While climate change will center around carbon markets and technological and investment solutions, the CBD COP16 made clear emphasis on the central role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the implementation of the Kunming Montreal Biodiversity Framework. 

By Reynaldo A. Morales, PhD

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP16 in Cali, Colombia, stood as a very intense and productive round of final adoption of global constitutional law and policy, gathering world country representatives, diverse stakeholders, and rights holders worldwide. The overall conclusions of the round of negotiations that were held from October 16 to November 1, 2024, suggest an unprecedented shift to more responsible behaviors, healthier and more inclusive business regulatory frameworks, sensitive to a historical consideration of the role of vulnerable non-state actors, especially Indigenous Peoples and local communities, by recognizing their self-identified needs, institutions, and indicators, as central actors of the convention implementation.

An entire round of events were related to four concurrent meetings: the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on  Biological Diversity  Sixteenth meeting (COP 16), the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Eleventh meeting (CP MOP 11), the Nagoya Protocol on Access to  Genetic Resources and the Fair and  Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization Fifth meeting (NP MOP 5), and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation fifth meeting (SBI 5). Each of them is interconnected through a series of recommendations and previous decisions agreed upon by diverse consultative bodies and constituent groups. Aside from country representatives, thousands of members of the civil society also played a role in the green and blue zones, sustaining a dialogue climate and negotiation process to remind the parties about these prior obligations and offer technical solutions to articulate the adoption of global policies that countries can compromise to achieve higher impact around the 23 global goals of the Kunming-Montreal global framework on biodiversity. An important framework that intersected all decisions was the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPS) that were agreed as national targets, primarily quantitative, presented in databases containing national reports about targets established to contribute to the implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 

The event in charge of the government of Colombia also meant sensible international support for the country’s internal pacification process and affirmation of democracy, also celebrating the beauty and diversity of its geographical and cultural landscape. From the first opening statement, the Minister of Environment of Colombia urged the global audience to recognize current unequal relationships around extractive activities that overexploit the capacities of nature and denounced the impact of “legal and illegal extractive economies, particularly those associated with fossil fuel economies such as mineral or hydrocarbon extraction, [which] generate degrading practices that violate human rights and increase the contexts of conflict and violence.” This statement set a tone of urgency around underlying decisions that nations had to take at the time to reconcile both the political sovereign decision of all represented countries and the most informed technical and scientific input that civil society, academia, and the private sector could bring into the final negotiation rounds. 
 

Very important stances in the consideration of this critical context and the role of non-state actors that complement nations actions, were expressed around different items that are critical and strategic towards the path of biodiversity restoration and balance by 2035, while considering the urgency in which this timeline narrows by the minute. 

The Sustainable Wildlife Management (Item 19) draft decision recognized that the sustainable use of wild species is critical to halting and reversing biodiversity loss and, therefore, is well embedded in the work undertaken under the Convention. At the same time, established that monitoring of wild species is a resource-intensive activity that will require more support and investment in all countries to overcome the capacity, financial, technical, and institutional challenges that generate strong limitations to the monitoring of wild species and are inclusive of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and facilitating the equitable participation of all key actors in better inform decision-making processes. 

The decision also addressed the needs and circumstances of people living in vulnerable situations, as well as challenges relating to land tenure, resource use rights, and the inequitable distribution of costs and benefits derived from the sustainable use of wild species for the achievement of the objectives of the Convention. It also addressed potential challenges for the sustainable use of wild species, including the impacts of climate change, unsustainable practices, and an increase in demand that negatively impacts wild species. This includes coordinated efforts at the national and international levels to halt the illegal and all forms of unsustainable use of and trade in wild species while promoting sustainable, safe, legal trade. It finally called for focusing on more inclusive and participatory decision-making that includes multiple systems of knowledge, not only western science, along with the recognition of rights and the equitable distribution of costs and benefits.

