Why does this matter? Biodiversity, the vast web of life that sustains human society, has long been overshadowed by the climate crisis. Yet, both crises are inextricably linked – degraded ecosystems exacerbate climate impacts, while climate change accelerates species loss.

The biodiversity agenda, however, must tackle unique obstacles. As agreed at COP15 in Montreal in 2022, countries committed to submitting ambitious national biodiversity strategies (MBSAPs), detailed roadmaps for halting biodiversity loss by 2030. Yet only 44 out of 196 parties submitted these plans on time.

The balance – predominantly developing nations – point to a lack of funding, citing the challenges of executing such detailed commitments without adequate financial backing.

COP16 also sought to advance the global “30×30” initiative, a pledge to protect 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. Nevertheless, discussions underscored how vulnerable these targets are to insufficient funding and competing national interests. High-biodiversity countries, often in the Global South, face the dual challenge of conserving their ecosystems while pursuing economic growth.

One of the most significant outcomes was the formal inclusion of Indigenous communities in biodiversity governance. Indigenous representatives secured a permanent advisory role within COP processes, granting them a direct voice in conservation decision-making. This move is seen as a recognition of their traditional ecological knowledge, which is vital for managing biodiversity sustainably.

The establishment of the Cali Fund was another key development, is a voluntary revenue-sharing mechanism designed to channel resources from multinational corporations that profit from biodiversity.

Companies in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture and cosmetics will be encouraged to contribute either 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenues if their assets exceed $20 million or annual sales surpass $50 million. The fund aims to support biodiversity conservation projects, particularly in developing countries rich in genetic resources.

Despite these achievements, COP16 revealed persistent challenges. Wealthier nations pledged an additional $163 million to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, bringing its total to $400 million.

This is still far from the $20 billion target set for 2025, leaving developing nations struggling to implement biodiversity action plans. Many high-biodiversity countries cite financial constraints as the primary barrier to progress.

Another unresolved issue was the monitoring framework intended to track biodiversity goals. Delegates debated which indicators to prioritise, but disagreements over methodologies left nearly 700 negotiation points unresolved. This delay, compounded by the lack of quorum in the final plenary, means several key decisions will now be revisited at COP17 in Armenia  in 2026.

The unfinished business of COP16 will resume in Bangkok in October 2025, where the intersessional meeting will continue deliberations on unresolved issues, including financing, governance and data standards.

With mounting global pressures on ecosystems, the pathway to achieving COP16’s biodiversity goals is clear but fraught – accelerating action requires bridging persistent financial divides and leveraging commitments into enforceable policy.

While COP16 delivered significant milestones, including the elevation of Indigenous voices and the creation of the Cali Fund, its abrupt conclusion highlighted the difficulties in achieving global consensus. As biodiversity and climate crises deepen, these negotiations will play a pivotal role in shaping the planet’s ecological future.