Developing Nations Push for New Biodiversity Fund at COP16: What’s at Stake?
At the COP16 UN biodiversity summit in Cali, government negotiators are facing a major clash over the future of a fund created two years ago at COP15 in Montreal. The fund, known as the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), was established to support projects aimed at conserving and restoring nature. However, it has struggled to attract significant contributions, leading to calls for a new approach.
A group of developing countries, concerned about their access to the existing fund managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), is pushing for the establishment of a new fund under the COP. This new fund would give biodiversity-rich developing nations a greater say in its management and allocation of resources.
Brazilian negotiator André Aranha Corrêa do Lago emphasized the need for biodiversity finance to flow to countries where biodiversity is most at risk. He argued that countries bearing a greater burden should have more influence over how the fund is governed.
The issue of the fund’s management has become a major point of contention at COP16, with disagreements over the developing-country proposal hindering progress on other finance negotiations. Some developing nations have expressed concerns about the GEF’s role as the host of the fund, fearing a lack of influence over its decisions.
The fund’s current governance structure includes 16 members from developing countries, 14 from developed countries, and two from countries in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. While the fund is intended to provide enhanced access for Indigenous peoples and local communities, concerns have been raised about the lack of safeguards to ensure their consent.
Efforts to transfer management of the fund away from the GEF have resurfaced at COP16, with countries like Brazil, India, Bangladesh, South Africa, and China advocating for a more equitable and transparent approach to biodiversity funding.
However, not all countries are in favor of creating a new fund. Canada, for example, rejected the idea during a finance session, arguing that it could lead to increased administrative costs without mobilizing new donor funding.
The future of the UN biodiversity fund remains uncertain, with pledges from developed countries falling short of the targets set at COP15. While broader development funding for nature conservation has increased, much of it has come in the form of loans rather than grants.
As discussions continue at COP16, calls for reforming the fund and improving access for developing countries and Indigenous communities are growing. The options on the table include creating a new fund, deferring the decision, conducting further assessments, or ratifying the current fund with reforms to its governance structure.
Overall, the debate over the future of the biodiversity fund highlights the challenges of balancing the needs and priorities of different countries and stakeholders in global conservation efforts.