Reflections by Ingrid Coetzee, Director: Biodiversity, Nature & Health, ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center
The President of the 16th Conference of Parties (COP 16) held in Cali, Colombia in late 2024, declared this to be the COP of making peace—peace with nature and peace with people. It was the largest biodiversity COP yet, hosting a record attendance of around 23 000 registered delegates.
Importantly, COP 16 acknowledged the remarkable progress made since 2022: around 119 countries, representing the majority of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Parties, submitted national biodiversity targets to help reach the 23 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) targets; 44 countries submitted their revised National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs); and the COP concluded with several important outcomes for local and subnational governments, such as the decisions on biodiversity and climate, biodiversity and health, invasive alien species and biodiversity mainstreaming.
While COP 16 was largely successful as the COP of peace and the people—with landmark decisions adopted that elevate the role of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) in the Convention, and a groundbreaking new global mechanism on multilateral access and benefit sharing from the use of digital genetic information—it failed to reach consensus on several key issues. This included several decisions critical to the means for implementing the KMGBF, namely those decisions relating to resource mobilization and to planning, monitoring, reporting and review (PMRR).
Why was there a COP 16.2 and what were its key outcomes?
COP 16 was suspended in the early hours of 2 November due to the lack of quorum, and had to be resumed in February 2025 at the FAO headquarters in Rome to conclude negotiations on the remaining items.
At the start of the resumed session in Rome, COP 16 President, Minister Susana Muhamed from Colombia, referring to the current divided geopolitical landscape, urged delegates to transcend differences and interest, and to work together to find common ground in reaching agreement on the outstanding crucial decisions.
Discussions on resource mobilization and the finance mechanism at COP 16.2 were difficult, dominating negotiating time and effort due to the strong divergent positions between the developed and developing Parties. In Cali, Parties had agreed to request the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to provide financial resources to contribute to the development and implementation of national biodiversity monitoring systems; and to encourage the provision of support, including resources, for community-based monitoring and information systems. Furthermore, due to an intervention by one Party, it was noted that the monitoring framework, PMRR, resource mobilization and financial mechanism decisions constitute a package and therefore should be adopted together. The divergent views and positions on how to close the biodiversity funding gap, and the efficacy and equity of the finance mechanism regarding biodiversity finance flows, spilled over, affecting negotiations on the monitoring framework, and mechanisms for PMRR.
Finally, in the early hours of 28 February, these four decisions were adopted, along with the remaining other decisions–including the decision on cooperation with other relevant multilateral environmental agreements to enhance synergies and biodiversity mainstreaming across international processes.
The adoption of the decision on resource mobilization was ground-breaking given the polarized positions and urgency in finding ways to bridge the biodiversity funding gap. It establishes a roadmap to guide the mobilization of new and additional resources from all sources, including the private sector, and urges Parties to, among other measures, raise at least US$ 200 billion per year by 2030 to reach Target 19; apply a human rights-based approach in developing and scaling up biodiversity and finance instruments; and to develop, update and implement national biodiversity finance plans.
The adoption of the decisions on the monitoring framework and PMRR mechanisms, includes headline indicators; urges Parties to strengthen their monitoring systems; provides for the global review of collective implementation progress; and adopts the core reporting elements for commitments by non-state actors (including local and subnational governments).
The resumed session of COP 16, according to the COP 16 President, succeeded in giving the KMGBF “the arms, legs and muscles” needed to enable implementation and ensure that it does not remain an empty shell, while CBD Executive Secretariat, Astrid Schomaker, recognized the fact that Parties and observers had demonstrated that multilateralism will endure.
What do the key COP 16.2 outcomes mean for local and subnational governments?
Biodiversity COP 16.2 brought noteworthy gains for cities and regions, reaffirming their vital role in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
While the decisions on resource mobilization and the finance mechanism outline the global strategy to mobilize increased finance for biodiversity to reach KMGBF Target 19 and adopt the four-year outcome-oriented framework of biodiversity programme priorities of the CBD, they also include significant provisions that stand to benefit local and subnational governments. And it is worth mentioning that the challenges of securing global-level financing for biodiversity at local level were recognized during the negotiations.
To reach Target 19 and mobilize at least $200 billion annually by 2030, Parties are encouraged in the decision on resource mobilization to enhance efforts to substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources; and to align financial flows with the CBD, its protocols and the KMGBF through the adoption and implementation of national biodiversity finance plans. The reference to ‘financial resources from all sources’, recognizes the importance of expanding the financing envelope beyond public sources, and of mobilizing new and additional financial resources to contribute to biodiversity targets. The resource mobilization strategy includes a list of actions that can contribute to addressing the biodiversity finance gap by mobilizing resources from new and additional sources domestically. This opens the door for mobilizing resources from the private sector, multilateral development banks, financial institutions, philanthropies and other stakeholders, which in turn could potentially help local and subnational governments secure funding for biodiversity actions and projects. Other actions include:
- optimizing the co-benefits and synergies of finance targeting the biodiversity and climate crises; and
- significantly increasing the use of nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches at the national and subnational levels.
