Written by Paul Dunshirn, Wenwen Lyu, Erik Zhivkoplias

The 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) took place from October 21st – November 1st in Cali, Colombia. The conference focused on assessing and deciding on next steps towards the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the UN’s central framework for conserving and sustainably using biodiversity. Researchers of the research project TwinPolitics (University of Vienna) and the Stockholm Resilience Center were in Cali to follow these important negotiations and to gather insights on how emerging technologies involving data, artificial intelligence (AI), and modelling can support reaching the GBF targets. This blog reflects on the outcomes of COP16 and discusses the increasing role of science and technology in biodiversity governance.

Opening plenary of COP16 in Cali. Source: Author

What was COP16 all about?

Almost two years have passed since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal GBF (CBD/COP/DEC/15/4) at CBD COP15 in Montreal. Progress on reaching the GBF’s 23 targets by 2030 has been slow. This is why COP16 was referred to as the ‘GBF implementation COP’, aiming to get implementation back on track and keeping the vision to ‘live in harmony with nature’ by 2050 a realistic objective. The conference was even larger than expected (around 26.000 participants) and, besides formal negotiation settings, included public areas and a large program of side events to stir substantive discussions.

The most prominent target discussed at COP16 was target 3 to have at least 30% of the world’s areas protected and managed by 2030, including terrestrial and inland water areas, marine and coastal areas (the highly quoted ‘30 by 30’ target of the GBF). A big obstacle to achieving this is the lack of funding: target 19 prescribes mobilization of 200 billion US dollars per year for the GBF, which is currently far from achieved. Another major point of contention was Target 13 and the related COP15 decision 9 (CBD/COP/15/DEC/15/9) to design a multilateral mechanism to effectively share monetary and ‘non-monetary’ benefits related to genetic research and biotechnological commercial activities using digital sequence information (DSI) to fund global conservation and capacity-building measures.

COP16 was not only large in terms of participation numbers but also in negotiation objectives – the closing plenary on November 1st tasked itself with 41 decisions to agree upon. Even though delegates worked throughout the final night, COP President Susana Muhamad (Colombia’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development) had to eventually suspend the conference early morning as too many Parties had already left the room. However, several important decisions were taken before the suspension, including the establishment of a subsidiary body for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) (CBD/COP/16/L.6), the adoption of a program of work for the highly contentious article 8J on IPLC participation in CBD processes (CBD/COP/16/L.5), agreement on new process to identify ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (CBD/COP/16/L.8), and the DSI multilateral mechanism, including the ‘Cali fund’ for benefit-sharing (CBD/COP/16/L.32/Rev.1). Outstanding issues, particularly a decision on a budget for the upcoming years, resource mobilization, and the overarching GBF financial mechanism remain unsolved and will need to be taken in a resumed COP meeting expected to take place in the upcoming months.

It appears as if the Conference organizers and Parties may have been somewhat overly ambitious in planning to agree on 41 decisions during the closing plenary. While many commentators and delegates assess the suspension of COP16 without a decision on a GBF financial mechanism as a clear set-back, it is important to note that those decisions that went through are far from trivial – the establishment of the multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism on DSI as well as strengthened IPLC participation are essential yet controversial pillars of the GBF.

Building scientific and technological capacity as central negotiation issue

Throughout COP16, developing countries have emphasized the need for better technical and scientific support alongside financial investment, placing these issues high on the conference agenda. Plenary sessions and working groups considered how capacity-building can help reduce global scientific and informational gaps. A shared commitment to strengthening the role of science and technology emerged, as seen in the consensus to enhance information-sharing through the Nagoya Protocol’s Clearing-House Mechanism (CBD/NP/MOP/5/L.3), promote international cooperation between the CBD and other science-policy platforms (CBD/COP/16/L.30), and advance scientific work in areas including biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning; pollution and biodiversity; and sustainable biodiversity-based activities, products and services that enhance biodiversity (CBD/COP/16/L.12).

The urgent need for scientific support was particularly emphasized in the working and contact groups on marine and coastal biodiversity, which talked about the need for comprehensive scientific studies to assess the impacts of emerging technologies, such as marine geoengineering techniques, on marine and coastal ecosystems.

Emerging science-technology linkages across COP side events

Apart from formal negotiation settings, public and private actors presented many use cases of science and novel technologies to support GBF implementation across COP16 side events. Here are a few illustrations:

AI-driven satellite data analysis to predict functional groups of the ocean microbiome

Andre Abreu presented Tara Ocean’s study of ocean microbiomes to inform conservation efforts. Source: Author

At the side event on October 29th, the Tara Ocean team presented their work on a method to map genetic functions, particularly related to marine microbiomes, to better inform policymakers on how to preserve marine ecosystems. Their presentation was particularly interesting in technological terms as their research connected marine genetic research to satellite data to better understand the so-called ‘carbon pump’. The carbon pump is the process through which carbon dioxide is converted into organic matter, playing a crucial role in removing carbon from the atmosphere and regulating climate dynamics. Understanding which plankton genes are important for this regulation and how they interact can help predict the amount of carbon absorbed by marine species. Previously, Tara Ocean identified clusters of plankton genes that participate in the carbon pump in the sunlit zone of the ocean, contributing to the transport of carbon toward the sea floor1. However, despite the recent decrease in costs for next-generation sequencing, using genomics as a real-time monitoring tool remains challenging due to sampling difficulties and the financial limitations associated with cruise expeditions needed to collect samples in remote locations.

Connecting satellite data and marine genetic research. Source: Author

The new method currently being developed by Tara Ocean enables the prediction of plankton community composition by analyzing available satellite data. This method leverages the fact that different plankton species absorb different spectra of light, resulting in variations in the ocean’s surface color. By utilizing AI models to identify complex relationships between vast amounts of publicly available satellite data and the plankton gene networks, this approach aims to aid in predicting the biogeography of the marine microbiome, hopefully contributing to inform better conservation measures under the GBF as well as climate change mitigation.