On Item 12 on Capacity Building that I led on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), the key advisory board of the convention, Indigenous Peoples and local communities were part of the central portal of the clearing-house mechanism and will be able to share information about their ongoing and planned capacity-building and development activities fostering coordination and collaboration, and the sharing of information on opportunities to enhance North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation. Through this system, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women and youth representatives, and other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to assess and communicate their capacity needs and priorities through the central portal of the clearing-house mechanism in collaboration with the regional and subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centers and relevant organizations. 

A historical consideration in the official adopted language is the mandate to “foster the effective use of science, various sources of knowledge, technologies, and innovations, including the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, with their free, prior and informed consent, to support the implementation of the Convention and its Protocols and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”. This same recognition was reaffirmed in III. Operational modalities and procedures mandates that the traditional knowledge, innovation and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are considered, with their free prior and informed consent to enable the regional and subregional support centers to act in accordance with relevant national legislation and international instruments and treaties. At the same time, established as an indicator of the IV. Characteristics of the host organization of the global coordination entity, to prove “demonstrated experience in engaging with multiple stakeholders, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women and youth.”

The V. Expected Outcomes 14. The implementation of the strategy is expected to result in: the increased capacity of governments, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, scientific and academic institutions, women and youth representatives, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders to capture, manage and use biodiversity-related data, information and knowledge; an expanded knowledge base; and the increased availability, accessibility and uptake of relevant data, information and knowledge at all levels, with a view to facilitating evidence-based programming and policy design, informed decision-making and the effective implementation, monitoring and reporting of the Framework. The item VIII. Strategic Actions under strategic objectives “Promoting knowledge generation and synthesis” establishes the mandate to “identify and collect the traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, with particular attention to the knowledge of Indigenous women, with their free, prior and informed consent and clear acknowledgement of the source”.  At the same time, to “promote the documentation and publication of traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in research publications, with their free, prior and informed consent and the participation of traditional knowledge holders.” And finally, in G. Developing capacity in data, information and knowledge management mandates establishing “partnerships between universities and scientific institutions and Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women and youth representatives and other relevant stakeholders to enhance the contributions of scientific and traditional knowledge to conservation and sustainable use research programs, in line with the principle of free, prior and informed consent”.

The adopted decision on “Conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity and of island biodiversity” recognized also together the best available science and traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, with their free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with relevant national legislation, international instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and human rights law. At the same time, established the mandate to “facilitate capacity-building and partnership activities, including through the Sustainable Ocean Initiative, with the participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women and youth, in order to support the implementation of the Framework, including its monitoring framework, with regard to marine and coastal biodiversity and island biodiversity”. It also established the mandate to improve integration of the multiple values of biodiversity across marine and coastal areas, in particular with regard to Indigenous Peoples and local communities into planning and decision-making.

Agenda Item 24 on Synthetic Biology reaffirmed the application of a “precautionary approach” reminded the parties the inequity in the participation of developing countries in research and development and assessment in the field of synthetic biology and the importance of addressing impacts, as well as the urgent need for capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge-sharing for synthetic biology, in particular for developing country Parties. Finally, it made an emphasis on the need of further capacity building strategies to facilitate the equitable participation of developing country Parties, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, youth, academia, the business sector and relevant institutions in research and development in the field of synthetic biology, before taking a final decision. It also requested an independent scientific study compiling and summarizing existing scientific studies, public research and development funding needs and priorities, as well as research road maps on synthetic biology applications that are relevant to achieving the Framework, in particular its Targets 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 17.

An intense work preluded the decisions on indicators related to Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to underscore the critical importance of engaging Indigenous Peoples and local communities and of taking into consideration their traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices in the review of progress in its implementation. While acknowledging the need to engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the development and management of those information systems, as well as the need for enhanced international cooperation to address technical and financial gaps in developing countries, the new decision affirmed language to protect and encourage customary sustainable use by Indigenous Peoples and local communities¹. It also introduced indicators on changes in land-use change and land tenure in the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and associated ecosystems to Indigenous Peoples territories, among many important inclusions.

