Half of nations have met a UN deadline to report on how they are tackling nature loss within their borders, Carbon Brief analysis shows.

This includes 11 of the 17 “megadiverse nations”, countries that account for 70% of Earth’s biodiversity.

It also includes all of the G7 nations apart from the US, which is not part of the world’s nature treaty.

All 196 countries that are part of the UN biodiversity treaty were due to submit their seventh “national reports” by 28 February, of which 98 have done so.

Their submissions are supposed to provide key information for an upcoming global report on actions to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, in addition to a global review of progress due to be conducted by countries at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia in October this year.

At biodiversity talks in Rome in February, UN officials said that national reports submitted late will not be included in the global report due to a lack of time, but could still be considered in the global review.

Tracking nature action

In 2022, nations signed a landmark deal to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, known as the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF).

In an effort to make sure countries take action at the domestic level, the GBF included an “implementation schedule”, involving the publishing of new national plans in 2024 and new national reports in 2026.

The two sets of documents were to inform both a global report and a global review, to be conducted by countries at COP17 in Armenia later this year. (This schedule mirrors the one set out for tackling climate change under the Paris Agreement.)

The deadline for nations’ seventh national reports, which contain information on their progress towards meeting the 23 targets of the GBF based on a set of key indicators, was 28 February 2026.

According to Carbon Brief’s analysis of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s online reporting platform, 98 out of the 196 countries that are part of the nature convention (50%) submitted on time.

The map below shows countries that submitted their seventh national reports by the UN’s deadline.

This includes 11 of the 17 “megadiverse nations” that account for 70% of Earth’s biodiversity.

The megadiverse nations to meet the deadline were India, Venezuela, Indonesia, Madagascar, Peru, Malaysia, South Africa, Colombia, Mexico, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Australia.

It also includes all of the G7 nations (France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Italy and Canada), excluding the US, which has never ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The UK’s seventh national report shows that it is currently on track to meet just three of the GBF’s 23 targets.

This is according to a LinkedIn post from Dr David Cooper, former executive secretary of the CBD and current chair of the UK’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which coordinated the UK’s seventh national report,

The report shows the UK is not on track to meet one of the headline targets of the GBF, which is to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030.

It reports that the proportion of land protected for nature is 7% in England, 18% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland. (The figure is not given for Wales.)

National plans

In addition to the national reports, the upcoming global report and review will draw on countries’ national plans.

Countries were meant to have submitted their new national plans, known as “national biodiversity strategies and action plans” (NBSAPs), by the start of COP16 in October 2024.

A joint investigation by Carbon Brief and the Guardian found that only 15% of member countries met that deadline.

Since then, the percentage of countries that have submitted a new NBSAP has risen to 39%.

According to the GBF and its underlying documents, countries that were “not in a position” to meet the deadline to submit NBSAPs ahead of COP16 were requested to instead submit national targets. These submissions simply list biodiversity targets that countries will aim for, without an accompanying plan for how they will be achieved.

As of 2 March, 78% of nations had submitted national targets.

At biodiversity talks in Rome in February, UN officials said that national reports submitted late will not be included in the global report due to a lack of time, but could still be considered in the global review.

Funding ‘delays’

At the Rome talks, some countries raised that they had faced “difficulties in submitting [their national reports] on time”, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Speaking on behalf of “many” countries, Fiji said that there had been “technical and financial constraints faced by parties” in the preparation of their seventh national reports.

In a statement to Carbon Brief, a spokesperson for the Global Environment Facility, the body in charge of providing financial and technical assistance to countries for the preparation of their national reports, said “delays in fund disbursement have occurred in some cases”, adding:

“In 2023, the GEF council approved support for the development of NBSAPs and the seventh national reports for all 139 eligible countries that requested assistance. This includes national grants of up to $450,000 per country and $6m in global technical assistance delivered through the UN Development Programme and UN Environment Programme.

“As of the end of January 2026, all 139 participating countries had benefited from technical assistance and 93% had accessed their national grants, with 11 countries yet to receive their funds. Delays in fund disbursement have occurred in some cases, compounded by procurement challenges and limited availability of technical expertise.”

The spokesperson added that the fund will “continue to engage closely with agencies and countries to support timely completion of NBSAPs and the seventh national reports”.

Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change

Nature policy

|

16.01.26

‘Cali Fund’ aiming to raise billions for nature receives first donation – of just $1,000

International policy

|

12.12.25

COP30: Key outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at the UN climate talks in Belém

COP30 Belém

|

26.11.25

COP30: Could Brazil’s ‘Tropical Forest Forever’ fund help tackle climate change?

