Slow Food hopes for good news on global biodiversity as COP 16 resumes in Rome

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference COP16 suspended earlier this year in Cali, Colombia, will reconvene from 25-27 February 2025 in Rome, Italy, at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Slow Food welcomes this announcement as good news. It is undeniable that in both the Biodiversity Conference COP 16 and the Climate Conference COP 29  had disappointing results, given the lack of incisiveness and strength in making effective decisions to counteract the steadily worsening climate, environmental, and social crisis we are experiencing globally.

“Food insecurity, biodiversity loss and climate crisis, are quickly progressing without  waiting for negotiators to find an agreement” says Slow Food President Edward Mukiibi. “At COP16, the failure of governments to reach consensus on key issues created a gap underscoring the importance of depending on civil society as a crucial guardian of   biodiversity preservation. Let us not forget that agricultural production of the food needed to feed the world and protection of biodiversity are only reconciled through the application of agroecology. It is not only a method of growing food but a path to healing ecosystems, reclaiming food sovereignty and building resilient communities”.

COP 16 in Cali ended with some positive results but nevertheless Slow Food expressed its concerns about the lack of progress on key issues to tackle the biodiversity crisis.

Slow Food hopes that this resumption of COP 16 will provide a new impetus towards the enactment of concrete and effective measures. To pick up from where the negotiations had ended in Cali, below is the analysis of the few positive and several negative points we had made, looking forward with hope to the upcoming second round.

Cali COP 16 positive aspects:

• Agroecology gained momentum not just in niche conversations but on the global biodiversity stage.
• Countries approved a new permanent body for Indigenous peoples, allowing them to directly contribute their perspectives at biodiversity COPs for the first time.
• Corporations and companies using genetic resource sequencing (DSI) agreed to make voluntary contributions to a global fund called the “Cali Fund” of which half of the funds raised should go directly to Indigenous peoples and local communities.

Cali COP 16 negative outputs:

• It shifted from an earth-centered treaty to a business-driven marketplace. Biodiversity was treated as an economic asset—open for trade, owned by corporations.
• Agreement was not reached on securing the resources necessary for biodiversity protection and on the mechanism for measuring countries’ conservation progress.
• Only 44 out of the 196 Parties (22%) that adopted the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted their action plans (NBSAPs), which are essential for translating commitments into action and tracking progress.
• A specific biodiversity fund under the Conference of the Parties’ mandate was requested, but consensus among northern countries was not reached, blocking its approval.
• Although the Cali Fund was created for benefit-sharing from digital sequencing of genetic resources, contributions to this fund by corporations remained voluntary and minimal, allowing companies to contribute either 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue.