As COP 16 concludes in Cali, Colombia, its outcomes and dynamics have left a mixed legacy. While notable guidelines on managing invasive alien species, inclusion frameworks for Indigenous communities, and benefit-sharing mechanisms for digital genetic information have been established, these accomplishments were accompanied by complex power dynamics and limited transparency. With critical discussions increasingly moving behind closed doors, trust between negotiating parties diminished, particularly on contentious issues like Digital Sequence Information (DSI), which raises concerns about sovereignty and economic value. India’s notable launch of its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) marked a high point for the country, positioning it among the first nations to align with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. However, a lack of acknowledgment regarding controversial development plans for Nicobar Island and Forest Rule Amendments of 2023 highlighted tensions between conservation priorities and economic ambitions. Shifts in the institutions leading NBSAP development—from national entities to international organizations—have sparked discussions about the value of local expertise in biodiversity planning. The Biodiversity Credits framework also sparked contention, as civil society groups, Indigenous communities, and organizations voiced concerns over the limited recognition of local stewardship. While this framework, championed by the EU and other global actors, seeks to incentivize corporate sustainability efforts, the financial mechanisms lack meaningful benefits for communities whose traditional practices safeguard biodiversity. As the outcomes of COP 16 are reviewed, the conference is both a reminder of progress and a call for accountability. Moving forward, implementing these agreements will require greater transparency, collaboration, and respect for all stakeholders, especially Indigenous and local communities, whose roles are essential to conserving global biodiversity.