Do international treaties work? Well, COP16 – which ended with a thud over the weekend – certainly paints a grim picture.
The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the UN sure knows how to create snappy titles, eh?) was the first global check-in since the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was created in 2022.
And though there are always a multitude of agendas at play when global leaders meet, make no mistake: COP16 was all about making sure the Montreal agreement is on track and funded.
On that account, COP16 failed. In fact, by most accounts, COP16 failed.
Sure, the newly established Cali Fund will ask pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to pay countries for the use of their digital sequencing information – the data that is found in the biochemical design of natural resources. And maybe that’s a step forward or maybe it’s not, as the language is vague and the fund is voluntary. So, you know, good luck with that.
It’s also true that COP16 created a new governing/advising body that empowers Indigenous peoples and other local stakeholders to have a bigger say in the implementation of 2022’s Montreal agreement. Or, in other words, a new feedback and decision-making body will inform a larger feedback and decision-making body on ideas that might never be implemented because there are already so many people offering feedback and wanting to have a say in decisions. Great news?
Look, empowering stakeholders – especially underrepresented stakeholders – is always important. But this feels a little like asking those on the Titanic to vote on how best to deploy lifeboats when the ship is already sinking. It might be important advice, but it’s hard to see how it will actually help the end goal before time runs out. In fact, it kind of just delays the whole thing, making the already long odds of success even longer.
Which brings us back to the money. Because it’s always about the money.
And guess what?
People had to leave for flights before countries could agree on how best to pay for the Montreal agreement. That left the conference with too few decision makers and, so, those that remained called it quits and that was basically that.
You’re not wrong in thinking COP16 was like the New York Yankees in the World Series: a lot of star power and hype that failed to show up with something of substance when it mattered most, leading the whole exercise to feel like a wasted opportunity.
Of course, with the fate of global biodiversity, the stakes are just a bit higher than the World Series.
So, where does this leave us?
Well, the Global South is royally ticked with the Global North. Just another chapter in that fight. And now biodiversity – the thing that supports all life on Earth – might become a hostage in some international relations financial tug-of-war.
Oh! And did we mention the US decided not to participate? And that America has a rather large election tomorrow that could further destabilize global treaties and international cooperation?
Right.
And none of this, trust us, did anything to restore faith in international treaties, gatherings and institutions with the crowd that is already deeply skeptical – dare we say cynical – about these kinds of things.
So, true, we (for now) still have an international agreement to protect 30% of the world by 2030 to sustain life-giving biodiversity for generations to come. But we don’t know how to pay for it and one of the biggest countries is sitting on the sidelines (and might soon actively sabotage it) and a bunch more countries want to use it as a bargaining chip to resolve historical grievances and the world is basically stuck at 17% protection with a mere six years to go and…
Yeah, it’s not looking good.
Where to from here? Not sure! But the world, quite clearly, needs your better ideas. For this? This is not working, no matter how you come at the problem.