Deputy Minister N Singh: Opening remarks at the Second Plenary of CoP 16

25 February 2025, Rome, Italy

Madame President,

We would like to express our appreciation to our hosts for creating another opportunity for us to conclude the work of COP 16, which began in Cali, Colombia. We are confident and hopeful that this meeting will be productive, and we reiterate our commitment to negotiate in good faith towards an outcome that is favourable to developing and megadiverse countries, which host much of the world’s biodiversity.

South Africa, along with the African Group of Negotiators on Biodiversity, believes that decisions regarding the Mechanisms for Planning, Monitoring, Reporting, and Review; the Monitoring Framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF); Resource Mobilization; and the Financial Mechanism should be considered as a package and adopted together.

Consequently, South Africa will evaluate its support for the adoption of the pending decisions based on agreement on resource mobilization and the financial mechanism. We regret the divergent views on establishing a dedicated financial mechanism for the Convention. We reiterate our position that a long-term global finance mechanism, in accordance with Article 21, must be established at this COP.

The establishment of such a mechanism should be supported by an intersessional process to define the criteria, modalities, terms of reference, governance, operational arrangements, monitoring and evaluation, as well as the review of effectiveness, among other aspects.

Madame Chair, we have been discussing these matters for over three decades, yet biodiversity loss continues to threaten nature’s contributions to humanity. Indecision on critical issues with significant socio-economic and ecological implications is unacceptable.

We do not support the option of an intersessional process before committing to the establishment of a dedicated global financing mechanism, as we cannot define modalities for something that has not yet been established.

Historical precedents in CBD decisions and other RIO Conventions indicate that the creation of a structure should occur before determining the modalities. For instance, the Cali Fund was established at COP 15 through Decision 15/9, and the modalities for its operationalization were adopted at COP 16 through Decision 16/2. Similar modalities were used in establishing funds related to other RIO Conventions, such as the Loss and Damage Fund under the UNFCCC (Decision 2/CP.27), the Adaptation Fund of the UNFCCC (Decision 10/CP.7), the Green Climate Fund of the UNFCCC (Decision 3/CP.17), and the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Fund under the UNCCD (Decision 3/COP.12).

We must avoid perpetual interim arrangements, which undermine the spirit and intent of this Convention. The time has come for this Convention, in line with Article 39, to decide which institutional structure will be designated in accordance with Article 21. Article 39 designates the Global Environment Facility as the interim institutional structure until the Conference of the Parties decides on a permanent structure in line with Article 21. Madam Chair, we can no longer delay this decision. While we are not against any existing financial instruments, including the GEF, they can continue to play a complementary role in closing the biodiversity finance gap.

Our message is straightforward: let us decide at this COP 16.2 to establish a dedicated financial mechanism, commission an intersessional process to define the modalities, and finally decide on the global coordinating entity. This coordinating role can be fulfilled by any financial instrument that meets the criteria defined during the intersessional period.

From South Africa’s perspective, it is extremely important that the funding architecture, whether existing or new, adheres to the criteria, modalities, and terms of reference adopted by the COP. South Africa is hopeful that a compromise can be reached by the Parties through transparent engagements conducted in good faith.

I thank you.