Connect with us

Published

on

Steve Edwards is head of biodiversity at South Pole. 

The 16th United Nations Biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Colombia late last year underscored an urgent truth: global efforts to halt biodiversity loss remain inadequate. 

While many hoped the event would catalyse clear and enforceable pathways for nature protection, the outcomes fell short, marked by vague targets and limited accountability.

This presents a critical challenge – but also an opportunity for businesses to step forward.  

The upcoming COP16 intersessional meeting in February – or as I’m calling it, COP16 2.0 – offers a chance to readdress the urgent financial gaps to protect nature and provide businesses with the tools they need to enable biodiversity markets and drive meaningful action. 

Colombia’s COP16 presidency in suspense as minister resigns

Supporting early movers

Encouragingly, at COP16 there was a growing presence of private-sector participants and a deepening awareness of the challenges we face in “bending the curve of nature loss”.  

These early movers – those that are choosing to go above and beyond regulatory requirements because they recognise the value of staying ahead – hold the power to shape the trajectory of global climate and biodiversity markets.  

Industries with agriculture–based value chains like food, packaging and even the mining sector are really stepping up, conducting risk assessments and preparing for the future. 

But sectors like fast fashion and technology, including data centres, should follow suit, given their significant environmental footprints and capacity to drive change. 

By being among the first to adopt new frameworks, finance mechanisms like biodiversity credits, or influence policies, these early movers set crucial precedents and prove what’s both possible and scalable.  

Their leadership isn’t just forward-thinking, it’s essential. They deserve support during COP16 2.0 in Rome this month to amplify their impact and inspire broader action. 

Biodiversity market takes off at COP16, in shadow of carbon credit chaos

Public-private working group

To bridge the gap between ambition and action, I believe we need a dedicated accelerator working group to connect governments, companies and project developers.  

Such a working group would better understand priorities and align regulatory ambitions with market needs, ensuring a pipeline of viable nature projects. This way, supply can more easily meet demand and corporates will be encouraged to do more. 

In short, ongoing collaboration – not delayed discussions at future conferences – is essential to make this work. 

Business and biodiversity summit held on the sidelines of COP16 in Cali, on 17 October, 2024.
Business and biodiversity summit held on the sidelines of COP16 in Cali, on 17 October, 2024. (Photo: UN Biodiversity)

De-risking strategy for businesses

Corporate action is indispensable. While halting biodiversity loss requires $700 billion annually, the funding shortfall of up to $500 billion cannot be addressed by governments alone. Private sector contributions, currently less than 10% of global biodiversity finance, could grow to $200–$300 billion annually by 2030. 

For businesses, investing in nature isn’t just altruistic; it mitigates financial risk and boosts resilience. 

The European Central Bank found that 72% of companies in the Eurozone are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service to produce their goods or provide their services, and this year’s seminal Global Risks Report, produced by the World Economic Forum, listed biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as the biggest risks we face today and in the next decade.  

There is increasing awareness that acting on biodiversity today represents a forward-looking de-risking strategy for both corporates and governments. By aligning with science-based targets and disclosure requirements, companies enhance their appeal to regulators, investors and customers alike.  

COP16 hands power to Indigenous people but fails to bridge nature finance gap

Building “nature market” readiness 

An area where early movers can best focus their efforts is through building “nature market readiness” in countries that are eager to spur biodiversity credits. 

This includes England and France, through their collaboration with the International Advisory Panel for Biodiversity Credits, as well as recent expressions of interest from Colombia, Australia and Finland to build on these efforts. 

It may be surprising that renowned ”biodiversity hotspots” like in Brazil, Indonesia and parts of Africa are not driving the development of global biodiversity markets. But OECD countries are, I believe, better positioned to drive the early stages of these markets. Stronger governance systems and clearer land ownership, for example, make it easier to roll out projects and set the foundation for market development. 

Overcoming market readiness barriers – policy uncertainty, capacity gaps and access to data – will surely accelerate biodiversity market growth.  

Efforts must include collaborating with landowners and local communities to establish expectations and technical guidelines, working with financial institutions to develop long-term investment tools and equipping local planning authorities to engage with national and international stakeholders.

Rome must be decisive

The question is no longer whether we can afford to support and protect nature efforts but whether we can afford not to. Biodiversity underpins our economies, ecosystems and future. It’s time we treated it as such.

COP16 2.0 in February gathers the world’s governments once again, presenting a pivotal opportunity to move from rhetoric to action. To seize it, they must shift focus to practical solutions: empowering early movers, establishing frameworks for biodiversity credits and fostering market readiness. 

The post How COP16 2.0 can unlock business investment to properly fund nature appeared first on Climate Home News.

How COP16 2.0 can unlock business investment to properly fund nature

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.

      The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.

      Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.

      But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.

      Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.

      The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.

      In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).

      Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.

      A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.

      Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.