Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Interview with Kaveh Zahedi, Director of the FAO Office of Climate, Biodiversity and Environment
Rome - Unfinished biodiversity negotiations are back on the table. After a groundbreaking session in Cali, Colombia, delegations are reconvening in Rome to tackle unfinished business that will be critical for biodiversity action – with transforming agrifood systems emerging as a central element for global success.
The resumed session of the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) will take place at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) headquarters in Rome from 25–27 February 2025.
For FAO, this conference is a pivotal opportunity to emphasize a vital message: transforming our agrifood systems is not just beneficial, it is indispensable for safeguarding global biodiversity.
To understand this and other critical issues at stake in these extended negotiations, FAO Newsroom spoke with Kaveh Zahedi, Director of FAO’s Office for Climate, Biodiversity and Environment.
Why is biodiversity important for food security and transforming agrifood systems?
Biodiversity is absolutely fundamental to food security and the transformation of our agrifood systems. Think of it this way: our ability to produce food sustainably, ensuring everyone has enough to eat now and in the future, is built directly on the foundation of biodiversity.
Agrifood sectors – whether we're talking about crops, livestock, forestry, or fisheries – are inherently reliant on biodiversity. First and foremost, biodiversity is the source of the many species we directly use for food, fuel, and fiber. In other words, from the variety of crops we cultivate and the livestock we raise, to the trees that provide timber and the fish we catch, all of this originates from the diversity of life on Earth.
Beyond the species we directly harvest, biodiversity also encompasses the countless other species that play essential, often unseen, roles in making our food systems work. The thing is, these are the species that power vital ecosystem functions and services. Take pollinators, for example – bees, butterflies, and other insects are crucial for the reproduction of many crops, directly boosting our yields. Then there are the natural enemies of pests, which help regulate populations and reduce our reliance on harmful pesticides. Not to mention healthy soils, teeming with diverse microorganisms that are essential for nutrient cycling and plant growth. Even the oxygen we breathe and the clean water we use for agriculture are ultimately linked to biodiversity. And when it comes to fisheries, biodiversity provides food and habitats for the fish species we harvest.
Then, genetic diversity within species is also a critical component of biodiversity for food security. This genetic variation is what allows crops and livestock to adapt to changing environments, resist diseases, and evolve to meet our needs. Maintaining this genetic diversity is crucial for building resilient agrifood systems that can withstand future challenges, including climate change and emerging pests and diseases.
Ultimately, none of these elements operates independently. Diverse and healthy ecosystems—such as forests, mangroves, rangelands, seagrass beds, savannahs, and oceans—provide habitats, regulate climate and water, purify the air, and support the myriad species upon which we rely for food and nutrition, whether from agriculture, forestry, fisheries, or aquaculture.
In essence, biodiversity underpins the very productivity, resilience, and sustainability of our agrifood systems, making it indispensable for long-term food security.
What is at stake in Rome, and what is FAO’s role in it?
Essentially, this is the global community’s opportunity to set course for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the years to come not just in a global context, but at the national and local level.
This meeting is about securing the financial bedrock needed to bring the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) to life. We're talking about mobilizing $200 billion each year by 2030 – the minimum investment required to truly shift the trajectory for biodiversity. Equally vital is bending the curve on harmful incentives, aiming to reduce them by $500 billion annually. Put simply, these represent the scale of resources necessary to protect the natural systems that underpin all life.
Countries must finalize critical components: the resource mobilization strategy itself, the operational financial mechanism to channel funds where they are most needed, and the KMGBF monitoring framework – in other words, the compass that will guide our progress and ensure accountability.
Biodiversity is the source of the many species we directly use for food, fuel, and fiber. ©FAO/Felipe Rodriguez
A key point of discussion is the financial mechanism and the role of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). With the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund emerging as a vital instrument for helping countries move towards sustainable use of biodiversity and sustainable agriculture, we will be watching the discussions closely to ensure we fully leverage our GEF operations. For FAO, this matters because the outcomes will have direct implications for how we can support nations to access much needed finance for their biodiversity efforts.
What important aspects related to agrifood systems remain unresolved and are now pending in these resumed negotiations?
To effectively implement the KMGBF, countries will be working to finalize the tools for measuring progress against its 23 targets – a crucial step for all Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). FAO is deeply invested in these negotiations and play a central role in supporting this vital monitoring framework, being the custodian of over 25 indicators included in the monitoring framework.
The decision on the monitoring framework – which contains many elements - is still being discussed. A key element for FAO is the proposed new Headline Indicator 22.1 on land tenure and land cover. It is designed to measure progress effectively by reflecting the crucial link between secure land rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities and the health of ecosystems, with FAO as the intended custodian.
FAO is also involved in discussions about how to measure progress on reducing risks from pesticides – something that responds to the KMGBF Target 7. Countries are trying to agree on the best way to track if we're actually reducing these risks. There are different ideas on the table: one is to measure "pesticide environment concentration" – basically, how much pesticide is ending up in nature. Another idea is to look at "aggregated total applied toxicity" (ATAT) – which is more about measuring the overall harmfulness of the pesticides we use. This decision will shape how FAO can help countries reduce pesticide risks and protect biodiversity in agriculture.
