Genoa Bans Fossil Fuel Ads, Joining Global Movement for Clean Energy

COP16 biodiversity negotiations close with limited agreement on nature finance

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference wrapped up in Cali, Colombia, in November 2024 with countries failing to reach consensus on several key funding mechanisms. Delegates from 196 nations spent two weeks negotiating how to finance the protection of ecosystems that underpin food security, clean water, and climate stability. However, deep divisions over money prevented agreement on critical aspects of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The conference, known as COP16, was meant to advance commitments made in 2022 to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. Instead, it exposed fundamental disagreements between wealthy and developing nations over who pays for conservation. For UK businesses, the stalemate has immediate implications. Supply chains depend on stable ecosystems. Investors increasingly assess nature-related risks. Without clear international funding structures, businesses face greater uncertainty about future regulatory requirements and market expectations.

The outcome matters because nature loss directly affects commercial operations. Approximately half of global GDP depends on natural resources and ecosystem services, according to the World Economic Forum. When international frameworks stall, businesses must navigate fragmented national policies without the clarity that multilateral agreements typically provide.

Funding disputes dominate final negotiation sessions

The central conflict at COP16 centred on how much money developed countries should provide to help poorer nations protect biodiversity. The 2022 agreement in Montreal included a target of $20 billion per year in international finance by 2025, rising to $30 billion annually by 2030. However, wealthy nations have not specified how they will meet these commitments. Developing countries argued that without concrete funding pledges, they cannot implement conservation measures that wealthy nations demand.

Brazil, speaking for developing nations, insisted on establishing a new dedicated biodiversity fund. The European Union and other wealthy blocs resisted, preferring to channel money through existing mechanisms. This dispute prevented agreement on how to operationalise the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, which was supposed to become the primary vehicle for nature finance. Without resolution, the fund remains largely theoretical rather than functional.

Negotiations extended beyond the scheduled closing time. Delegates worked through the night trying to bridge gaps on financial architecture, benefit-sharing from genetic resources, and monitoring mechanisms. Eventually, the conference suspended key decisions until an extraordinary meeting in 2025. This delay means businesses cannot yet rely on clear international standards for nature-related disclosures or supply chain due diligence.

The conference did produce some progress. Countries agreed to establish a permanent subsidiary body on indigenous peoples and local communities, recognising their role in conservation. They also adopted decisions on synthetic biology and digital sequence information on genetic resources. However, these technical agreements were overshadowed by the funding impasse that threatens the entire biodiversity framework.

Supply chain risks increase without nature finance clarity

The lack of agreement affects UK businesses in several concrete ways. First, supply chains that depend on agricultural commodities face continued uncertainty. Coffee, cocoa, palm oil, and timber all rely on ecosystems that need protection and restoration. Without international funding to help producer countries maintain these ecosystems, businesses face higher risks of supply disruption, quality degradation, and price volatility.

Second, the absence of agreed monitoring frameworks makes it harder for companies to demonstrate progress on nature commitments. Many businesses have made public pledges to become nature-positive or to achieve no net loss of biodiversity. However, without standardised international metrics and reporting requirements, these commitments remain difficult to verify and compare. Investors and customers increasingly demand evidence rather than aspirations.

Third, regulatory divergence becomes more likely when international frameworks stall. The European Union is developing its own nature restoration law and deforestation regulation. The UK has introduced Environment Act requirements and due diligence rules. Other jurisdictions are creating their own standards. Businesses operating across multiple markets must navigate inconsistent requirements, increasing compliance costs and complexity.

Financial institutions also face growing uncertainty. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures published its final recommendations in 2023, providing a framework for companies to report nature risks. However, adoption depends partly on regulatory momentum and clear policy signals. When international negotiations stall, financial regulators may delay mandatory disclosure requirements, leaving companies uncertain about future obligations.

Manufacturing sectors that use biological materials or depend on water resources face particular risks. Pharmaceutical companies source active ingredients from plants and microorganisms. Food manufacturers rely on pollinators and healthy soils. Construction firms need timber and natural fibres. All these inputs depend on functioning ecosystems. Without international cooperation to protect biodiversity, input costs rise and availability becomes less predictable.

Key outcomes from the Cali biodiversity conference

• Countries failed to agree on operationalising the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, leaving the main financing mechanism for nature protection unresolved until at least 2025.
• Developing nations demanded $20 billion annually by 2025 from wealthy countries, but concrete funding pledges were not forthcoming during the two-week conference.
• Delegates established a permanent subsidiary body recognising the role of indigenous peoples and local communities in conservation efforts.
• The conference suspended key financial decisions and scheduled an extraordinary meeting for 2025 to address unresolved issues.
• No agreement was reached on standardised monitoring and reporting frameworks, leaving businesses without clear metrics for demonstrating progress on nature commitments.
• The European Union and developing country blocs remained divided on whether to create new funding mechanisms or use existing channels for biodiversity finance.

Strategic planning needed despite international stalemate

Businesses cannot afford to wait for international consensus before acting on nature risks. Several practical steps can help companies manage uncertainty while international negotiations continue. First, conduct nature dependency and impact assessments for key operations and supply chains. Understanding which business activities rely on or affect biodiversity helps identify material risks before they become critical.

Second, engage with suppliers in regions where nature loss is accelerating. Colombia, where COP16 took place, hosts some of the world’s most biodiverse ecosystems. So do Brazil, Indonesia, and central Africa. Companies sourcing from these regions should verify that suppliers follow conservation standards and support local communities. This reduces both reputational risk and the likelihood of future supply disruption.

Third, prepare for regulatory changes even without international agreement. The EU’s deforestation regulation takes effect in 2025, requiring companies to prove that commodities like soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee, and rubber were not produced on recently deforested land. UK businesses trading with the EU must comply regardless of what happens at UN biodiversity conferences. Getting systems in place now avoids scrambling when deadlines approach.

Fourth, consider how nature risks connect to climate commitments. Many companies have set net-zero targets and are working to reduce emissions. However, nature loss and climate change are interconnected. Deforestation releases carbon dioxide. Wetland destruction reduces natural carbon storage. Restoring ecosystems can support carbon removal while also protecting biodiversity. Integrated strategies address both issues more effectively than treating them separately.

Fifth, monitor developments in nature-related financial disclosure. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework will likely become the basis for future mandatory reporting requirements. Early adopters can identify risks and opportunities before competitors, potentially gaining advantage with investors and customers who prioritise environmental performance. Waiting for regulatory mandates means catching up rather than leading.

Where to find authoritative guidance on biodiversity policy

The UK government provides resources on environmental policy and international agreements through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs. This includes information on how UK businesses should prepare for changing environmental requirements and supply chain due diligence obligations.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, which organises the UN biodiversity conferences, maintains detailed information about the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and negotiation outcomes at www.cbd.int. This site includes official decisions, national reports, and technical guidance on implementing biodiversity commitments.

For sector-specific guidance on managing nature risks, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures offers frameworks and tools at tnfd.global. The taskforce has developed recommendations that help businesses identify, assess, and report nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities across operations and supply chains.

Understanding nature dependencies is increasingly central to business resilience. Therefore, companies may benefit from specialist support on environmental compliance and risk assessment that connects regulatory requirements to operational planning. Moreover, organisations can explore nature-positive strategies that align commercial objectives with ecosystem restoration. Consequently, businesses that act now position themselves better for future regulatory and market shifts, regardless of how international negotiations eventually resolve.