AI in biodiversity monitoring

Satellite data also play an essential role in monitoring protected areas under the CBD and the recently adopted UN Treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty). This was discussed at an event organized by the French think tank IDDRI. Klaudija Cremers presented her recent IDDRI policy brief on emerging technologies in monitoring, control, and surveillance of human activities on the High Seas, highlighting the advantages of new technologies involving satellite data, yet stressing the need for accompanying measures2. Such measures include maritime patrols, port State patrols, and international cooperation.

IDDRIs policy suggestions on the use of emerging technologies for marine protected area monitoring. Source: Author

Several actors involved in building and implementing such technologies participated in the side event. Kristina Raab from Global Fishing Watch described their use of AI and satellite data to analyze the movement of vessels on the High Seas to assess the legality of fishing activities. For instance, vessels using illegal bottom-trawling nets display distinctive movement patterns, which AI models can detect.

In a conservation after the event, Ted Schmitt from the non-profit organization Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence highlighted how AI can help bringing together and making sense of the vast amount of existing data of potential use for biodiversity governance, including monitoring. He pointed out that many organizations, for instance Geo Bon, offer a rich pool of data, including satellite data, yet there is a need for analytical capabilities, which his non-profit is trying to offer.

Funding needs for better data synchronization

The biological field stations play a crucial role in collecting biodiversity data, as highlighted by Brian O’Donnell, the Director of Campaign for Nature during a side event on October 23rd. These stations serve as essential platforms for research that informs science-based conservation decisions. They provide a collaborative interface for integrating science, traditional knowledge, and evidence-based decision-making, and show great opportunities to weave abundant local knowledge into a global understanding of biodiversity. Dr. Patricia Wright, Founder of Centre ValBio, an international research station situated in Madagascar, described how field station worked with local communities, trained them to become biodiversity scientists, and made use of the seeds the local people collected in the rainforest to support research.

However, current collection and use of biodiversity data worldwide remains unequal. Due to a lack of funding, there are few biological field stations in Central Africa. In contrast, the Amazon basin has over 100 stations providing vastly more opportunities for conducting science. Moreover, although incredible data has been collected, there is insufficient network for sharing research findings, which leads to knowledge silos.

Digital twin technologies

Another noteworthy exhibition of emerging technology was organized by a start-up called Ocean Ecostructures, which specializes in large-scale marine renaturalization of areas degraded by human impact through regenerative technologies that enhance biodiversity in these environments. It uses remotely operated vehicles, remote sensors, and so-called digital twin technology to create real-time measures and representations of local marine ecosystems, such as reefs, taking into account the impacts of human activities and interventions on such areas. The start-up uses digital twins as a complementary tool to demonstrate such impacts in a highly visual and communicative manner.

Start-up Ocean Ecostructures presenting their work implementing novel marine technologies. Source: Ocean Ecostructures

The idea of using digital twins to support biodiversity governance has also been taken up by the European Union, which is currently developing and implementing its own ‘European Digital Twin of the Ocean’. This project aims to streamline various types of data, existing AI models, and public and private actors. According to the project’s homepage, this digital twin will have a range of applications, for instance allowing researchers or local authorities to predict the impact of (planned) human activities on marine ecosystems.

AI creating new policy problems

The emergence of novel technologies was also subject of discussion in relation to DSI and genetic resources across side events and formal negotiations. In the latter, Parties considered whether companies using AI models previously trained on DSI should be included in the definition of ‘DSI users’ who are obliged to share monetary benefits. The final decision (CBD/COP/16/L.32/Rev.1) includes such users, possibly extending the scope of benefit-sharing obligations to an emerging bioeconomy sector.

Reflections and conclusion

Deciding on rules, procedures, and a financial mechanism to counteract rapid biodiversity loss was one of COP16’s main aims – the lack of consensus to fund conservation measures is an alarming sign. However, these conservation aims need be seen in combination with the Convention’s other aspects, namely the sustainable use of biodiversity, the sharing of DSI and genetic resources, and involvement of various stakeholders, including IPLCs – Parties adopted many important decisions in this regard. It will be crucial for Parties to find a new date for the extension of COP16 as soon as possible to resolve the outstanding issues.

Beyond formal negotiation outcomes, COP16 offered a precious opportunity for the global biodiversity community to come together and analyze (the lack of) ongoing developments in implementing the GBF. The recurrent mention of issues around data and AI was noteworthy, opening novel opportunities and challenges. Proponents of AI tools, satellite monitoring, and digital twins promise to offer innovative conservation solutions, but successful implementation necessitates robust funding, international cooperation, as well as realistic assessments of energy costs related to their use. As seen in the DSI context, AI may create new transparency issues as it further distances technological uses from concrete genetic resource origins. As described in the above examples, private entities involved in developing or implementing novel technologies were very active at COP16, pointing towards a potentially stronger involvement of the private sector in biodiversity governance moving forward.

Balancing the use of science and technology with governance frameworks to ensure funding, fairness, transparency, and sustainability will be key to achieving the Global Biodiversity Framework’s goals. While COP16 was an important step forward, a lot remains to be done until 2030.

 

Sources

  1. Sunagawa, S. et al. Tara Oceans: towards global ocean ecosystems biology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 428–445 (2020).
  2. Cremers, K., Pinto, A., Okoth-Menya, F. & Rochette, J. Monitoring, control and surveillance of future high seas MPAs: what role for emerging technologies? IDDRI https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/study/monitoring-control-and-surveillance-future-high-seas-mpas-what-role (2023).