Connect with us

Published

1 year ago

on

After a marathon last night of negotiations in Cali, Colombia, COP16 closed abruptly on Saturday morning – when countries realised that with the final session of the biodiversity summit stretching to 11 hours, smaller country delegations had left and there were no longer enough governments in the room to formally approve further decisions.

Some progress had been made, however, as the talks established a new “Cali Fund” to channel voluntary contributions from the private sector to compensate countries for the commercial use of genetic material from plants and animals. They also created a new permanent body for Indigenous people, granting them formal power to influence decisions made under the UN biodiversity convention.

But no common ground was found on the most pressing issue facing governments: how to close the gap in biodiversity finance. As time ran out, countries also failed to approve a technical set of indicators – known as the “monitoring framework” – to assess progress on national targets and plans to protect nature.

The meeting was suspended, and the UN biodiversity secretariat said governments would need to reconvene before the next COP in two years, due to be held in Armenia, to resolve pending issues.

Bittersweet reactions

Observers of the talks said the lack of agreement on future funding for nature conservation around the world could hold back government efforts to present updated national biodiversity plans – which are a critical tool for meeting a global goal to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and water ecosystems by 2030 and a cornerstone of an international nature pact agreed two years ago in Montreal.

“Governments in Cali put forward plans to protect nature but were unable to mobilise the money to actually do it,” said An Lambrechts, head of delegation for Greenpeace at COP16. “Biodiversity finance remains stalled.”

Kirsten Schuijt, director general of WWF International, said the outcome “jeopardises” the implementation of the Montreal conservation goals, warning “we’re now veering dangerously off track”.

Colombia’s environment minister and COP16 president, Susana Muhamad, pointed to the positive aspects of the summit her country hosted – for which more than 23,000 delegates registered – saying it had managed to “raise the political profile of biodiversity”.

The lack of agreement on finance and a monitoring framework, “leaves some challenges for the [biodiversity] convention that will have to be resolved”, she added. “Discussions there were always very polarised and remained that way.”

Finance gap

Unlocking more and better finance was a key challenge for the two-week COP16 talks – but very little fresh cash was forthcoming and the closing plenary failed to reach agreement on whether to set up a new fund to channel the money before losing quorum, leaving discussions up in the air.

As part of the Kunming-Montreal pact, adopted in 2022, developed countries agreed to provide $20 billion a year by 2025 for nature conservation and $30 billion per year by 2030.

Up to now, funding for biodiversity has been insufficient, with the total amount from all sources standing at about $15.4 billion in 2022, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Within that, a fund for rich-government contributions has secured only around $400 million, including $163 million in new pledges from eight countries at COP16 – which observers called “a drop in the ocean”.

At COP16, countries clash over future of global fund for nature protection

In addition, governments at COP16 clashed over what to do with this biodiversity fund, which was created at COP15 in Montreal. Some countries pushed for a new fund to replace the current one that sits with the Global Environment Facility (GEF), arguing that the GEF is not efficient at channelling funds to biodiversity hotspots nor at giving access to Indigenous people and local communities who safeguard nature on the ground. Developed countries countered that doing this would waste time and divide efforts.

The GEF’s CEO, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, told Climate Home News during COP16 that creating a new fund could lead to a “fragmentation” of biodiversity funding. “Our main limitation is financial. If we had more resources we would do more,” Rodriguez said. In the end, no decision was made and talks will be taken up again at negotiations between COPs.

To that end, Colombia proposed a text that would start “an inter-sessional process” to come up with a “comprehensive financial solution” by COP17 in 2026. Moments ahead of the final vote on this, a new proposal was released to set up another global fund by 2030.

But governments remained fixed in their opposing views: the African group of countries, Bolivia and Brazil demanded a new fund, while Canada, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand and the EU opposed it, instead offering an assessment of the current set-up by COP18.

“A new fund does not mean new funding. It’s very difficult to explain to our citizens the multitude of funds and administrative burden associated with it. Our citizens are the taxpayers – the source for us to finance official development aid,” said the European Union’s negotiator.

Brazil’s lead negotiator pushed back, saying it seemed that developed countries did not want to help and her delegation was not prepared to discuss anything else until a solution was found.

In the end, time ran out and the meeting was closed before an agreement was reached, raising concern among observers.

National biodiversity plans

In the lead-up to the Cali summit, only a handful of countries had met a deadline to submit up-to-date biodiversity plans, although more had set national targets for nature protection without showing how they would meet them.

