Oscar Soria of the Common Initiative called it a “unique financing mechanism” but said its voluntary nature could be a problem. “The effectiveness of the mechanism will likely depend on the willingness of the global community to support it and corporate recognition of the value of participating to gain reputation,” he said.

Other highlights included the creation of a subsidiary body for indigenous peoples and local communities to ensure their participation in the biodiversity framework agreed in 2022 in Montreal, and the recognition of Afro-descendant peoples as custodians of biodiversity.

Agreement was also reached on text linking biodiversity loss and climate change, which COP16 President Susana Muhamad considered essential ahead of the COP29 climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, later this month. The day before, countries had voted that Armenia would host the next meeting, COP17, in 2026.

But no agreement was reached on creating a new fund and, as the morning progressed and delegates began to leave for flights home, it became clear that time had run out.

Global North versus Global South

The European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland opposed the proposal to create a fund dedicated to paying for nature restoration in poorer countries, arguing it would complicate the funding picture without necessarily raising money. new.

The EU delegation suggested that creating a special fund would not necessarily prompt countries to donate more money. “We have been very clear throughout the process: we cannot accept the establishment of a new… fund, thus further fragmenting the biodiversity-related financial landscape,” the delegation said in the plenary session early on Saturday.