There were high expectations for the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference, COP16, which took place in Cali, Colombia. It brought together diverse global nations to promote strategies and catalyse action to protect global habitats and biodiversity. Convening over 700,000 people from across the globe, the conference was a pivotal moment for igniting biodiversity progress – and highlighting the challenges yet to be overcome. In this article, we share our round-up of what happened – the good, the bad and the ugly.

The good

COP16 represented a landmark achievement in engaging a wider audience on the critical significance of nature and biodiversity. In fact, compared to COP15, delegate attendance doubled. What’s more, 119 countries have now set targets that align with the Global Biodiversity Framework, building on the Paris Agreement for nature from COP15 in 2022.

During the conference, a breakthrough for Indigenous Peoples’ rights was unveiled, as the green light was given for a new permanent body that provides impacted communities with a real seat at the table for future biodiversity COPs. This isn’t just good news for Indigenous communities, it’s also a step in the right direction for protecting nature. After all, many of our planet’s richest biodiversity hotspots are in the hands of Indigenous Peoples and local communities who’ve acted as guardians for generations.

A driving force for biodiversity action, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) also took COP16 as an opportunity to showcase some encouraging progress. The organisation now has 502 companies on board, with 129 of them being financial institutions. That’s a 57% jump since early 2024. The fact that so many major financial sector players are beginning to take biodiversity seriously is important because the adoptees manage a massive $17.7 trillion in assets and include a quarter of global systemically important banks (GSIBs). Perhaps unsurprisingly, insurance companies are leading the charge in TNFD adoption, as insurers need to factor nature and biodiversity into their risk calculations and stress testing.

The bad and the ugly

One of the key outcomes of COP15 was global leaders agreeing to protect 30% of the world’s land and water by 2030, also known as the ‘30x30’ goal. Two years on however, and the report on progress against these targets tells a story of lagging action. Looking at progress against this metric, only 17% of land and 8% of marine areas are currently protected. On top of this, just 15% of the nations that committed to submitting an execution plan – the so-called National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) – prior to COP16 did so.

In terms of funding global biodiversity efforts, the outlook is similarly disappointing. Back in 2022, developed nations promised $20 billion yearly to help developing countries protect nature. The reality? Only $15.4 billion materialised that year. While COP16 saw some new pledges to close this gap, they still fell short of hitting that $20 billion mark. On top of this, COP16 saw a number of conflicts between delegates, with countries such as Brazil, India and South Africa pushing for more say in how this funding gets spent. Add these new-found tensions to the lack of fresh funding, and the enormous $700 billion yearly gap for nature looks tougher than ever to bridge.

Looking forward

So, ahead of COP17, what can be done to ensure our planet’s biodiversity is protected for future generations? Particularly as it’s clear roadblocks still exist. First, talks about boosting funding are stuck as nations struggle to agree on a unified plan to mobilise resources. Add to that the lack of consensus on how to integrate biodiversity into financial planning, with governments, financial institutions and businesses all needing to get on the same page. And finally, there are still ongoing discussions about how nations should track and measure biodiversity progress.

What’s more, with different COPs creating different negotiation approaches for climate and biodiversity, we’re at risk of creating an artificial divide in our approach to tackling these global topics. When, in reality, the biodiversity and climate crises are inextricably linked.

But these issues aren’t just hurdles to be overcome; they also represent valuable opportunities for nations to engage in meaningful biodiversity collaboration and progress. The clock is ticking, but there is still time to turn these challenges into tangible solutions.