At COP16, Colombia opened the count by announcing its new National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) on the first day – which was then followed by other mega-diverse countries including India, Peru and Thailand.

By the end of the conference, 119 countries had announced national targets, while 44 had published NBSAPs – comprehensive plans that require broad consultation – leaving around 150 to come.

Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan

Bernadette Fischler Hooper, head of international advocacy at WWF UK, told journalists on the summit’s last day that the new plans and targets were a positive sign, but she stressed the need for funding to implement them.

Very few African countries have so far put together their NBSAPs, she said, adding “we’ve heard (at COP16) time and time again that the reason for that is lack of resources”.

The COP16 text “urges” countries to submit new NBSAPs “as soon as possible”, but stopped short of setting a deadline as some had wanted.

Two major biodiverse countries have yet to submit either NBSAPs or national targets: Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which are home to massive carbon sinks in the Amazon and Congo Basin. Brazil promised at COP16 to submit its biodiversity plan this year.

Indigenous victory

Among the decisions governments adopted, COP16 created a permanent body for Indigenous people, which will grant them unprecedented participation in decision-making and greater prominence within the UN biodiversity convention.

After strong opposition from Russia and Indonesia, countries approved the new body tasked with addressing challenges for Indigenous people, including barriers to accessing funding and threats to environmental defenders.

“This is a watershed moment in the history of multilateral environmental agreements,” Jennifer Corpuz, a lead negotiator for the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, said in a statement.

The decision also recognises the contributions of Afro-descendent communities to biodiversity protection, which was a priority for COP host Colombia, alongside Brazil.

Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, a Chadian indigenous activist and chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, told Climate Home during COP16 that access to nature funding is still a major hurdle for Indigenous communities, which also struggle to secure land tenure.

In another victory for Indigenous people, countries also agreed to establish the “Cali Fund” which will be filled by voluntary contributions from companies that use genetic material derived from living organisms in their products. A key aspect of that decision was that “at least half” of the funding will go directly to Indigenous people.

The text says companies in the cosmetics, pharmaceutical, food supplements and other sectors should contribute 1% of their profits to the fund.

Fossil fuels left out

Also among the more than 30 decisions discussed at COP16, negotiators adopted a key text on the linkages between climate change and biodiversity – but after some back and forth, it omitted all mention of the fossil fuels that are heating the planet and damaging its ecosystems.

Colombia initially proposed including reference to the global commitment to “transition away” from fossil fuels in energy systems that was agreed at last year’s COP28 climate summit in Dubai. However, this was removed in closed-door negotiations by the talks’ co-chairs Sweden and China, observers told Climate Home.

On Thursday, Fiji made a new attempt to put the fossil fuel language back in the text but this failed, partly due to time constraints.

Fossil fuel transition pledge left out of COP16 draft agreement

Andrés Gómez, coordinator for Latin America at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative, said the omission was a “missed opportunity” to get the issue on the table at the UN biodiversity talks. He said attention should turn now to the COP29 climate summit in Baku this month, which offers another chance to rally support for a phase-out of fossil fuels.

Commentators urged political leaders to build on the momentum from COP16 to raise nature to the top of their priority list and align their work on biodiversity and climate change.

“All countries should start mainstreaming their biodiversity and climate goals into sectoral policies, including for agriculture, land use, infrastructure and energy,” said Crystal Davis, global director for food, land and water at the World Resources Institute, a US-based think-tank.

“We urge countries to deliver strong finance outcomes at the upcoming G20 and COP29 meetings, where they should continue bridging nature and climate action for people and planet alike,” she added in a statement.

(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez and Mariel Lozada; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post COP16 hands power to Indigenous people but fails to bridge nature finance gap appeared first on Climate Home News.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/03/cop16-hands-power-to-indigenous-people-but-fails-to-bridge-nature-finance-gap/

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

Buffalo Are Not Just History: Restoring Kinship, Ecology, and Culture Through the Buffalo

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 19, 2026

By

There was a time, not long ago, when the buffalo roamed freely across the Great Plains in numbers so vast they seemed to stretch beyond the horizon. Historical estimates place the pre-colonial buffalo population between 30 and 100 million, a living force that sustained prairie ecosystems, supported biodiversity, and held together entire economies, spiritual practices, and ways of life for Métis and First Nations Peoples.

This was more than environmental abundance; it was a relational system. For the Métis, the buffalo were at the centre of trade, food security, culture, and kinship. Buffalo were not “resources,” they were relatives. The buffalo economy was communal and guided by principles of care, respect, and reciprocity. It brought together families, communities, and Nations in mutual reliance with the land.