COP30 Belém

|

05.11.25

The post Analysis: Half of nations meet UN deadline for nature-loss reporting appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Analysis: Half of nations meet UN deadline for nature-loss reporting

As Democrats and climate activists seize on energy costs as a political issue, new data shows electricity rates rose 5 percent nationwide in 2025. The figures were much higher in some states.

By Dan Gearino, Marianne Lavelle

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Protestors stood in the snow outside the offices of Ohio’s utility regulator in January to say they were fed up with rising electricity rates.

Why Electricity Bills Are So High—and How the Blowback Could Hit Trump

Mohamed Okash is the Founding Director of the Institute of Climate and Environment at SIMAD University in Somalia.

A recent report by the African Finance Corp. suggests that Africa holds an approximate $29.5 trillion in mineral wealth. It is little wonder then that the continent is once again being courted for what lies beneath its soil.

For Africa, this moment feels both familiar — and fraught. Indeed, the stakes are not only about minerals; they are about whether a continent with the world’s youngest population will be shaped by decisions made elsewhere, or finally assert control over how its future is built.

It is time for African policymakers, political leaders, and regional institutions to treat minerals not merely as export commodities, but as strategic bargaining tools.

From cobalt and lithium to the rare earth minerals powering electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and modern defence technologies, global powers are racing to secure the resources they believe will define the next century.

In this context, Africa has a strategic advantage. The continent holds an estimated 30% of the world’s critical mineral reserves, including over 55% of global cobalt, around 44% of global manganese, significant shares of platinum-group metals, and fast-growing lithium discoveries in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Ghana and others. Despite this endowment, Africa only captures less than 1% of global mineral value addition.

A regional approach to value addition

To turn this tide, African policymakers, political leaders, and regional institutions must be intentional about the terms under which these resources leave the continent.

One practical step would be adopting common beneficiation thresholds, requiring that certain minerals not be exported in raw form, but only after reaching a defined level of domestic processing, such as concentration, refining, or precursor production. Instead of shipping unprocessed lithium ore or cobalt concentrate abroad, for example, governments could require some level of upgrading at home.

A handful of African nations have already taken such measures.

In 2023, Namibia banned exports of unprocessed lithium and other critical minerals to encourage local beneficiation. That same year, Ghana announced a lithium agreement that also included provisions for local value addition and state participation, signalling that raw mineral exports will not define its long-term strategy. And just last week, Zimbabwe suspended exports of lithium concentrates and all raw minerals. The government framed the move as a way to compel domestic processing and downstream investment rather than continued raw export dependency.

In addition, the African Union has been pushing toward a more coordinated regional approach to minerals through its African Mining Vision. Fully implementing such an approach would not only strengthen the continent’s bargaining power but prevent companies from simply shifting operations to the country offering the weakest standards.

Mineral revenues can help fund climate plans

Of course, export restrictions alone are not a silver bullet. They work best when backed by clear regulation, reliable energy supply, infrastructure investment, and regional coordination.

Aligning mineral policy with energy, climate, and industrial strategies is equally important. That means linking mining licenses to renewable energy investment consistent with the Paris Agreement, directing mineral revenues into long-term industrial or green transformation funds rather than short-term budget fixes, and using frameworks such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to build cross-border value chains. Strong transparency standards under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) can further strengthen public trust and fiscal stability.

Critical minerals give Africa a real chance to move beyond aid-dependent development and invest in growth driven from within. Managed well, they can help finance locally led transformation, creating jobs, building industries, and strengthening economic resilience.

A different model with young people at the table

This debate cannot be confined to boardrooms and foreign capitals, however. Africa has one of the youngest populations on Earth, yet for many young people, the future is not guaranteed, shaped by persistent poverty, inequality, conflict, and accelerating climate shocks that erode livelihoods and public trust.

Young people must have a seat at the table. And they are already making their voices heard; speaking boldly about the future they want, sparking public conversation through entrepreneurship, organising, research, art, and policy advocacy. Indeed, the mineral agreements signed today will determine whether this generation inherits jobs and dignity, or deeper vulnerability and unfinished promises.

Africa’s future should not be secured by the goodwill of external partners, nor by repeating extractive bargains dressed up as development. It should be shaped by African leaders who choose value creation over raw export, and long-term sovereignty over short-term gain.

In a world marked by climate change and growing geopolitical rivalry, Africa has something few others possess: the resources, the market, and the moral claim to insist on a different model.

If that mineral wealth is governed with the right policies, transparency, and foresight, it can anchor green industrialisation, expand opportunity for a rising generation, and reposition Africa not as a prize in a new scramble, but as a decisive architect of a more just and sustainable global order.

The post Africa’s mineral wealth can make it an architect of a more just energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Africa’s mineral wealth can make it an architect of a more just energy transition