In addition, the resource mobilization strategy identifies several enabling actions that could stand to benefit increased funding flows at local and subnational levels where the investments are linked to, and ensure, the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making of IPLCs, women and youth; and /or support the achievement of sustainable development and poverty eradication.
Likewise, the provision in the strategy for ‘leveraging international private finance, promoting blended finance, implementing strategies for raising new and additional resources, and encouraging the private sector to invest in biodiversity, including through impact funds and other instruments, in line with Target 19 (c) of the Framework, with environmental and social safeguards’, opens opportunities for local and subnational governments to leverage biodiversity funding through a range of innovative finance mechanisms. Target 19 makes reference to instruments such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, and benefit-sharing mechanisms. We are already seeing an increase in cities using green bonds and biodiversity credits to finance sustainable infrastructure projects, and drive local climate action and biodiversity conservation. For example, two not-for-profit organizations and a Brazilian financial institution have joined forces with the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil to develop an urban biodiversity credit programme and standard[1]; and through the Greater Cape Town Water Fund, invasive species are being removed from hundreds of thousands of hectares in the greater catchment area to recover water back into the catchment and keep the rivers flowing to protect the City of Cape Town’s water supply.[2]
Furthermore, recognition of local and subnational governments is evident in references to the uptake, accessibility, effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and accountability in resource provision and use, which may be enhanced through, inter alia national and subnational ownership, by aligning biodiversity policies with national development plans; and by inviting Parties, as well as indigenous peoples and local communities, subnational governments, cities and other local authorities, intergovernmental organizations, other multilateral environmental agreements, non-governmental organizations, women and youth representatives, research organizations, the business and finance community and representatives of sectors related to or dependent on biodiversity, to provide relevant information, including on good practices, innovations, challenges and lessons learned to support the review of the implementation of the strategy for resource mobilization at COP starting with COP 17.
The decision on the finance mechanism includes a series of requests to enhance its effectiveness, and adopted the four-year framework of biodiversity programme priorities of the CBD and its Protocols to inform the ninth replenishment period of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund replenishment (2026–2030). Annex 1 of this decision includes, among the elements for which effective implementation support is to be provided, eligible activities under the plans of action adopted under the Convention to support the effective and inclusive implementation of the KMGBF, specifically the plan of action on subnational governments, cities and other local authorities for biodiversity (2023–2030). Furthermore, Annex II requests the GEF to provide financial assistance, upon request, to all eligible countries, including for eligible capacity-building and development activities, for subnational, national and regional projects to implement the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health.
At COP 15 in Montreal, Parties adopted a multidimensional approach to PMRR to support the implementation of the KMGBF and ensure that Parties are held accountable for their commitments and progress towards achieving global biodiversity goals. A key element of this decision relates to the global review of collection progress in implementing the KMGBF to be reported to COP 17 and COP 19 in 2026 and 2030 respectively. The task of COP 16 was to agree on how progress will be reviewed and to determine the way in which commitments from actors other than national governments (non-state actors), including from local and subnational governments, youth, women, IPLCs and the private sector, can be included in the global stocktake. Parties also had to finalize the national reporting template and headline indicators of the monitoring framework.
Considerable negotiating time and effort focussed on the process for reporting commitments by non-state actors and how this should be communicated to the Parties. Several Parties expressed concerns about ‘double counting’ and non-state actors’ commitments not aligning with national targets and/or contributing to NBSAPs. To address these concerns, Annex II on communication of commitments by actors other than national governments, recognizes that:
- that countries may have specific modalities to engage with non-state actors revising or updating their NBSAPs and national targets, and in including such contributions in national reports;
- non-state actors may communicate their commitments by using the standard template, or national focal points could upload their commitments to the online reporting tool of the clearing-house mechanism (CHM); and
- national focal points will be able to view non-state actors’ commitments before publication, on a non-objection basis. This means that all submissions from non-state actors would be available for national focal points to review, and if after four weeks there has been no objection from the national focal point, the submitted commitment would be published, with the understanding that the commitment could be withdrawn from publication at any time if there is an objection.
Importantly, Annex II of the decision includes a template that specifies the core reporting elements for commitments by non-state actors and invites them to report their commitments and contributions to the KMGBF and NBSAPs, and to do this, when possible, before the relevant deadlines set out in Decision 15/6. The decision also requests the CBD Secretariat to further develop a mechanism for tracking the commitments of non-state actors on the basis the template.
ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center is working with the CBD Secretariat on the mechanism for tracking the commitments from cities and territories, and linking this to CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature, which are recognized in CBD Decision 15/12 as the online platforms where local and subnational governments should report and track progress against their commitments to contributing to the KMGBF and NBSAPs.