Then came the destruction.

In the late 1800s, colonial governments initiated a calculated and systematic extermination of the buffalo. The goal was not just to clear the land for settlement, but to remove the source of life and autonomy for Indigenous Peoples. By destroying the buffalo, colonial powers aimed to starve First Nations and Métis Peoples into submission, forcing them into treaties, reserves, and colonial dependency. From tens of millions of buffalo, the population was reduced to fewer than 300. This genocide of the buffalo created intergenerational trauma that still reverberates today, not just ecological devastation, but cultural, spiritual, and social loss.

For Métis families like Colin Arlt’s, this history is personal. As a child, Colin visited Regina, where he first encountered the buffalo not on the land, but through a sculpture in the city’s downtown. He remembers standing before that statue, inexplicably drawn to it, not knowing why. That moment planted a seed.

As Colin grew older and learned about his Métis heritage, he discovered that he descends directly from Métis buffalo hunters who lived in close relationship with the herds, following migrations, harvesting sustainably, and providing for their family and communities within a framework of care, ceremony, and respect. That knowledge transformed Colin’s life. The buffalo became more than a symbol of the past; they became his relatives, his teachers, and his responsibility.

Colin also learned a history not often taught in classrooms. “During the era of buffalo genocide, it was Indigenous stewards and leaders, not colonial governments, who made the bold decision to protect and preserve the last remaining buffalo.” With foresight, care, and deep spiritual commitment, Indigenous families and communities took in the buffalo, nurturing them in secrecy and hardship, keeping alive not only the animals themselves but the spirit and culture tied to them.

Many of the buffalo that roam today are descendants of those early protected herds. The DNA of the buffalo cared for by Indigenous Peoples flows through the bloodlines of countless buffalo across North America. Colin often shares this with pride, reminding young and old alike that it was Indigenous Peoples who ensured the buffalo would survive, grow, and one day return in abundance to their ancestral lands. In a time of near extinction, when the environment and social conditions were hostile, Indigenous communities chose to nurture life, ensuring that future generations, both buffalo and human, would not only survive but thrive. For Colin, this is not just a historical fact, it is a teaching. It is a legacy of stewardship, resilience, and relational responsibility that continues today.

What Is Buffalo Culture?

Today, Colin is one of many Indigenous leaders calling for the restoration of what he and others refer to as buffalo culture. Buffalo culture is not just about the physical animal; it encompasses a comprehensive worldview. It is a relational system that includes:

  • The ecological role of buffalo as land stewards and climate indicators
  • The cultural practices tied to buffalo, including ceremonies, stories, and material culture such as hide preparation.
  • The spiritual bonds between people, buffalo, and land are based on reciprocity and respect.
  • Economic systems rooted in balance, trade, and sustainable use
  • Inter-Nation collaboration and kinship building through buffalo care and shared responsibility.

Buffalo culture teaches us that humans are part of a larger web of life, not at its pinnacle. When the buffalo were nearly eradicated, this entire worldview was threatened. Reviving buffalo culture is about healing the land, the people, and the relationships between them.

Buffalo as Ecological Regulators: The Environmental Rewards of Restoration

Buffalo are not passive inhabitants of the land; they actively shape and regulate ecosystems. When properly stewarded, they restore life in profound and measurable ways. Here are just a few of the environmental rewards buffalo bring:

Grassland Regeneration

Buffalo grazing stimulates grass growth and prevents over-dominance of any one plant species. Their unique grazing habits maintain open grasslands, which are among the world’s most endangered and carbon-sequestering ecosystems.

Soil Health and Aeration

The weight of buffalo hooves breaks up soil crusts, allowing air and water to penetrate the earth. This supports plant diversity, water retention, and overall land resilience.

Biodiversity and Habitat Creation

Buffalo wallows, the depressions they create by rolling in the earth, collect rainwater, creating micro-habitats for insects, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Their dung fertilizes the land, contributing to a richer web of life.

Climate Indicators

Buffalo migrations, calving patterns, and movement behaviours are direct reflections of environmental shifts. Buffalo are living climate witnesses, teaching us how the land is changing.

The Buffalo Culture Collective: Restoring Kinship and Ecology

Based in Saskatchewan, the Buffalo Culture Collective is a growing community of stewards, Elders, knowledge holders, and educators dedicated to revitalizing buffalo culture in the modern world. For the Collective, buffalo restoration is not just about repopulating herds; it’s about reviving the cultural, ecological, and spiritual relationships that have always existed between the buffalo and Indigenous Peoples.

