Countries Renew Efforts To Secure $200B For Biodiversity

Nations across the globe have intensified efforts to raise $200 billion a year for biodiversity protection, as Rome talks remain at an impasse over funding instruments and accountability. The effort follows the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to stop nature loss by 2030. Negotiations have since become more complicated, with tensions over who will pay, how money will be spent, and whether destructive subsidies will be rechanneled into conservation.

The sense of urgency is compounded by a new WWF report that shows vertebrate wildlife populations have fallen by an astonishing 73% since 1970. Governments and green groups are warning that unless there are serious financial commitments, attempts to revive biodiversity and safeguard vulnerable ecosystems will fail. The Rome talks come on the heels of a high-level biodiversity conference in Cali last October, where the "Cali Fund" was created, a financial vehicle designed to draw out firms that benefit from nature's genetic information. But contributions to the fund have been lackluster, with just $163 million pledged—well short of the $30 billion annually required to finance biodiversity efforts over the course of the decade.

One of the most disputed features of the talks is the position of the United States. Policy changes initiated under Donald Trump made the U.S. withdraw from official involvement in international biodiversity finance, raising doubt about international receptiveness to giving. In the absence of financial and political support from one of the globe's biggest economies, it has grown more challenging to obtain sufficient funds. Commentators indicate that this unwillingness of the U.S. adds pressure to European countries and emerging nations to bear a larger proportion of the financial cost.

In spite of the obstacle, some anticipate that this may be a breaking point. The Common Initiative's co-CEO, Oscar Soria, spoke of the talks as a key moment for international leaders to make their ambition happen. This may be a moment in history, if they opt for ambition," Soria said. "The question is whether they will battle for the future like gladiators or allow this chance to pass them by." His words echo the increasing fear among environmentalists that procrastination in obtaining funding will have irreversible effects on biodiversity.

As conventional grant funding becomes more and more limited in the face of global economic pressures, negotiators are looking into other sources of financing. In Rome, there have been deliberations on the potential to use development bank loans, harness domestic financing, and raise private sector investment in conservation activities. One of the most controversial proposals is that of taking an estimated $500 billion annually of subsidies that destroy nature, like deforestation, overfishing, and fossil fuel development, and diverting them into biodiversity conservation. Supporters contend that phasing out environmentally destructive subsidies not only would release financing but also curb additional degradation of ecosystems.

The other important debate is about the governance of biodiversity funds. The European Union and other developed countries have favored utilizing the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the management of contributions and disbursements. But states such as Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo have insisted on establishing a new, more representative funding institution that serves their interests more accurately. They contend that the current financial architecture is usually biased towards Western interests and does not cater to the particular needs of developing countries, which harbor some of the world's most important ecosystems.

Though major new public finance pledges are unlikely to be announced at the Rome meeting, the official launch of the Cali Fund is still on the agenda. New transparency in biodiversity finance, especially in monitoring contributions and ensuring that committed funds find their way to conservation projects, is being demanded by many observers. As the talks go on, there is increasing pressure on global leaders to go beyond words and take real measures to obtain the financial means needed in order to safeguard the world's biodiversity before it's too late.