Oscar Soria, a representative of the Common Initiative, described it as a one-of-a-kind funding system. However, he expressed concerns about its voluntary nature, stating that the success of the mechanism will largely hinge on global community support and corporate recognition of the reputational benefits that come with participation.

Other noteworthy developments include the establishment of a subsidiary body to ensure the involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities in the biodiversity framework agreed upon in Montreal in 2022. Additionally, there was acknowledgment of African-descent peoples as guardians of biodiversity.

A consensus was also reached on a text that draws a connection between biodiversity loss and climate change. Susana Muhamad, President of COP16, underscored this as a crucial point ahead of the COP29 climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, later this month. Furthermore, it was decided that Armenia would host the next meeting, COP17, in 2026.

However, no consensus was reached concerning the establishment of a new fund. As the day progressed and delegates started to depart for their homeward flights, it was evident that time was not on their side.

In the debate between the Global North and Global South, several nations including the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland opposed the proposition to establish a dedicated fund for nature restoration in less affluent countries. They argued that this would only complicate the funding landscape without necessarily generating new funds.

The EU delegation argued that setting up a special fund would not necessarily lead to increased donations from countries. They expressed their resistance to the creation of a new fund, arguing that it would only add to the fragmentation of the financial landscape related to biodiversity.