At Finance & Nature, our central focus has always been identifying ways to secure funding for the conservation and restoration of nature. This topic took center stage once again at the second part of the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-16), which resumed last week in Rome, building upon unresolved issues from the previous session in Cali.
One of the most pressing discussions, as anticipated, revolved around securing robust financial mechanisms to meet the targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The urgency of this financial conversation cannot be overstated as it directly impacts the future of biodiversity conservation worldwide. The discussions in Rome, while fruitful, made it clear that the journey to closing the biodiversity financing gap is far from over.
Financial Mobilization at the Forefront
A central theme during the resumed session was the need for an aggressive scaling of financial resources to close the biodiversity finance gap, particularly in alignment with the ambitious targets set in the GBF. The document released by the conference notes a troubling discrepancy between the funds currently available and the resources required to achieve global biodiversity goals. The target for the Parties to mobilize $200 billion annually by 2030, including domestic, international, public and private resources, is pivotal. However, even with recent increases in development finance, the gap remains large. By 2025, it is expected that $20 billion per year will be needed, with the goal to escalate this to $30 billion annually by 2030.
The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), established by the Global Environmental Facility, has seen initial contributions but requires significant scaling to support these targets. A new, more inclusive and transparent financial structure is also being proposed to ensure that financial support reaches indigenous communities, women, youth, and other key stakeholders who are crucial in the field but often lack access to financing.
Bridging the Gap: The Role of Innovative Financial Instruments
While discussions at COP-16 were largely centered on increasing funds, there was also significant dialogue surrounding the optimization of existing financial instruments. The financial mechanisms, which have traditionally been fragmented, are being restructured to improve complementarity and enhance effectiveness. One of the standout concepts is the emphasis on leveraging co-benefits and synergies between biodiversity and climate change financing. This marks an exciting opportunity to bridge two of the most critical environmental challenges of our time.
This aligns with the core thesis of this blog Finance & Nature since its inception: biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation are interconnected and can be addressed through Nature-based Solutions (NbS). These solutions not only enhance ecosystem resilience but also serve as effective financial tools to attract both public and private investment.
The establishment of innovative financing instruments, including blended finance models, has been explored to engage private investments while mitigating risks for environmental projects. By involving private sector investments in sustainable biodiversity projects, the hope is to scale up efforts towards more sustainable and impactful conservation activities.
Moving Forward: Institutional Challenges and the Roadmap to 2030
As the discussions concluded, the way forward became clear: systematic reforms are needed to align international financial systems with biodiversity conservation goals. The Cali Fund, designed to handle digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources, was cited as an example of a specific, targeted financial mechanism. These funds aim to support the digitalization of biodiversity resources, an essential aspect of modern conservation strategies.
Yet, despite the strides made in financial planning, challenges remain in harmonizing the governance of these funds. Many Parties expressed concern over ensuring equitable access to these funds, especially for developing countries and vulnerable communities. As noted, inclusivity in the governance of financial instruments will be critical in fostering broad-based support for the GBF.
To this end, the conference encouraged Parties to develop, update, and implement national biodiversity finance plans or similar instruments. These plans are seen as crucial tools in ensuring that financial commitments translate into effective conservation actions at the national level.
One of the most notable aspects of the COP-16 discussions was the reference to COP-17, COP-18, and COP-19 as milestones for progressively implementing financial strategies. This can be interpreted in two ways: either as a structured long-term planning effort or as an indication of the continued struggle to reach agreements in a timely manner. Given the urgency of biodiversity loss, many stakeholders question whether such prolonged timelines reflect strategic foresight or bureaucratic inertia.
