COP16 in Rome: Fragile Consensus Amidst Deep Divisions and NGO Concerns
The second part of the 16th United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) concluded in Rome after intense negotiations. This meeting followed the failure of the first part of COP16, held in Cali, Colombia, in November 2024, to reach a resolution. The talks in Cali collapsed due to deep disagreements over biodiversity financing, particularly whether a new, independent biodiversity fund should be created or whether the existing Global Environment Facility (GEF) should continue to oversee funding. The deadlock resulted in a suspension of the plenary session due to a lack of quorum, forcing negotiators to reconvene months later in Rome.
A last-minute consensus was reached in Rome, with a compromise between the demands of nations in the global north and global south on several key issues. The agreement overcame initial deadlocks on financial mechanisms and implementation strategies, but many environmental NGOs argue that the outcome represents a weak compromise that delays urgent action and fails to provide adequate safeguards against greenwashing and corporate influence.
________________________________________
Key Agreements & NGO Criticisms
1. Financial Mechanism & Resource Mobilization
• A major breakthrough was the approval of a financial mechanism that places the biodiversity fund under the authority of the COP, a key demand of developing nations.
• However, Northern countries (EU, Japan, Canada) resisted the creation of a new biodiversity fund, instead favouring the continued use of the GEF, which Southern nations (led by the African group) criticized as being controlled by wealthy nations and limiting access to funds.
• The compromise allows for an assessment of both reforming the GEF and creating a new fund, but the final decision has been postponed until COP19 in 2030—a delay that many environmental groups view as unacceptable.
• NGOs, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, argue that this delay could mean another six years of inadequate funding for biodiversity protection, further endangering already fragile ecosystems.
• This postponement has been criticized as an empty victory—agreeing to “put the plate on the table” (establish a financial mechanism) without providing the “food” (actual financial resources).
2. Increased Reliance on Private Sector Contributions
• The COP committed to mobilizing $20 billion annually by 2025 and $30 billion annually by 2030 from public funds.
• However, an additional target of up to $200 billion annually will rely heavily on private sector investments.
• Environmental NGOs have strongly criticized this approach, warning that:
o Biodiversity credit schemes and offsets could allow corporations to greenwash environmentally destructive activities instead of directly funding conservation.
o Market-based conservation mechanisms have a history of leading to land grabs, displacing Indigenous communities, and prioritizing profit over ecological integrity.
o Companies responsible for deforestation and pollution should not be given a leading role in biodiversity protection, yet the agreement fails to impose strict regulations on corporate involvement.
• Ecologists in Action and Global Forest Coalition argue that this shift reflects a dangerous privatization of biodiversity finance, turning conservation into a commodity rather than a public good.
________________________________________
Other Major Outcomes & Environmental NGO Perspectives
3. Monitoring & Reporting Progress
• The Global Biodiversity Framework Monitoring Framework was approved, establishing indicators to track progress on the 23 biodiversity goals set for 2030.
• However, there will be no country-specific reports, meaning that nations cannot be held individually accountable for failing to meet targets.
• Some critical indicators—such as the environmental impact of global consumption—were removed, further weakening transparency and accountability.
• NGOs criticized this as a major loophole, arguing that without clear, enforceable country-by-country reporting, many nations will continue to underperform with little consequence.
4. Perverse Subsidies: A Step Forward, but No Clear Action Plan
• The COP reaffirmed the need to identify and eliminate harmful subsidies that drive biodiversity loss.
• While this is a positive step, NGOs stress that without binding commitments and deadlines, progress could remain stalled.
• Industrial agriculture, fossil fuels, and fisheries continue to receive billions in subsidies that contribute to deforestation, habitat destruction, and pollution.
• WWF and BirdLife International warn that without concrete action, these subsidies will continue to undermine global biodiversity efforts.
5. Implementation Gaps & Delays
• One of the most alarming issues is the slow adoption of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
• As of the start of COP16, only 46 countries had submitted their national plans, meaning that a majority of the world’s governments have yet to outline their specific commitments to biodiversity protection.
• Conservation groups argue that this delay is a sign that many governments are still treating biodiversity as a secondary issue, despite its direct links to climate stability, food security, and human health.
6. Concerning influence of right-wing populism
One of the most concerning aspects of COP16 was the continued absence of the United States from the negotiations, as it remains the only major country not to have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. Despite being one of the world’s largest economies and a major contributor to global biodiversity loss, the U.S. once again avoided formal commitments, undermining the credibility of global conservation efforts. Additionally, Argentina and Russia played a negative role in the negotiations, frequently obstructing consensus. Argentina, under the Milei administration, resisted commitments on public biodiversity funding and pushed for deregulation, aligning with corporate interests that favor market-based conservation schemes. Meanwhile, Russia sought to weaken language on international cooperation and financial commitments, further stalling progress on biodiversity protection. Their obstructionism contributed to delays in decision-making, reinforcing concerns that short-term economic and political interests are taking precedence over urgent ecological action.
________________________________________
Final Assessment: A Fragile Agreement with Major Risks
While COP16 in Rome succeeded in reaching a fragile compromise, significant delays in financial decision-making, the absence of strong accountability mechanisms, and an over-reliance on private sector solutions could undermine real progress.
Environmental NGOs remain deeply concerned that the conference:
• Failed to deliver immediate financial commitments for biodiversity protection.
• Relies too heavily on corporate financing mechanisms that may promote greenwashing instead of real conservation.
• Did not set up a strong accountability system for tracking individual country progress.
• Did not take concrete action on eliminating harmful subsidies, leaving a major driver of biodiversity destruction unchecked.
NGOs’ Warning: Time is Running Out
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Ecologists in Action argue that without stronger commitments and immediate action, the world is on track to miss its 2030 biodiversity goals. They warn that COP16 may be remembered as yet another missed opportunity, where short-term political compromises took precedence over the urgent need to halt biodiversity loss.
What Needs to Happen Next?
• Governments must immediately implement their biodiversity action plans, rather than waiting for COP19 in 2030.
• Funding mechanisms must prioritize public financing over corporate-led offsets and credit schemes.
• Stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed to ensure that commitments translate into real action.
• Harmful subsidies must be phased out with clear deadlines and accountability measures.
Unless these steps are taken, the Kunming-Montreal biodiversity goals will remain little more than an aspiration on paper.
Friends of the Earth, An Taisce, and Stop Climate Chaos lead the charge to amend the Climate Bill before it Read more
TV channel ARTE are looking for Irish people to take part in a programme which will air during the COP21 Read more
The Environmental Pillar wishes to make clear to consumers and public that it rejects the awarding of an environmental certificate Read more
The environmental and heritage group are rejecting calls from the Irish Farming Association to shorten the hedge cutting times. An Read more
