One of COP16’s most closely watched discussions revolved around corporate contributions to biodiversity.
Sectors such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and agriculture — industries that profit from biodiversity resources — were under pressure to contribute financially to conservation. COP16 delivered a “voluntary” framework suggesting, but not requiring, that these companies pay $1 billion annually for using genetic data.
This framework fell short of mandatory action, leaving many delegates and advocates disappointed.
The corporate sector, led by heavyweights in pharmaceuticals and biotech, lobbied to keep payment obligations voluntary.
Initially, the draft included a provision requiring companies to prove they weren’t using genetic data if they wished to opt out. This clause, however, was removed, further weakening the agreement’s impact. As it stands, companies can contribute or simply decline without facing penalties.
According to data shared during COP16, the pharmaceutical industry alone has grown to a $1.5 trillion market, a figure projected to reach $2.3 trillion by 2030. Martin Harper of Birdlife International critiqued this setup: “Sectors that depend on resources must contribute to conservation. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from biodiversity’s resources while paying nothing for its preservation. This framework falls short.”
Norway and Australia led efforts to strengthen these commitments, proposing a separate fund (the “Cali Fund”) to ensure that at least 50% of corporate contributions go directly to Indigenous and Local Communities. Norway’s proposition, though well-intentioned, faced resistance from EU, Canada, and China, who stood by a voluntary approach, furthering the divide between developed and developing nations on biodiversity finance.
For Indigenous communities that rely on biodiversity resources, the voluntary nature of corporate contributions underscores a lack of commitment. “Our resources are our livelihood, yet companies get to profit from them without accountability,” remarked an Indigenous representative.
The COP16 voluntary framework leaves much to be desired, as it grants leeway to powerful corporations while the communities safeguarding these resources remain underfunded.
Is voluntary participation the best way to secure corporate accountability? Many argue it is not. Without compulsory contributions, corporations face no real incentive to fund biodiversity.
Environmentalists observed that COP16 demonstrated, the willingness of the corporate sector to support biodiversity conservation remains questionable, and a mandatory framework may be the only way to ensure that industries benefiting from nature contribute to its preservation.
