The COP16 Biodiversity Conference concluded with few concrete results and no binding commitments for the agri-food industry, casting uncertainty on future biodiversity actions.
Despite drawing a record attendance of over 23,000 participants, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) faced procedural challenges and ended without adopting binding commitments.
Dr Jelle Behagel, associate professor at Wageningen University and a participant at COP16, spoke to Ingredients Network about the outcomes and the implications of further biodiversity loss on global food systems.
Key outcomes and missed opportunities at COP16
COP16 aimed to secure progress towards the targets set in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which seeks to protect 30% of global land and sea by 2030.
Although the conference featured two weeks of discussions involving governments, private sector representatives, and civil society, concrete progress on implementing strong biodiversity measures remained elusive. The final plenary session failed to adopt crucial decisions due to an overloaded agenda and insufficient quorum as the event extended beyond its planned schedule.
Behagel noted: “There were way too many items on the on the final plenary meeting to do that in four or five hours that was planned for it … this resulted in an anti-climactic end, where not all decisions were adopted or even put on the floor.”
One of the main concrete outcomes of COP16 was the agreement to establish the Cali Fund, a multilateral mechanism designed for fair benefit-sharing from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) derived from genetic resources. Only companies that use DSI and meet certain financial thresholds are expected to contribute, with the aim of supporting biodiversity initiatives and prioritising Indigenous and local community projects. Contributions are set at 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue.
The Cali Fund’s establishment signals an effort to engage the private sector in biodiversity funding, but its voluntary nature may lead to inconsistent participation: “Unless countries or the EU make it legally binding on a national level, it will be more or less up to companies to voluntarily do that,” said Behagel.
While some consumer goods companies expressed commitments at the event, he remarked, “on the normative level [COP16] succeeded, but on the financial and practical level of implementation, I would say [it] failed simply because there was no decision”.
Companies prefer to set their own biodiversity targets, such as sourcing a percentage of their ingredients from regenerative agriculture, rather than adhering to external mandates. This was even more clearly visible in the lack of movement on pesticides. While COP16 addressed pesticide use monitoring, no binding agreement was reached. This leaves major agricultural producers with little incentive to implement voluntary changes. “Countries are not going to comply with a framework that was not adopted,” Behagel said, referencing nations like Brazil and India, which play key roles in global agriculture.
Biodiversity loss poses significant risks to food systems, with agriculture contributing to approximately 80% of deforestation and habitat degradation. The Amazon rainforest, essential for regulating weather and sustaining agricultural productivity, exemplifies these challenges.
“The Amazon rainforest could collapse tomorrow ... Scientific models indicate it will happen within 30 years at this rate, even if we stop deforestation now. Reforestation is needed,” warned Behagel.
The collapse of such ecosystems would have dramatic effects, including disrupted rain cycles and severe droughts that could destabilise food production.
“When they collapse, you get droughts throughout the whole continent. You get changing weather patterns. It becomes a huge mess... The Amazon will transform into a dry forest. It won’t mean everything dies, but the high levels of biodiversity and moisture will disappear. The trees and animals will change,” Behagel said. “Once these ecosystems reach that tipping point, you can’t reverse it in our lifetime. You’re talking thousands or millions of years.”
These risks extend beyond the Amazon. The Congo Basin is more intact but also losing forest. Behagel pointed out that the perception of untouched natural areas is a misconception.
“People in the West often imagine that vast natural areas remain untouched, but that is a fantasy. Large natural areas are disappearing. When you fly over Colombia, you see the same agricultural fields as the Netherlands. Over Brazil, it’s sugar cane as far as the eye can see. Over Suriname, mining pits and wood extraction.”
One sign of optimism is the increased attention to the crisis at hand, demonstrated at COP16 – which was dubbed the ‘People’s COP’ because of its increased focus on indigenous participation. More people and diverse groups in society are now aware of biodiversity, said Behagel:
“Ten years ago, it was mainly seen as an interest for ‘white guys with glasses who like plants’; biology nerds. Now, it has become a recognised societal issue. This shift is reflected in the attention COP received, the large number of attendees, and the acknowledgment of the role of Indigenous and local communities. However, the political question of funding remains challenging, and we don’t have a satisfying answer.”
Behagel highlighted the scale of this gap: “The finance gap for biodiversity is $200 billion a year—about 0.2% of global GDP. That’s less than what we spend on soft drinks globally.”
He suggested that significant commitments from developed nations, such as the EU, could make a real impact: “If the EU stepped up and put $100 billion into biodiversity funding, it could make a substantial difference.”
Corporate attention has also largely failed to shift to funding biodiversity initiatives.
“Looking at the private sector, much of what is done is through risk assessment, which isn’t direct funding for biodiversity but rather withholding investments from activities that destroy it,” said Behagel.
“While impact investments, such as those by pension funds, contribute … it won’t close the funding gap. Biodiversity credits are often discussed, and while some NGOs label them as greenwashing, even if they work as intended, the entire market may only reach $2 billion in a few years. This is far from enough. Expectations around these instruments don’t match the reality of the funding available for biodiversity. We hope people will step up.”
Read more about:
Latin America
