The UK will need to almost double the climate finance it gives for nature conservation annually in order to meet one of its flagship international targets, according to Carbon Brief analysis of data released under freedom of information (FOI) rules.
As part of the UK’s pledge to provide £11.6bn of climate aid between 2021 and 2026, the previous Conservative government promised that £3bn of this money would be used to protect nature and, specifically, £1.5bn of that would be for forests.
A series of FOI requests and additional analysis by Carbon Brief reveal that the UK spent an average of around £450m each year on nature for the first three years of the commitment.
This will need to rise to more than £800m a year for the next two years to hit the target, amounting to nearly £1.7bn by 2026.
The new Labour government has made much of the “fiscal constraints” it is facing in office. Years of cuts to the foreign aid budget under the Conservatives have threatened the UK’s climate finance targets.
Senior Labour ministers, including foreign secretary David Lammy in a speech last week, have said they will stick to the £11.6bn goal. However, so far, they have not committed to the sub-goals set by their predecessors. When asked by Carbon Brief, the government did not confirm if the sub-goals would be honoured.
In the FOI responses, the government said it would “consider all spending plans inherited from the last government” as it undertook its spending review, which is set to conclude in spring next year.
Nature and forests
In 2019, the Conservative government led by Boris Johnson committed to spending £11.6bn on climate finance between 2021-22 and 2025-26. This is the UK share of the annual $100bn that developed countries agreed to give to developing countries from 2020.
At the start of 2021, the same government pledged to spend £3bn of the £11.6bn goal on “climate change solutions that protect and restore nature and biodiversity”. It said the money would support various projects, including marine conservation, tackling the illegal timber trade and conserving mangroves.
Later that year, as the UK hosted the COP26 climate summit, the government announced that £1.5bn of its climate finance – half of the £3bn nature target – would specifically support efforts to “halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation”.
This funding was part of the “global forest finance pledge”, which, in turn, was a significant announcement at COP26, where the UK had centred nature as one of its key themes.
These sub-goals have received less attention than the overarching £11.6bn target, which came under pressure during Rishi Sunak’s leadership. Notably, Sunak’s government changed the rules for calculating climate finance, making it easier for the UK to meet its goals.
Nevertheless, the Conservative government had retained its commitment to nature and forests, telling the Environment Audit Committee earlier this year, while still in power, that it “remained steadfast” in its commitment to the forest target.
Scaling up
Three years into the five years covered by its climate finance pledge, the UK has provided £1.34bn of climate finance for nature, of which £590m has gone to forest projects, according to Carbon Brief’s figures.
This means the UK has met around 45% of each sub-target, with only two years remaining to make up the remainder.
To meet these targets, the UK would, therefore, have to accelerate its spending on nature and forests in order to provide the remaining 55% in two years.
As the chart below shows, nature funding has steadily increased since the target was set in 2021 – a trend that would need to continue over the next two years in order to meet the goal.
This is in line with broader spending to meet UK climate finance targets, which tends to be “backloaded”, with more spending towards the end of each five-year period.
The UK provided, on average, £448m of nature finance each year from 2021, and needs to raise this to £828m, on average, in each of the periods 2024-25 and 2025-26 to reach £3bn.

A large chunk of nature funding given to date is money that the government has paid into large international funds, particularly the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Reasoning that the GCF supports nature-related activities, the government has been marking 40% of its GCF contributions as nature finance – accounting for around a quarter of the total nature finance over the past three years.
Other big recipients so far include a project working with forest communities in Colombia, efforts to address water scarcity in the Middle East and international initiatives based on “public-private partnerships” and “market reforms” to avert deforestation.
As for forests specifically, climate finance for them has also increased. The UK has provided, on average, £222m each year, and needs to raise this to £417m, on average, in each of the periods 2024-25 and 2025-26 to hit its £1.5bn pledge.

These figures are based predominantly on FOI responses from the three major departments responsible for the UK’s overseas climate-related development projects: the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO); the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).
Earlier this month, Carbon Brief obtained FOI responses with figures for DESNZ and Defra covering all three years from 2021-22 to 2023-24.
Defra noted that its figures for 2023-24 were “provisional as they have not been finalised”. Separately, DESNZ also provided some additional numbers for payments into international funds that were not included in the original FOI response.
