World leaders from over 175 nations convened recently at the 16th conference of parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Cali, Colombia. The primary focus? Addressing the alarming collapse of nature across the globe, which many experts warn is accelerating rapidly due to multiple factors, including climate change, habitat destruction, and overexploitation of resources.
The urgency of overarching strategies became crystal clear at this meeting. Experts have estimated the staggering cost of conservation needed to halt this biodiversity loss at roughly $700 billion annually, on top of what countries are already investing. This funding is particularly needed to assist developing nations and Indigenous communities, who often bear the brunt of environmental degradation yet lack the financial resources necessary for restoration. "We need to protect 30 percent of our land and seas by the end of the decade to reverse nature loss," declared Barry Gardiner, a British parliament member, reflecting the grim reality of the situation.
Despite the ambitious goals set out by the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity, many countries are struggling to meet deadlines. A significant majority, over 80 percent, missed the recent deadline to submit their plans for how they intended to achieve these biodiversity goals. Tanya Sanerib, the international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out this delay sends troubling signals about the seriousness of countries' commitments. She emphasized, "We’re way behind the ball. This does not indicate we’re ready to meet the framework established at previous talks."
To address the funding gap, experts highlight the need to cut subsidies currently encouraging environmental harm. An estimated $1.7 trillion is funneled each year from rich nations to support industries like agriculture and fossil fuel production, which are destroying ecosystems at alarming rates. During the conference, several leaders reiterated the need to phase out these detrimental incentives. Gardiner succinctly put it, "We abuse nature because it is free." The current approach to funding is fundamentally flawed, failing to properly value and invest in the natural world, he argued.
Another contentious yet promising concept discussed at the conference was the development of biodiversity credits. This novel financial mechanism allows companies to purchase credits representing areas preserved or restored over time, similar to the carbon trading market. Companies would be compelled to use these credits to offset their ecological footprints rather than simply negATING their impacts on nature.
Despite the excitement surrounding biodiversity credits, concerns abound about their efficacy and practicality. Critics, including researchers and environmental nonprofits, warn the concept may replicate flaws found in carbon offset schemes, which have been criticized for lack of standardization and enforcement. "Wildlife and ecology are far more complex than carbon. It’s difficult to measure true conservation impact," stated Mitch Aide, a research associate at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. The absence of standardized metrics could lead to widespread misuse of such credits.
Meanwhile, the broader discussion of climate action continued at COP29, with business leaders and international organizations emphasizing the integration of agri-food system strategies as key to combating climate change. The FAO has spotlighted this area, asserting the food sector’s role is indispensable for achieving climate resilience, sustainability, and food security through more effective resource management. Fresh insights during COP29 indicated significant steps could be taken by engaging the private sector to bolster investment and partnerships aimed at transitioning the agri-food system toward more sustainable practices.
FAO Director Kaveh Zahedi reminded attendees, "These systems are not just about feeding the population; they are integral to managing biodiversity and the climate. If we don’t make them sustainable, we risk everything." The specter of increasing environmental pressure due to changing land and water use patterns, alongside biodiversity loss, cannot be overlooked, particularly when addressing the intertwined challenges of feeding the world and protecting nature.
With COP29 on the horizon, the FAO initiated discussions surrounding the Baku Harmoniya Climate Initiative, which aims to improve collaboration and knowledge-sharing across agri-food sectors globally. This initiative seeks to create frameworks conducive to investments and innovations, allowing farmers and producers to scale up sustainable practices. Also on the agenda is tackling the plight of smallholder farmers, who carry the weight of food security on their shoulders yet often lack the resources for adaptation.
The agricultural community can’t afford to lag behind; it must be part of the climate solution. Engagement across governmental and private sectors must be prioritized now more than ever. A recently published checklist for policymakers outlines actionable steps for aligning various national strategies to include climate goals, which mail today, the NDCs, NAPs, and NBSAPs, thereby promoting synergies across policies aimed at climate and biodiversity goals.
Finally, reflecting on the success of COP16 and upcoming expectations for COP29, experts believe it’s imperative to break the silos between climate and biodiversity discussions. Alliances between conservationists, farmers, and policymakers will be key to crafting solutions. Policymaking must work toward integrating those separate agendas—climate, agriculture, and biodiversity—making strides toward developing cohesive strategies for sustainable land use and conservation practices.
