Nations Remain Far from Agreement on Health Provisions in Biodiversity Plans as UN Summit in Cali Reaches Midpoint

As the UN biodiversity summit COP16 unfolds in Cali, Colombia, the urgency of addressing the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and human health has never been clearer. Delegates from nearly 200 countries are grappling with the complexities of integrating health provisions into national biodiversity strategies. A recent analysis by Health Policy Watch of 35 national biodiversity plans reveals that while all but two countries—Mexico and Jordan—have linked environmental protection with human health, a staggering 82% of nations have failed to meet UN submission deadlines. This raises serious questions about the global commitment to the 2022 Montreal biodiversity deal.

The Call for a Holistic Approach

Midway through the summit, UN Environment chief Inger Andersen emphasized the critical need for a unified approach that recognizes the interdependence of human health and the health of the planet. “Our health cannot be separated from the health of the planet and its many species,” she stated, urging delegates to adopt the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health. This plan aims to align conservation efforts with human health priorities, a necessity as nations navigate the implementation of the landmark 2022 Montreal biodiversity treaty.

The proposed framework seeks to enhance the 2022 Kunming-Montreal biodiversity agreement, which committed 197 nations to protect 30% of Earth’s land and seas by 2030. However, it leaves crucial health provisions largely undefined, creating a significant gap in the global strategy for biodiversity protection.

Voluntary Framework with Critical Implications

While the Convention on Biodiversity is legally binding, the proposed health framework is intended as a voluntary roadmap for nations. It advocates for health impact assessments in land-use planning, disease surveillance in areas experiencing rapid habitat loss, and stricter regulations on wildlife trade. Experts argue that these measures are essential to prevent the transmission of pathogens from wild animals to human populations and food markets.

Moreover, the framework highlights the importance of protecting genetic resources vital for the development of new medicines and ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to the health benefits provided by nature. This push for a comprehensive health framework comes amid ongoing debates at the summit regarding countries’ rights to demand “benefit sharing” when genetic resources are utilized in drug development—a contentious issue that nearly derailed the 2022 Montreal agreement.

Divergent National Strategies and Regional Priorities

The biodiversity plans submitted by nations reflect a wide range of approaches and priorities. Of the 35 plans submitted, Western Europe leads with 13, followed by Asia-Pacific with 10, Africa with 5, Latin America with 4, and Eastern Europe with 3. The analysis indicates that while most countries recognize the link between biodiversity and health, the specifics of their strategies vary significantly.

For instance, European Union members emphasize a comprehensive “one health” approach that integrates human, animal, and environmental welfare, focusing on pesticide and chemical pollution regulation. In contrast, Colombia’s strategy highlights health impacts from extractive industries, particularly mercury contamination from mining. Meanwhile, countries like China and South Korea make only cursory references to health, mentioning urban green spaces’ benefits for respiratory and mental health.

The Stakes of Biodiversity Loss

The urgency of these discussions is underscored by research linking biodiversity loss to public health crises. Scientists have documented an alarming trend of two virus spillovers to humans annually over the past century, culminating in the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization projects that climate change could lead to an additional 250,000 deaths annually between 2030 and 2050, while antimicrobial resistance already claims 1.4 million lives each year. Environmental degradation could result in 39 million deaths from 2025 to 2050.

In this context, the proposed health framework, despite its voluntary nature, sets higher standards than current national plans. Andersen’s assertion that “from the air we breathe to the water we drink, our health is tied to the health of the planet” encapsulates the critical need for a cohesive strategy that prioritizes both biodiversity and human health.

Tensions and Divisions at COP16

The Biodiversity-Health framework has emerged as one of the most contentious documents at COP16, with 54 bracketed sections indicating deep divisions among nations. Key points of contention include the classification of improperly disposed antibiotic waste as “pollution” and the sharing of benefits from genetic resources. Developing nations are advocating for stronger commitments on technology transfer, while wealthier countries are pushing for voluntary measures.

Another significant sticking point is the inclusion of “derivatives” and “subsequent applications and commercialization” in benefit-sharing agreements. This determination could dictate whether companies are required to share profits from new products developed based on initial discoveries, a crucial aspect of ensuring equitable access to the benefits of biodiversity.

The Road Ahead: A Call for Action

As COP16 progresses, the lack of submissions from many nations raises concerns about the global commitment to biodiversity protection. Of the 17 nations hosting 70% of Earth’s biodiversity, only five have filed plans. The Amazon region is represented solely by Suriname, with no submissions from Congo Basin nations. The G7 economic powers have also shown limited participation, with only Canada, Italy, France, and Japan meeting the deadline.

Despite these challenges, UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker remains optimistic, stating that while the start may be slow, the work is underway. “Whether the deadline itself is met on the dot is not what I think we’re really looking at,” she noted, emphasizing the importance of ongoing efforts to protect biodiversity.

Conclusion

As the UN biodiversity summit reaches its midpoint, the need for a cohesive and actionable framework that integrates health provisions into biodiversity plans is more pressing than ever. The interconnectedness of human health and the health of our planet demands a unified response from nations worldwide. The decisions made in Cali will have far-reaching implications for both biodiversity and public health, underscoring the urgent need for collaboration and commitment to a sustainable future.