfinished agendas from COP 16 at Cali, Columbia. This resumed session is critical to ensure that Parties reach a consensus on a Resource mobilization strategy to support the implementation of Target 19 of the KM-GBF,? which could not be resolved at Cali. This comes from a long-standing tussle between most developing country Parties and the Developed country Parties on the operationalisation of Article 21 of the Convention on Biological Diversity-the creation of a dedicated financial mechanism to be created under the authority and guidance of and be accountable to the Conference of Parties of the CBD. Hinging on this are crucial decisions related to the advancement of the Monitoring Framework and the Mechanism for Planning, Monitoring, Reporting, and Review, which are crucial to monitor and implement the KM-GBF and which were also called a ‘package of decisions’ deliberated by COP 15.??

The plenary began with the opening remarks by Ms. Susanna Mohamed, Colombia's Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development and COP16 President. She emphasised the importance of global cooperation, multilateralism, and fulfilling commitments made in previous COPs (Montreal and Cali). She also highlighted the need for financial resources to achieve biodiversity targets and address the planetary crisis.?

Ms. Susanna also highlighted that apart from the L document, the revised Reflection note about agenda item 11 from her meetings with Parties to build consensus around the issue of Resource Mobilisation was also available for Parties to reach a decision. The note addresses critical issues of divergence and some synergies. It lays out an intercessional roadmap which provides a structured approach to addressing the financial needs for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use by creating a comprehensive financial architecture.?

Key Positions by Country/Region:

Developing countries, including Brazil, BRICS, African nations, and the Pacific States, strongly advocated for a new, dedicated financial mechanism under the authority of the COP, distinct from existing structures like the GEF. They expressed disappointment with the lack of consensus on resource mobilization (RM) and the failure of developed countries to fulfill their financial obligations under Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. They emphasized the need for increased, predictable, and accessible funding with simplified processes and direct access modalities for developing countries and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs and LCs). Moreover, they stressed that RM is critical for adopting other decisions and that financial mechanisms should be non-debt-creating.

Developed countries, including the EU, UK, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada, acknowledged the need for financial solutions but favored a broader approach involving existing instruments like the GEF, the private sector, and innovative financing mechanisms. They expressed concerns about the complexity and potential burdens of creating a new, dedicated fund. They highlighted the importance of evidence-based reviews, streamlining existing processes, and ensuring that new financial mechanisms do not duplicate efforts or create new financial obligations. Some supported the Cali Fund and emphasized its potential for attracting private sector contributions.

China and Russia supported the need for a sustainable financial mechanism and emphasized the obligations of developed countries to provide financing. Russia particularly stressed the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of existing mechanisms, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

Direct access to finance and gender considerations:?

It is crucial to outline that the IIFB, GYBN and the Women’s Caucus have emphasised direct access to funding for Indigenous Peoples and Local communities, women and youth. While observers were not given an opportunity to speak during the plenary, some countries expressed? the importance of direct access to finance, particularly for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs and LCs), as well as the need to consider the role of women in biodiversity finance.?

• Bolivia: Emphasized the need for new mechanisms that include direct access modalities and simplified processes for IPs and LCs and developing countries.
• Egypt: Advocated for direct access modalities for Parties, aiming to reduce unnecessary intermediaries.
• Panama: Stated that direct access for IPLCs is non-negotiable.
• Liberia: Called for direct access, specifically for women and youth.\
• Venezuela: Called for improved access of women and IPLCs to resources.
• The Cali fund: On the margins of COP 16.2, the CBD launched the Cali Fund which is focused on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources. It aims to be supported from the contributions from private entities using DSI commercially. This fund is also one of the available mechanisms to mobilise biodiversity finance and 50% of the fund will be allocated to fund ‘self-identified’ needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including women and youth, recognising their crucial role in biodiversity conservation.?

These positions highlighted a desire to bypass potentially bureaucratic or inefficient existing financial structures and get funding directly to the communities that are often on the front lines of biodiversity conservation.?

The plenary statements reveal a clear divide between developing countries advocating for a new, dedicated financial mechanism and developed countries prefer to work with existing structures and a broader range of financial instruments. There was also a strong emphasis on the need for developed countries to fulfill their financial commitments and for all parties to work together to bridge the funding gap for biodiversity conservation. The President ended the session and would be coming up with a note to try to build consensus along with informal consultation with the head of delegations later in the evening on the 25th of February (Schedule for Rome).?

Please see textual recommendations of Women4Biodiversity: Policy Recommendations for the Second Resumed Session of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) – Women4Biodiversity

Resumed Session of the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP 16 / CP-MOP 11 / NP-MOP 5 (Schedule and Documents)