From forest to conference hall: Navigating the UN biodiversity summit COP16 as an ecology student

SINGAPORE – For an ecology student like myself, conservation work involves wandering the forest with a hypothesis, collecting data and running experiments.

But in the last two weeks of October, I was exposed to a very different side of conservation during the UN biodiversity conference,

COP16, in Cali, Colombia.

This event, held under the auspices of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, serves as the first conference since the adoption of the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022. That treaty – touted as the biodiversity equivalent of the Paris Agreement on climate change – aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

It was my first time attending an international event of this scale. Instead of the forest, I roamed conference halls; instead of birdsong, I drowned in seemingly mindless quibble over where commas or full stops should be. 

The experience of running from room to room and meeting all sorts of people was incredibly overwhelming. 

But it proved enlightening in a few ways. 

Semantics 

For one thing, it showed the difficulty in getting almost 200 countries to agree on a road map to protect nature. 

I sat through a discussion where negotiators actually debated for 10 minutes over whether to include a full stop and a comma in a sentence. I do not remember what topic it was on.

While situations like these can seem amusing, I also recognised the repercussions of a single word change on countries. For example, in a discussion on international commitments for funding, some parties pushed for the word “should” instead of “could”.

Within the UN negotiations, “should” is stronger language that translates to heavier obligations for contributors for funding. “Could” is seen as weaker language, which allows for more flexibility in implementation but also lessens the obligations of a country in contributing to funding for nature conservation contributors in this context.

It is little wonder then, that negotiations progress at a snail’s pace, especially as the UN biodiversity negotiations require consensus from all parties in order to proceed.

One of the key expectations from COP16 was that countries would agree on indicators that would allow progress in protecting and restoring nature to be tracked.

But at the end of the two weeks, parties were still unable to adopt a set of indicators for the monitoring and implementation of the global biodiversity framework.

One key obstacle was the establishment of a novel biodiversity fund to support the implementation of the global biodiversity framework, as developed nations could not agree on how much they were willing to pay to conserve nature around the world.

That is not to say there were no wins. 

The establishment of a separate fund, dubbed the Cali Fund, encourages companies that use genetic information from nature in pharmaceuticals, for instance, to contribute a portion of revenue earned to ensure the continuity of the habitats that provided these genetic resources in the first place.

Also formalised was a permanent subsidiary body that recognises and empowers indigenous people and local communities, as well as communities of African descent, as key stakeholders in conservation, enshrining their right to participate in multilateral decision-making.

Some negotiations dragged on for too long over pedantic squabbling, but others did produce a text that all parties were comfortable adopting.

Divergent perspectives

Second, the experience at COP16 showed that different groups – whether businesses, environmental groups or indigenous peoples – had entrenched positions on certain issues that may seem hard to resolve.

The biggest disappointment for me was the discussions on implementing nature-based solutions in addressing climate change.

These solutions refer to the use of approaches focused on using ecosystems as tools for mitigation, such as the role of forests in carbon sequestration, and adaptation, such as how natural ecosystems can help purify rainwater and prevent floods.

But the private sector seemed to use it as more of a buzzword, framing discussions on protecting or restoring forests as opportunities for investments into carbon projects that could produce carbon credits bought by emitters to offset their carbon footprint. 

Activists and indigenous communities criticise such approaches as anthropocentric, short-sighted “false solutions” that enable polluters to continue emitting without addressing the root causes of the crisis.

Focusing too heavily on climate-related outcomes, such as optimising a conservation initiative for maximising carbon sequestration, could neglect other aspects of healthy ecosystem function.

Monoculture reforestation using fast-growing, water-intensive trees like acacia or eucalyptus, for example, could help sequester carbon in the short term, but rapidly degrade soil health, deplete local water sources causing water stress and replace native biodiversity, such that the ecosystem suffers in the longer term. This could actually lead to greater net emissions, ultimately undermining the project’s original goal.

Carbon projects were also slammed for using cherry-picked metrics convenient for reporting, such as area or number of trees planted. These are simple to quantify and look good in reports, but leave out more complex and expensive valuation methods that would have been more representative of projects’ true impact. Such a method could include, for example, tracking the distribution and movement of endangered wildlife – which is a time- and labour-intensive process.

Efforts of the private sector to work with and benefit local communities were therefore likely to be dismissed as simply lip service, as it seemed businesses were more interested in keeping projects profitable for their own self-interests rather than actually empowering local communities to care for their biodiversity.

As someone who tried to attend a wide array of different side events hosted by different stakeholder groups, I found that this disconnect between the different groups was quite apparent.

This divide was also present on other issues like geoengineering, credit and offset systems for both carbon and biodiversity, and green and blue bonds; the list goes on.

Nature’s decline is closely interconnected with the climate crisis.

The COP16 biodiversity summit took place just weeks before the UN climate conference COP29, and the expectation is that discussions on protecting nature will continue there.

The best solutions for biodiversity would be the ones that benefit climate the most; it will just take a bit more effort and resources to implement meaningfully, which would not be possible if finance negotiations for climate – one of the key areas expected to be discussed at the event – stall once again.

Cities in nature

Ultimately, negotiations are predicated on parties’ national priorities, which are primarily influenced by domestic politics.

Singapore prides itself as being a City in Nature, with many policies focusing on bringing biodiversity into urban areas.

That said, Cali, where COP16 was held, is a strong contender for being a City in Nature too. As the city with the most recorded bird species in the world (562 species, to Singapore’s 428), Cali prides itself on its biodiversity, and its residents certainly show it. 

Murals of the local biodiversity are all over the city and feature heavily in community spaces. Respect for nature is deeply embedded in their culture, with children learning about the sanctity of biodiversity at a young age, taught through legends and stories through their families.

Structurally, while Singapore does a slightly better job of integrating the urban cityscape with greenery compared with Cali, culturally, the differences are night and day.

Where Calenos show deep respect for their natural heritage, Singaporeans’ appreciation for nature tends to be rather utilitarian. The local focus is often on ecosystem services such as mental health and recreational benefits, urban heat and flood mitigation. Some of these certainly are side effects of Singapore’s unique land-use constraints, but given our strong branding as a City in Nature, it is quite interesting to observe a city on the opposite side of the world whose residents really walk the talk.

Dubbed “the People’s COP”, COP16 puts people front and centre as critical to addressing the imminent biodiversity crisis. Some of the successes of the COP reflected that, particularly for indigenous groups.

However, if these ambitions for protecting nature are to become a reality, a fundamental shift in our relationship with nature is needed – not only from policymakers but from the full array of stakeholders in nature: all of us. We must embrace a broader perspective: One that values nature not only for the services it provides, but also for its intrinsic worth.

If we hope to bridge the divides I observed first-hand in Cali, our approach to conservation must resonate beyond conference halls and corporate boardrooms, and be rooted in a shared respect for our shared natural heritage.