Muhammad Nasry Abdul Nasir shares his experience at the UN biodiversity summit COP16, offering insights into the challenges and opportunities in global conservation efforts.
The Transition from Field to Summit
As an ecology student, my usual work revolves around forest explorations, collecting data, and running experiments. However, in the last two weeks of October, I attended the UN biodiversity conference, COP16, in Cali, Colombia. This marked my first exposure to the global side of conservation, shifting from the natural world to the bustling conference halls. While I’m accustomed to collecting data in forests, at COP16, I found myself navigating the complexities of international negotiations.
The Struggles of Global Consensus
One key takeaway was witnessing firsthand the difficulties of getting nearly 200 countries to agree on conservation strategies. In one session, negotiators spent 10 minutes debating whether a sentence should end with a comma or a full stop. While this seemed trivial, it underscored the significant consequences of such decisions on international commitments. The choice between words like “should” and “could” in the language of negotiations can shift obligations significantly. For instance, “should” implies a stronger commitment to funding, while “could” provides more flexibility for nations, highlighting the slow pace of negotiations.
One of the major issues at COP16 was the failure to finalize a set of indicators to monitor the global biodiversity framework. Similarly, countries struggled to agree on how much developed nations should contribute to a biodiversity fund.
A Few Wins Amid Challenges
Despite the challenges, there were notable successes. The Cali Fund, aimed at encouraging companies that utilize genetic resources to contribute to conservation, was formalized. Additionally, a permanent subsidiary body was established to empower indigenous and local communities, including African-descendant communities, ensuring they have a seat at the decision-making table.
The Divide Between Stakeholders
The discussions also highlighted the differing perspectives of various stakeholders, including businesses, environmental groups, and indigenous peoples. The private sector, often focused on carbon sequestration, framed conservation as an investment opportunity. While such projects can provide immediate carbon credits, they sometimes neglect other ecosystem functions, such as preserving biodiversity. On the other hand, indigenous groups and environmental activists criticized these approaches for being shortsighted and insufficient to address the root causes of environmental degradation.
Singapore’s Role and a Global Comparison
Attending COP16 also provided an interesting contrast between Singapore and Cali. Singapore often promotes itself as a “City in Nature,” integrating urban life with greenery. However, Cali, with its rich biodiversity and a deep cultural respect for nature, offers a different approach. Residents of Cali, for instance, learn about biodiversity through stories and legends, cultivating a profound respect for nature. In contrast, Singapore’s appreciation tends to focus more on the utilitarian benefits of nature, such as mental health and flood mitigation.
The Need for a Broader Shift
The COP16 experience reinforced the idea that protecting nature requires a fundamental shift in our relationship with the environment. It’s not just about policies or financial contributions but embracing nature’s intrinsic value. If we are to bridge the divides I witnessed at the conference, conservation efforts must go beyond conference rooms and boardrooms and be rooted in a collective respect for nature.
