At the COP15 UN biodiversity summit in Montreal two years ago, 196 countries agreed to establish a fund for nature conservation and restoration projects, but it has struggled to attract substantial contributions. Now, at COP16 in Cali, government negotiators are debating the fund's future.
A coalition of developing nations, worried about their access to the current fund, is proposing the establishment of a new biodiversity fund under the COP. This new fund aims to replace the one created in Montreal, which is managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and to provide biodiversity-rich developing countries with more decision-making power.
"Biodiversity finance should flow to where biodiversity exists. The voices of countries bearing a greater burden should carry more weight than they do in the GEF governance system," stated Brazilian negotiator André Aranha Corrêa do Lago during COP16's opening session.
Experts indicate that the future of this fund could become a central point of contention at the Colombia summit, with disagreements over the developing countries' proposal starting to hinder progress on other financial negotiations.
Old divisions have resurfaced since, in 2022, countries agreed to host the newly established Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) at the GEF until 2030, with a possibility of extension. Many developing nations opposed the GEF as the fund's host, fearing a lack of influence, with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) even objecting to the entire global nature pact agreed in Montreal due to disputes over the fund.
Decisions regarding the fund's financial allocations are made by a council consisting of 16 members from developing countries, 14 from developed countries, and two from Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
The fund is intended to enhance access for Indigenous peoples and local communities according to their priorities. However, Survival International has raised concerns, arguing that merging Indigenous peoples with local communities is problematic and that the GEF lacks adequate safeguards to ensure Indigenous consent.
The group, which advocates for the rights of tribal peoples, has criticized the fund's portfolio as being dominated by UN agencies and a select few mostly US-based conservation organizations, reinforcing outdated models of top-down, colonial conservation, particularly through national parks.
At COP16, discussions about transferring management of the fund away from the GEF have resurfaced. Brazil supports a proposal for a new fund designed to be inclusive and innovative, learning from existing frameworks. Other nations, including India, Bangladesh, South Africa, and China, have also called for a fairer and more transparent approach to biodiversity funding.
As negotiations intensified during the first week of the conference, divisions emerged. Canada, for instance, rejected the idea of a new fund during a finance session, stating that creating a new donor-based fund would further fragment biodiversity financing and lead to increased administrative costs without attracting new donor funding.
A source within the negotiation rooms told Climate Home News that the DRC would not engage in finance discussions until the funding mechanism issue was resolved.
The future of the UN biodiversity fund has the potential to hinder progress, according to Thomas Pickford, UK policy and partnerships lead at The Nature Conservancy. He referred to it as a "toxic issue" characterized by significant disagreement between donor and recipient countries.
WWF's head of global advocacy, Bernadette Fischler Hooper, noted that wealthy countries could build trust by sending strong signals regarding their funding commitments. So far, funding for the GBFF has been scarce, with developed nations pledging around $243 million but only contributing nearly $194 million. Canada's pledge, the largest, has yet to be fully paid.
The commitments to the GBFF from a limited number of countries are only a fraction of the COP15 goal for donor governments to provide $20 billion annually for biodiversity protection by 2025, increasing to $30 billion by 2030.
Broader funding for biodiversity protection and restoration rose from $11.1 billion in 2021 to $15.4 billion in 2022, although much of this came in the form of loans, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The GBFF has approved 22 projects, primarily in the Global South, but managed mostly by large accredited organizations, including multilateral development banks, UN agencies, and Global North conservation groups. Some developing nations have pointed out that the low number of projects is partly due to difficulties in accessing funds. For example, Uruguay stated that out of 66 projects applying for the second round of GBFF grants, only 18 were approved.
Fischler Hooper emphasized the need for "flexibility and openness" among countries to discuss all available options and break the current deadlock in biodiversity funding negotiations.
Pickford highlighted the main options being considered: creating a new fund in Cali, postponing the decision until COP17 in two years, conducting further assessments on the necessity of a new fund, or finalizing the current fund as the primary financial instrument. He reiterated that the GBFF currently lacks sufficient funding and called for reforms in how the GEF operates it, advocating for streamlined access for developing countries and Indigenous peoples.