Biodiversity financing takes centre stage as COP16 resumes in Rome

BY DARE AKOGUN

Global leaders and biodiversity experts have reconvened in Rome for the continuation of the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), with financing nature conservation high on the agenda.

The talks, which originally took place in Cali, Colombia, last November, yielded significant outcomes before time ran out, leading to this follow-up session from February 25 to 27.

However, while commitments were made, the challenge now is ensuring adequate funding to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), a landmark agreement set in 2022 to protect and restore ecosystems worldwide.

The $20 billion gap: A crisis in biodiversity funding

At the heart of discussions in Rome is the urgent need for financing. The KMGBF targets an ambitious $20 billion annual funding by 2025, increasing to $30 billion by 2030.

However, as of November 2024, only $383 million had been pledged by a handful of countries, including Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, far below expectations.

The shortfall is a major concern for biodiversity-rich but economically struggling nations, particularly in Africa, where conservation efforts depend heavily on international support.

Many developing countries argue that since most biodiversity loss results from industries and policies of wealthier nations, they should bear the bulk of financial responsibility.

“The world cannot afford to fail on biodiversity financing,” said Oscar Soria, co-CEO of The Common Initiative, a global environmental think tank. “This could be a historic moment if nations choose ambition over bureaucracy.”

Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa: What’s at stake?

For Nigeria and its neighbours in sub-Saharan Africa, the stakes are incredibly high. The region harbours vast biodiversity, from the Niger Delta’s mangroves to the Congo Basin’s rainforests, which serve as critical carbon sinks and support millions of livelihoods.

However, illegal mining, deforestation, and unsustainable agricultural practices have left ecosystems at risk.

The lack of sufficient biodiversity financing means that African countries struggle to implement conservation projects, enforce environmental laws, and support local communities that depend on nature for survival.

In Nigeria, for instance, weak financial backing has hindered the effective implementation of conservation strategies under the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).

In the past, countries like Nigeria have argued that biodiversity funding should not come in the form of loans but as direct grants, given the economic challenges facing developing nations.

However, with donor fatigue setting in among richer nations, there is increasing pressure to raise funds domestically and tap into private sector investments.

Another key issue in Rome is how to reallocate an estimated $500 billion in global subsidies and incentives currently supporting environmentally harmful industries.

These subsidies often fuel deforestation, overfishing, and fossil fuel exploitation activities that undermine biodiversity conservation.

Redirecting such funds into nature-friendly projects could be a game changer for African nations. For example, Nigeria continues to provide subsidies for oil and gas, despite global calls for a just energy transition.

Redirecting such funds into afforestation projects, community-led conservation, and sustainable agriculture could significantly boost biodiversity protection.

However, implementing such reforms is politically sensitive, as many governments fear public backlash when removing subsidies, especially in regions where poverty and unemployment are high.

Who controls the money? A battle over biodiversity funds

A major debate at COP16 is over where the biodiversity funds should be housed. Some nations, particularly in Europe, favour using the existing Global Environment Facility (GEF) to manage the money.

Others, including Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, are pushing for a new funding mechanism that would give the Global South more control over financial decision-making.

For African nations, control over funding distribution is crucial. There are concerns that existing global financial institutions are dominated by Western nations, leading to delays and bureaucratic hurdles in accessing funds.

A separate financing instrument tailored to biodiversity-rich developing nations could ensure that resources reach those who need them most, without excessive red tape.

The role of private sector and development banks

With reluctance from donor nations to commit more grants, COP16 discussions are also focusing on alternative financing mechanisms.

One option is mobilizing domestic resources, while another is leveraging private sector investments and development banks.

The idea is that multinational companies benefiting from nature such as pharmaceutical firms using genetic resources from African plants should contribute more towards conservation efforts.

Additionally, institutions like the African Development Bank (AfDB) could play a greater role in financing biodiversity projects, offering low-interest loans to support nature-based economies.

However, relying on loans is controversial, as many African nations are already burdened with debt. Critics argue that biodiversity protection should not come at the cost of additional financial liabilities for struggling economies.

The African Perspective: Justice in Biodiversity Financing

Beyond the numbers, the core issue at COP16 is one of justice. Many African leaders argue that biodiversity loss is largely a consequence of industrial activities by richer nations.

From colonial-era deforestation to present-day carbon emissions, they say Africa has suffered environmental damage while receiving little compensation.

For Nigeria and other African countries, biodiversity financing is not just about conservation it’s about economic survival. With climate change already causing droughts, floods, and food insecurity, protecting nature is a matter of life and death.

As negotiations continue in Rome, the big question remains: will wealthier nations rise to the occasion and commit meaningful funds, or will COP16 end with more promises but little action?

With the clock ticking toward 2030, the world cannot afford to let this opportunity slip away.

Akogun is an Ilorin-based environmental and energy transition journalist. He can be reached via [email protected]