By Abdullahi Lukman
International efforts to halt nature loss by 2030 face significant challenges, despite a newly forged agreement on nature finance reached at the UN biodiversity conference (COP16) in Rome.
While delegates celebrated the hard-won compromise, which outlines a roadmap for increasing biodiversity funding, concerns remain about the agreement’s ambition and the slow pace of implementation.
The agreement, reached after tense negotiations, aims to address the critical funding gap needed to protect ecosystems and wildlife.
It outlines two main areas of action: securing additional billions for biodiversity and establishing mechanisms for distributing those funds.
However, key issues, such as the creation of a new funding mechanism and addressing nature-destroying subsidies, were deferred, prompting criticism from some nations.
Scientists warn that the 2030 goal of halting nature loss is increasingly unattainable, with global wildlife populations having plummeted by over 70 percent between 1970 and 2020.
Delegates from countries like Madagascar and Liberia expressed skepticism about achieving the targets within the remaining timeframe, citing insufficient funding and slow UN processes.
The agreement includes a roadmap for reaching the $200 billion annual funding goal, including a push for development banks to increase biodiversity spending and the establishment of an “international dialogue” between finance and environment ministers.
A monitoring framework was also adopted to track progress toward the 2030 targets.
A contentious issue was the creation of a new fund to distribute nature finance, with developing nations arguing that the existing Global Environment Facility (GEF) is too burdensome and controlled by wealthier countries.
A decision on this new fund was postponed until 2028, with all options remaining on the table.
The “Cali Fund,” a voluntary mechanism for companies benefiting from genetic resources to contribute to conservation, was launched without initial pledges.
The agreement was hailed by some leaders as a victory for multilateralism, particularly amid geopolitical tensions.
However, other nations, like Bolivia, expressed frustration over the “diluted” commitments and the potential for indefinite delays in financial implementation.
The absence of the United States, which has not ratified the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, also underscored the challenges to global cooperation.