The Collective’s mission is to reconnect people with the buffalo in ways that heal the land, rebuild kinship, and foster cross-cultural education. Through workshops, hide rematriation, storytelling, and buffalo-centred teachings, the Collective works to bring the buffalo back into the heart of community life, not just as animals, but as relatives, teachers, and guardians of ecological balance.

Colin, alongside his mentors and peers, envisions the Buffalo Culture Collective as a space where people from all backgrounds, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, can come together to learn, collaborate, and build a future rooted in shared care for the land and its more-than-human relatives.

The Collective focuses on:

  • Education: Reintroducing buffalo knowledge to Métis, First Nations, and settler communities about the ecological, cultural, and spiritual significance of the buffalo
  • Rematriation of Buffalo: bringing home buffalo by-products such as hides, skulls, bones, horns, hooves, and hearts, these items reconnect First Nations and Métis communities to the sacred responsibility of utilizing all parts of the buffalo, both edible and non-edible, for preparation, cultural practices, and land stewardship.
  • Cultural Unity: envisioning a future relationship between First Nations and Métis Peoples rooted not in politics but in the shared care of the buffalo. Buffalo Culture Collective believes buffalo stewardship is a unifier, bringing people together in celebration, love, and kinship, beyond hardship and division.
  • Environmental Stewardship: The Collective promotes the buffalo’s role in land health, teaching how herds support ecosystem regeneration, climate resilience, and community wellness
  • Healing and Ceremony: Buffalo work is about restoring not just the land, but the spiritual and emotional balance of communities. It’s about bringing back the songs, ceremonies, and teachings that were nearly lost.

A Call to Action: Funding, Research, and Restoration

If we are serious about reconciliation, ecological restoration, and cultural resurgence, Canada must invest in buffalo restoration at all levels of government. This means:

  • Funding buffalo-focused research that centers Indigenous knowledge systems and lived experiences, not just biology, but the full spectrum of buffalo culture.
  • Investing in repopulation programs to expand buffalo herds and return them to their Indigenous lands and stewardship.
  • Supporting the rematriation initiatives to reconnect communities with cultural practices and sacred responsibilities.
  • Creating buffalo-based economies that respect the balance of nature while fostering local jobs, community well-being, and food security.
  • Promoting cultural continuity by supporting Métis and First Nations teachings about the buffalo, ensuring these teachings thrive for future generations.

Buffalo restoration is not just an environmental issue; it is an act of nation-building, cultural healing, and ecological resilience.

Walking Forward Together

Across the prairies and beyond, Indigenous-led efforts to restore the buffalo are gaining momentum. From herd repopulation initiatives to the work of the Buffalo Culture Collective, a new era of buffalo-centred stewardship is emerging. For thousands of years, the buffalo cared for the people, providing food, shelter, tools, and teachings about how to live in balance with the land. Now, humanity has a responsibility to return that care. As one of Colin’s mentors reflected, it’s our turn to step forward. We must care for the buffalo, just as they once cared for us.

Colin believes that it’s time for all Canadians to step into this circle “the buffalo are calling us back into a relationship, the invitation is open.” He goes on to say, “Even if you’ve never seen a buffalo in its natural habitat, you are still part of this story. I encourage you to learn about the buffalo, to travel if you can, to stand in their presence, and to listen to the teachings they offer.” Leave with a sense of shared care and responsibility.

His final words are to “expand your understanding of what it truly means to be a steward of the land, not just to take from nature, but to give back, to protect, and to sustain life for the generations yet to come. This is not only about the buffalo’s future. It’s about yours, too.”

Get Involved

  • Donate or advocate for Indigenous-led buffalo restoration projects.
  • Support buffalo hide rematriation and cultural teaching programs through the Buffalo Culture Collective.
  • Learn about the Buffalo Treaty and support its signatory Nations.
  • Fund research that centers Indigenous science, culture, and ecological knowledge.
  • Join the movement to restore buffalo culture, ecology, and economy for the land, the people, and future generations.

Want to learn more about the Buffalo Culture Collective or collaborate on buffalo preservation and education initiatives? Reach out to Colin at colin@buffaloculturecollective.ca.

You can also listen to Colin Arlt’s interview on the Indigenous Climate Hub Podcast on Spotify – Returning Buffalo, Restoring Kinship: A Conversation with Colin Arlt.

