CIVICUS discusses the recent United Nations (UN) biodiversity summit, COP16, with Viviana Figueroa, Global Technical Coordinator of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB).

The IIFB is a group of representatives of Indigenous governments, Indigenous civil society organisations and Indigenous scientists and activists who organise themselves around the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other major international environmental meetings. It coordinates strategies, facilitates and supports the full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities and ensures their rights and contributions to nature conservation are recognised and respected in negotiations and decision-making, and in subsequent implementation.

COP16, held in Cali, Colombia in November 2024, ended without consensus on key issues such as finance, monitoring and the elimination of subsidies to harmful industries. Concerns were raised about the influence of 1,261 business lobbyists from industries such as pesticides, oil and biotechnology. While some progress was made, including the establishment of a global fund based on genetic information and greater inclusion of Indigenous peoples, the summit resulted in no agreement on funding to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework.

What were your expectations for COP16 and how much were they met?

Our expectations focused on several key issues: the establishment of a subsidiary body on traditional knowledge, the adoption of a new work programme for the implementation of the CBD’s article 8(j) on traditional knowledge over the next 10 years, the recognition of the role of traditional knowledge in digital information on genetic resources and direct access to funds for Indigenous peoples. We are pleased to say significant progress was made in several of these areas.

The most important milestone at COP16 was the creation of a permanent subsidiary body dedicated to traditional knowledge – the knowledge accumulated over millennia by Indigenous peoples and local communities – which is crucial for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

This body replaces the Article 8j Working Group, which had been working on these issues for two decades but was temporary in nature. From now on, there will be a permanent body formally recognised as part of the CBD. This is a real milestone. The new body has the same status as the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice.

This is a major step forward in terms of valuing Indigenous knowledge. It’s the first time that a UN environmental convention has a permanent body dedicated to traditional knowledge. This is a recognition of the key role Indigenous peoples play in conserving biodiversity. The new body will be an important space for strengthening international negotiations and developing international law on traditional knowledge issues.

The newly agreed work programme also provides clear guidance for CBD member states to respect, maintain and conserve traditional knowledge, in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. However, its success will depend on the efforts of states to translate it into tangible action at the national level. Historically, this has been one of the most difficult areas for progress.

The main outstanding issue is direct access to funding for Indigenous peoples. This issue was not addressed in the final decisions on the mobilisation of financial resources and we hope it will be addressed in future meetings.

What opportunities for participation did Indigenous communities have?

While they had significant opportunities to participate, Indigenous communities also faced important barriers. One of the main challenges was language: while plenary sessions are held in all six UN languages, negotiations are mainly conducted in English. Although part of the general UN rules, this restriction particularly affects non-English speakers, including many Indigenous representatives.

Despite this, we were able to influence the outcome through the organisation and collaboration of other IIFB members. Our participation was based on the principles of article 8(j), which sets out that state parties must respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities, promote their wider use and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use.

This article has been central to the international recognition of traditional knowledge. Our work on this issue ensured our priorities were part of the debate.

What are Indigenous peoples’ demands for COP17?

Over the next two years, the IIFB will work to define its key demands for COP17, which will take place in Armenia in 2026. These include strengthening provisions related to the contribution of Indigenous lands and territories to biodiversity conservation and ensuring effective mechanisms for direct access to funds.

For the rights and knowledge of Indigenous peoples to be fully respected and protected, it’s essential that clear implementation and monitoring mechanisms are established in the agreements. We also expect the new permanent subsidiary body to play a central role in developing rules that reflect our demands and needs.