Beyond technical contributions, FAO is fostering vital collaborations with other conventions and international bodies. Why does this matter? Because a coordinated approach is essential to weave biodiversity considerations into the fabric of all relevant sectors.
Other key discussions for us in Rome include a potential invitation to prepare a draft action plan for the International Initiative on Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition. Also at stake is a request to the governing bodies of the chemicals and waste conventions, FAO and others, to collaborate with the three Rio Conventions and the future legally binding instrument on plastic pollution to achieve Target 7 of the KMGBF (To reduce pollution to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity).
Although the COP left some issues pending many seem to see Cali as a success. Was that the case?
From the elevation of the role of indigenous people and communities to agreement on digital sequencing information, COP16 has already been a success. Notably, there was a historic commitment to the rights and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. This included establishing a subsidiary body focused on Article 8(j) of the Convention, which deals with Indigenous and local communities, and a decision recognizing the role of people of African descent. FAO also announced its commitment to supporting Indigenous-led actions for biodiversity conservation, including launching biocentric restoration plans in Costa Rica and Peru.
COP16 also adopted a decision on Digital Sequence Information (DSI). Put simply, DSI refers to the genetic information of plants, animals, and microbes that is stored in digital form. Think of it as the blueprint of life, but in computer code. The agreement in Cali focused on how to operationalize a multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism related to the use of this digital genetic information. This ties into the Cali Fund, which aims to mobilize resources to support biodiversity conservation and fairly reward those who are custodians of biodiversity.
What is maybe recognized less is that COP16 in Cali was key for governments to take stock of where they are with setting national targets for biodiversity. A big message coming out of Cali was that protecting biodiversity is not separate from other global challenges – it's all connected to tackling climate issues, making sure we have enough food and good nutrition, and building strong and adaptable agrifood systems.
Food Day event at COP16 in Cali Colombia.
The discussions emphasized that we need joined-up solutions across different international agreements, and that we need to boost financial and technical support, making sure all of this is built into countries' national plans. This means really scaling up effective solutions for our agrifood systems through good policies, new ideas, and technologies, and importantly, making sure these reach small farmers and producers in a fair and inclusive way that considers everyone.
Any highlights from FAO’s engagement at COP16 in Cali?
One of the main things that we highlighted in Cali was our ongoing technical assistance to countries in developing and implementing their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, or NBSAPs. These NBSAPs are really important because they are the main way countries are planning to put biodiversity considerations into their policies and actions, including in food and agriculture. With the ambition and scale of the KMGBF, the NBSAPs need to go well beyond conservation plans and truly reflect the opportunities and potential of sustainable use of biodiversity.
This was the core message FAO presented at over 75 events throughout the conference. For example, key events included Food Day and a well-attended Ministerial event where, together with the CBD Secretariat and the Colombian government, we launched the Agri-NBSAPs Support Initiative. The initiative aims to help countries accelerate the integration of biodiversity into their agrifood systems to achieve the goals of the KMGF. Specifically, it provides targeted support to governments in their efforts to identify and implement actions in agrifood systems that will enable them to meet the biodiversity commitments outlined in their NBSAPs.
Bees, butterflies, and other insects are crucial for the reproduction of many crops, directly boosting yields.
Our engagement also included providing technical advice to country delegations during the actual negotiations, representing FAO in various forums, and holding numerous bilateral meetings with country representatives and partner organizations.
Overall, we consistently emphasized that agrifood systems are integral to the KMGBF, directly or indirectly being related to all 23 of its targets. Therefore, the active participation of agrifood system stakeholders – including producers, smallholders, consumers, youth and so many others – is crucial in determining the success of the KMGBF.
What is next?
For the KMGBF, it's all about moving from agreement to action. With the monitoring framework taking shape, and countries having mostly set their national targets, the real next step is implementation. For FAO, this means focusing on supporting countries to implement their NBSAPs fully in alignment with the ambition of the KMGBF. We are already helping countries access the resources available, like the Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF), for which FAO just supported 23 project proposals.
As mentioned, agrifood systems are integral to the KMGBF, directly or indirectly being related to all 23 of its targets. A key priority for FAO is making sure that agrifood solutions to biodiversity loss are really embedded in countries' strategies, action plans, and national targets. This is not just about ticking boxes; it's about ensuring this translates into real policy changes on the ground that promote biodiversity-friendly agriculture. To help countries with all of this, as I mentioned, we have the Agri-NBSAPs Support Initiative.
Looking at the bigger picture, the real challenge now is closing the gap between ambition and actual implementation. We've got these fantastic global goals, but the hard work is in making them a reality on the ground, to truly conserve the incredible diversity of life on Earth and the habitats we all depend on.
COP15 in Kunming and Montreal was a landmark moment, with countries agreeing on 23 targets for 2030 and four broader goals for 2050. Crucially, global leaders recognized the central role of sustainably using biodiversity, including through agriculture. Cali was about turning this ambition into concrete plans, and in Rome, we need to concentrate on finalizing the decisions that will propel us forward.