The figures for FCDO 2021-22 and 2022-23 come from another FOI response, provided in March of this year, and not including 2023-24 data. Carbon Brief understands that the figures for FCDO in 2023-24 have not yet been finalised within the department.
The 2023-24 FCDO figures are, therefore, estimates, based on Carbon Brief analysis of all UK-backed climate finance projects provided in another FOI request earlier this year. (Carbon Brief calculated the share of climate finance the government deemed relevant for nature and forests in projects that are known to count towards these sub-goals.)
This means the FCDO figure for 2023-24 will not include any new nature projects that started in that year. Also, in some cases, the share of nature funding from each project may change from year to year, which would affect the final numbers. (It is worth noting that project shares for nature tended to remain very stable between 2021-22 and 2022-23.)
‘Difficult choices’
Senior ministers including net-zero secretary Ed Miliband and foreign secretary David Lammy have said the UK remains committed to the £11.6bn goal under Labour.
In a speech delivered last week at Kew Gardens in London, Lammy emphasised the UK’s role in providing climate aid to developing countries and said “we must unlock much, much more climate and nature finance”.
However, he also said that his government was operating during “times of fiscal constraint” and alluded to the difficulty of achieving the UK’s existing climate finance goals:
“The reality is that the British contribution to this [$100bn climate finance] target was a promise which the Tories casually made, but for which they did not have a plan. In contrast, my focus is on how we can actually deliver that promise, given the dire financial inheritance from the last government. Ahead of the spending review, we’re carefully reviewing our plans to do so.”
Lammy appeared to leave some flexibility for the government by emphasising that climate finance commitments were in the hands of the Treasury. In a response to an audience question, he added:
“Meeting the £11.6bn remains our ambition as we undertake the spending review, and we’ll consider all of those spending plans, and it’s important that I and others in government continue to make the case, as [chancellor] Rachel Reeves makes those difficult choices.”
As part of its FOI requests, Carbon Brief specifically asked if the government intended to retain the nature and forests sub-goals within the broader £11.6bn target. The government response stated:
“Meeting the £11.6bn remains our ambition as we undertake the spending review, which will consider all spending plans inherited from the last government.”
Climate and nature campaigners tell Carbon Brief that they were pleased to see Lammy prioritising international climate action. “It is really encouraging to see the new UK government willing to play a leading role on climate and nature globally,” says Clement Metivier, acting head of international advocacy at WWF-UK.
With nations gathering at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, later this year to discuss a new global climate finance target, Harry Camilleri, a climate diplomacy and geopolitics researcher at E3G, tells Carbon Brief the UK would “lose credibility” if the £11.6bn goal slips:
“Global climate agreements are built on trust. There is an expectation that the new goal will be significantly higher than the current $100bn target. Backtracking on existing commitments, which add up to a fraction of the costs faced by vulnerable countries, will not help.”
The UK’s nature and forest climate funding is also an important part of its contribution to biodiversity finance. This will be high on the agenda at the upcoming biodiversity summit, COP16, in Cali, Colombia, in October, as developed countries have pledged to raise at least $30bn in nature finance a year by 2030.
With this in mind, Alice Jay, international director at the Campaign for Nature, tells Carbon Brief:
“Now we need to see [Lammy] follow up on his words by re-committing to the existing international nature finance pledge to developing countries. We know the FCDO understands the urgency. But does the Treasury? This is the key issue that will decide whether this new UK nature leadership will be credible at the upcoming COP16.”
When asked about the government’s nature finance commitments, an FCDO spokesperson tells Carbon Brief:
“As the foreign secretary set out in his speech at Kew Gardens last week, the climate and nature emergency is a central geopolitical challenge of our age. Tackling the scale of the threat is necessary to achieve clean and secure energy, lower bills and drive growth for the UK, and to preserve the natural world around us.
“We have already begun to turn this ambition into action. The climate and nature crisis will be central to all that the Foreign Office does.”
The post Analysis: UK must spend £1.7bn more on nature by 2026 to meet climate-finance goal appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK must spend £1.7bn more on nature by 2026 to meet climate-finance goal
Climate Change
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits




