Delegates also approved a new program of work and institutional arrangements concerning Indigenous peoples and local communities. The decision marks an important step in a process that began at COP16.
Representation Battles and the Limits of an Advisory Mandate
The main institutional dispute during COP17 concerned how Indigenous peoples would be represented within the new body. Delegations debated the selection of representatives from seven sociocultural regions and their participation in its leadership. The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) argued that representatives should be selected through Indigenous governance structures and established regional processes.
Administrative requirements could exclude established community organizations from international negotiations. The disagreement reflects a broader institutional challenge.
The subsidiary body has an advisory mandate.
Territorial Rights and the Financial Realities of 2030 Targets
Three of its 23 targets connect conservation directly to Indigenous rights. It also requires recognition of Indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights.
Financing presents another challenge. The global biodiversity framework faces an estimated annual funding gap of US$700 billion. This is the overall financing shortfall for biodiversity protection, not the budget of the new Indigenous body.
Colombia’s Push From Cali to Yerevan
Colombia brought the issue back into the international discussion in Yerevan. The delegation also called for sufficient, predictable and accessible financing.
COP17 has now moved the Cali agreement from an unfinished institutional proposal to an operational framework.