The decision on Agenda Item 11 on Financial Mechanism, also highlighted the contribution of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Convention and welcomed the aspirational programming share of 20 percent by 2030 from the total amount of resources allocated under the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund to support actions by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.  It also formally requested the Global Environment Facility to continue to support partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, their leadership of and partnership in projects, to explore ways to improve further, facilitate access to, and increase direct funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, ensuring that these resources support their rights and knowledge systems (para 32.). It finally included a key consideration to further support capacity-building and to improve direct access to funding by Indigenous Peoples and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles and holding traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components and to support activities and initiatives of women and youth that enhance biodiversity (para 12.c).

However, the most contentious negotiations were around the Agenda Item 9 on Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources, which was linked to related issues in other United Nations bodies such as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the World Health Organization, and the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. The decision, preceded by years of intense dialogue around this new technology and industry, first recognized the vital role that Indigenous Peoples and local communities play in the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources and recognized non-monetary benefit sharing for capacity and technical development needs and priorities include the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. 

In what constitutes the most important historical decision, it adopted a global fund, known as the Cali Fund, for the IIFB workgroup negotiations of the DSI platform in 2018, Paragraph 21. establishes that “at least half of the funding of the global fund should support the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities… through government or by direct payments through institutions identified by Indigenous Peoples and local communities”. 

The global fund is established to reflect the modalities of the multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from using digital sequence information on genetic resources. It mandates that all users of digital sequence information on genetic resources under the multilateral mechanism should share benefits arising from its use in a fair and equitable manner (Art 2 Annex) and divide their contribution according to profit thresholds. Contributions to the global fund are expected to be made directly but may be made through a national authority. Receipts will be issued at the point of contribution to the global fund. The multilateral mechanism also issued a clear mandate for the respect of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Art 25. Annex) and for the support of the capacity needs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, considering the circumstances of developing countries, in particular, the least developed countries and small island developing States and those with economies in transition, and of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Enclosure B). 

An important consideration of the adopted decision on DSI is the Enclosure C Terms of reference for the Ad-hoc Technical Expert Group on Allocation Methodology, which created a Group on Allocation Methodology to provide technical advice and guidance on remaining and unresolved issues relating to the disbursement of funds from the global fund. The Group will comprise 15 technical experts nominated by Parties, 7 experts nominated by representatives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from the seven socio-cultural regions, and 4 experts from relevant organizations.  Enclosure F, “Factors to be considered in the review,” suggests implications of the operation of the multilateral mechanism on the operations of public databases on digital sequence information on genetic resources, particularly with respect to open access, and implications for data governance, including Indigenous data governance.

Finally, the greatest achievement was the decision of the convention on the creation of the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j), as part of the Program of Work on Article 8(j) to, among many tasks and responsibilities, promote the inclusion of traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices in all bodies of the Convention to have a timely and stepwise implementation and be reviewed, revised and updated after 2030 to align it with any post-2030 framework under the Convention. This constitutes a great victory for a world body of contributors whose diplomatic and informed input has been recognized and supported. This means truly a framework for years ahead of productive partnerships between nation States, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities to develop projects that will restore biodiversity across the world. 

One important mandated technical task of the Program of Work relevant for current national legislations will be to develop guidelines with the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to strengthen the legal and policy framework for the implementation of Targets 2 and 3 on traditional territories, to support the protection and restoration practices led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Also, the 1.2 task mandates to “Identify and promote best practices to secure land tenure and governance by Indigenous Peoples and local communities and develop guidelines for the inclusion and consideration of traditional lands and of resource use in spatial planning processes and environmental impact assessments, in accordance with national legislation and international obligations.” Finally, a very important task of the new Subsidiary Body on Article 8j will be to promote the inclusion of traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices in all bodies of the convention.

— Reynaldo A. Morales serves as Assistant Professor of Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism and Media, and faculty fellow of the Buffett Institute for Global Affairs. Affiliated to the Center for Native American and Indigenous Research, also serves as a member of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) at the CBD, and to the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFC) at UNFCCC.

All photos by Reynaldo A. Morales.