Parties also agreed on the finalization of the KMGBF monitoring framework that had been adopted at COP 15 in 2022; and adopted headline and component indicators for each of the 2030 Targets, including Target 12, with Parties agreeing that further work is needed to develop the component indicators for some of the targets. However, the key implications of this decision for local and subnational governments, lies in several references to the role they can play in supporting Parties with the implementation of the monitoring framework. For example, local and subnational governments are urged and encouraged alongside Parties to:
- consider section C of the KMGBF, which focuses on implementation considerations including respect for the rights, knowledge and practices of IPLCs, when implementing the monitoring framework, by inter alia disaggregating the headline indicators and by strengthening community-based monitoring systems;
- provide support, including resources, for community-based monitoring and information systems;
- take a consistent approach to monitoring ecosystems and reporting data across the goals and targets of the framework, based on national ecosystem classifications; and
- strengthen their monitoring systems, subject to the availability of the necessary means of implementation, involving all relevant institutions, IPLCs, women, youth and relevant stakeholders in a participatory manner, with support, to facilitate the reporting against indicators in the seventh national report, due in February 2026.
In summary, key outcomes of COP 16.2 for local and subnational governments include access to new biodiversity financing sources, recognition in national reporting systems, and inclusion in monitoring frameworks. The adoption of the resource mobilization decision opens avenues for cities to leverage private finance, green bonds and biodiversity credits.
The decision on planning, monitoring, reporting and review provided renewed impetus for cities and regions to report and track progress via CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature, recognized in CBD Decision 15/12 as the online platforms where local and subnational governments should report against their commitments to contributing to the KMGBF and NBSAPs, ensuring local efforts are reflected in national and global targets.
The road ahead towards COP 17 and the 2030 target deadline
The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report paints a gloomy picture of a world divided, supercharged economic tensions, growing polarisation of societies, deepening geopolitical and geo-economic tensions, ongoing conflicts in many regions, concerns about adverse outcomes of (unchecked and poorly regulated) artificial information technologies, and declining optimism in general. Amidst this gloom, extreme weather events are intensifying, and biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse continue to show significant deterioration. And against this backdrop of deepening divisions and increasing fragmentation in international relations, “ey countries appear to be turning inward, focusing on mounting domestic economic or societal concerns, just when they should be seeking to strengthen multilateral ties to confront shared challenges.”[3]
As tensions grow, and the odds at global and national levels are stacked increasingly higher, it is becoming apparent that as far as biodiversity and climate actions are concerned, there is a gravitational shift in addressing global climate and biodiversity challenges.
Mayors and governors are increasingly showing strong leadership at the local and subnational government levels; and many cities and territories are leading the way in taking climate and biodiversity action, setting ambitious goals and implementing effective strategies to achieving global climate and biodiversity targets.
As we head towards the global review of collective implementation progress to be reported on at Biodiversity COP 17 in 2026, it is crucial that cities and territories report on, and track progress against their commitments to the KMGBF on the CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature platforms to ensure that they are reflected in the global review report. There is strong and ample evidence of the transformative power of states, provinces, prefectures and cities—big and small—in protecting biodiversity, restoring ecosystems and reconnecting people with nature.
The 8th Summit for Subnational Governments and Cities, which was convened as an official parallel event to Biodiversity COP 16 held in Cali, Colombia in November last year, and the First Meeting of the Mayors Forum on Urban Nature and Biodiversity, organized by the World Bank, ICLEI and UNEP with support from the GEF, showcased and celebrated some of the many actions and initiatives taken globally by local and subnational governments in contributing to the KMGBF targets.
The ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center publication From Agreement to Action: Implementation progress by subnational and local governments towards the Global Biodiversity Framework, launched at the 8th Summit, provides a snapshot of local and subnational actions, innovations and progress against global biodiversity targets.
It is important that we showcase successful urban and landscape-level biodiversity projects, and promote nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches at the urban and landscape levels to highlight cities’ and territories’ potential as active agents in conservation.
ICLEI is working closely with the CBD Secretariat to ensure that we capture the contributions by cities and territories and incorporate the actions and commitments captured, into the global review of collective implementation progress of the KMBGF.
As we move from decision to delivery, the outcomes of Biodiversity COP 16.2 have laid a firmer foundation for real multilevel action—one that recognizes and empowers the role of local and subnational governments in meeting global biodiversity goals. With the tools, platforms and financial strategies now more clearly defined, cities and regions need to move forward boldly and demonstrate how action at the local level drives global impact. We call on all local and subnational governments to make their voices count by reporting on CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature, ensuring their commitments are visible, valued and reflected in the global stocktake at COP 17. Only together—across all levels of government—can we turn ambition into achievement for a nature-positive future.
[1] https://carbon-pulse.com/274055/
[2] https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/africa/stories-in-africa/nature-based-solutions-could-protect-cape-town-s-water-supply/
[3] WEF Global Risks Report 2025, p11.