Blog by Colin Arlt and Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

Image Credits: Colin Arlt

The post Buffalo Are Not Just History: Restoring Kinship, Ecology, and Culture Through the Buffalo appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

Buffalo Are Not Just History: Restoring Kinship, Ecology, and Culture Through the Buffalo

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Will the EU finally make waste pay for its growing carbon footprint?

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 19, 2026

By

Janek Vahk is a circular economy and sustainability expert working to accelerate Europe’s transition to a zero-waste society. He is the zero-pollution policy manager at Zero Waste Europe.

By the end of July, the European Commission must decide whether to include municipal waste incineration in the EU Emissions Trading System. It may sound technical, but the decision will test the credibility of Europe’s climate leadership.

At a time when carbon markets are expanding worldwide and governments are under pressure to close loopholes, refuse incineration has become a growing blind spot in European climate policy.

Since 1990, emissions from the sector have roughly doubled. Today, garbage incinerators release tens of millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, much of it from fossil fuel-based plastics. Yet unlike power plants, cement kilns or steel mills, incinerators do not pay for those emissions under the EU’s flagship carbon-pricing system.

If Europe is serious about reaching climate neutrality by 2050, this anomaly must be tackled.

    Across several member states, waste-to-energy capacity is still expanding. These plants are built to operate for 30 to 40 years. At the same time, Europe has committed to reducing waste, increasing recycling and building a circular economy. The contradiction is obvious.

    Incinerators require a steady stream of residual waste to remain financially viable. That creates structural tension with prevention and recycling targets. When infrastructure depends on waste, waste becomes something to secure rather than to reduce.

    Excluding incineration from carbon pricing deepens that distortion. It makes burning comparatively cheaper than recycling, despite the climate cost of combusting fossil-based materials.

    Including the sector in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) would restore a basic principle: the polluter pays.

    Policy patchwork

    Europe would not be starting from scratch. The Netherlands and Norway already apply national carbon levies to waste incineration. Denmark and Sweden price most waste-to-energy emissions under the EU system, while Germany covers the sector through its national emissions trading scheme.

    Britain has announced it will bring municipal waste incineration into its ETS from 2028.

    These examples demonstrate that pricing emissions from waste is both feasible and politically workable. But fragmented national approaches risk distorting the single market and encouraging cross-border waste shipments driven by regulatory differences rather than environmental logic.

    An EU-wide approach would create consistency and provide long-term certainty for investors.

    Regulatory blind spot

    Carbon pricing has already reshaped Europe’s power sector. As allowance prices rose, coal declined rapidly and investment shifted toward renewables. Industry is now responding to stronger carbon signals with electrification and efficiency measures.

    Applying that logic to waste would change behaviour across the value chain. It would incentivise better sorting, more plastic recycling and upstream waste prevention. It would strengthen the economics of reuse and circular business models that cut emissions before waste even exists.

    Without a carbon price, incineration remains a regulatory blind spot. With one, climate and resource policy finally align.

    The timing matters beyond Europe. Carbon markets are spreading, from China’s national ETS to emerging schemes in other major economies. If the EU leaves a fast-growing emissions source outside its own system, it weakens its position as a standard setter in global carbon governance.

    Roadmap launched to restart deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks

    At the same time, landfills are facing stricter methane controls under updated EU rules. Tightening methane standards while leaving incineration outside the carbon price risks shifting emissions rather than reducing them.

    This is not simply about waste management. It is about consistency in climate policy.

    Europe has expanded its carbon market to maritime transport and introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Leaving municipal waste incineration untouched would sit uneasily with that ambition.

    By July, the Commission has a clear choice to make. Close the loophole and confirm that every significant source of fossil carbon must contribute to decarbonisation. Or explain why burning fossil-based waste should remain the exception in Europe’s climate rulebook.

    If carbon markets are meant to drive systemic change, they cannot stop at the incinerator gate.

    The post Will the EU finally make waste pay for its growing carbon footprint? appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Will the EU finally make waste pay for its growing carbon footprint?

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Carbon Brief Quiz 2026: Picture Round 1 and 2

    Published

    1 day ago

    on

    March 18, 2026

    By

    All answers will need to be submitted via the Google form by the end of the half-time break

    The post Carbon Brief Quiz 2026: Picture Round 1 and 2 appeared first on Carbon Brief.

    Carbon Brief Quiz 2026: Picture Round 1 and 2

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com