COP 16, held in Cali, Colombia, ended on November 2 without a consensus: the mobilization of financial resources for biodiversity. The topic, which was one of the most divergent, causing tension between developed and developing countries, especially megadiverse countries, will be debated in a new meeting between the parties, which has yet to be scheduled. While the so-called Global South, largely led by Brazil, defended the creation of a global biodiversity fund, as has been planned since the creation of the biodiversity convention more than 30 years ago, developed countries made efforts to prevent it from being approved.
“Developing countries do not approve of the GEF (Global Environment Facility), which is the current fund, because it is not accessible and also because its governance is not balanced, since megadiverse countries such as Brazil and Colombia take turns voting with Ecuador, and the same occurs with African countries. As a result, developed countries have greater influence and decision-making power, and have not released the necessary resources, US$20 billion per year, to ensure compliance with the goals established in the agreement established at COP15,” says Juliana Lopes, director of Nature and Society at the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development.
For her, this further reinforces the important role of subnational governments and the private sector in filling this financing gap.
“We have seen some interesting cases of innovative financial instruments aimed at sustainable use of biodiversity, conservation and regeneration, as well as bonds and debentures backed by commitments to protect biodiversity. These examples point to the necessary innovation and the role that the private sector has in helping to mobilize these resources using its expertise and the ability to also access the foreign catalog for biodiversity financing”, he adds.
For the business sector, although the creation of a new fund is a particularly important point, COP16 is not limited to this impasse. The recognition of the role of indigenous peoples and traditional communities, by creating a subsidiary body with its own governance, for example, was an important step forward.
Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the discussions surrounding the DSI, which concerns access to genetic heritage and benefit sharing. For CEBDS, despite its importance, the text is still excessively generic and not mandatory.
Finally, the CEBDS director highlights the strong participation of the private sector in COP16, with the presence of more than three thousand companies, clearly marking the growing importance of the topic of biodiversity. Businesses will also have the role of establishing and identifying priority areas where they can make a difference and advance, especially regarding the monitoring and reporting of Target 15 in particular, which refers to the measurement of risks, impacts and dependencies in relation to biodiversity.
During COP16, CEBDS delivered to authorities and ministry representatives a series of recommendations for the National Bioeconomy Policy which, for Juliana Lopes, is a fundamental topic and offers Brazil an important opportunity to take the lead.
“The bioeconomy can also be considered another priority agenda in light of the growing trend of integrating discussions on nature and climate. It emerges as a development model that dissociates economic growth from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the degradation of nature, offering the possibility of building concrete solutions to address both the climate crisis, as well as the loss of biodiversity and social inequalities.”
