The global target to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and water ecosystems by 2030 faces “huge” challenges, a top facilitator of UN biodiversity talks warned ahead of the COP16 summit starting next week in the Colombian city of Cali.
According to the UN’s biodiversity agency, only 29 countries – out of 196 – have so far submitted key updates to their national biodiversity plans, which are meant to include ways to reach the headline 2030 conservation goal agreed in 2022 in Montreal.
Chirra Achalender Reddy, chair of India’s National Biodiversity Authority and head of work on implementation at the UN biodiversity negotiations, said countries face a “humongous” challenge to meet the 30% by 2030 target – known as “30×30” – and need to formulate strong National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to get there.
UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights
“This is not just a walk in the park. The challenges that parties are facing are huge and complex,” Achalender Reddy told journalists at a briefing on Wednesday ahead of the COP16 summit.
“This is a very ambitious target when you take the 196 parties into consideration. Different countries have different circumstances, different capabilities and different priorities. The differences between parties makes this exercise very challenging,” he added.
Little protection for oceans
A report published on Thursday by a consortium of nature NGOs and foundations estimates that only 8.3% of the world’s ocean has been designated as marine protected areas (MPAs). When accounting for the lack of enforcement and loopholes that still allow for overfishing and fossil fuel extraction, just 2.8% of MPAs are likely to be effectively protected, it added.
The report warned that, at the current rate of progress, no more than 9.7% of the ocean will be protected by 2030.
In a foreword, John Kerry, former US secretary of state, and José María Figueres, former president of Costa Rica, urged governments to “act together with urgency” to meet the 30×30 target.
“Protecting and conserving at least 30% of the world’s ocean is vital to safeguard marine biodiversity and the billions of people who depend on it for their livelihoods and food security,” they wrote. “It is also essential to preserving the ocean’s ability to act as our greatest climate ally by absorbing billions of tonnes of carbon emissions every year.”
New biodiversity plans
At COP15 in December 2022, countries adopted a landmark deal known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which lays out a set of 23 targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, including the 30×30 goal.
Countries were tasked with setting national targets that are aligned with the global ones, as well as updating their NBSAPs with specific action plans on how to implement the GBF.
The plans are meant to make progress towards a range of GBF goals including restoring 30% of all degraded ecosystems, reducing subsidies that harm nature by at least $500 billion per year, raising $200 billion a year for nature protection, and disclosing biodiversity impacts from businesses.
Most governments missed an October deadline to submit their updated biodiversity plans, including megadiverse countries like COP16 host nation Colombia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. Colombia’s vice-minister of environment, Mauricio Cabrera, said in a statement that the country will present its updated NBSAP on October 21, the first day of the summit.
More NBSAPs are expected to be announced at COP16, according to Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), who said the involvement of diverse government agencies in the plans was a positive outcome.
“This whole-of-government approach, bringing various ministries together, discussing amongst them and coming to agreement remains the strongest expression of political will and commitment,” Schomaker told reporters. “But it also takes more time.”
Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan
Nina Mikander, director of policy at Birdlife International, urged governments to commit at COP16 to deliver outstanding NBSAPs by the end of 2025. “Having a plan is just the first step to making sure that you’re able to progress on implementation,” she said.
In contrast, more countries have presented national targets, with 91 countries filing submissions, as reported by UN Biodiversity’s Schomaker.
“Parties have been focusing on national targets. Full NBSAPs take longer to prepare,” Achalender Reddy said. “The adoption of the NBSAP, when done right, involves a political process that culminates in the adoption at a high political level.”
Biodiversity fund nearly empty
Those biodiversity plans that have been presented to date vary in ambition, an analysis by WWF shows. While some countries addressed all of the commitments in the GBF, others did not.
Australia’s NBSAP, for example, has no action plan for implementation and avoids a commitment by developed countries to pledge financial support for conservation in developing countries, according to the WWF analysis.
New biodiversity plans should also recognise the “rights of indigenous peoples and other rights-holders”, said Achalender Reddy – which can often involve a long consultation process.
Biodiversity finance will also likely influence the production of updated NBSAPs, as developing countries face funding barriers in stepping up their efforts to protect nature, experts told Climate Home. Colombia, for example, has announced a $40-billion clean-energy transition investment plan that also aims to mobilise finance for forest restoration and sustainable use of ecosystems.
At the previous COP15, countries agreed to establish a biodiversity fund to support nature conservation, but it has so far received a scarce $200 million, and has faced hurdles to get up and running.
Despite the slow progress on finance and national plans, the UN’s biodiversity agency believes the GBF goals can be met.
“We really believe that through decisive action and by working together in solidarity, parties will be able to achieve the targets of the GBF by 2030,” Schomaker said. “Because they must achieve the targets of the GBF by 2030.”
(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post COP16 confronts “huge” challenge of protecting 30% of world’s land and sea appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP16 confronts “huge” challenge of protecting 30% of world’s land and sea
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s experts that recommended the new risk assessment approach.
The groups pushed for more flexible rules that would have allowed natural risk values drawn from other sources, including national databases, or from the project developers themselves.
While the Supervisory Body rejected this approach, it gave project developers and countries the option to propose alternative values that would first need to be vetted by the mechanism’s expert panel and then approved by the regulator.
A carbon market expert told Climate Home News that, while it is too early to say how this provision will be used, they expect requests will have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence, lowering the risk of unfounded claims.
Policy discounts questioned
To guard against human-caused risks, projects will need to apply a flat 20% value set by the Supervisory Body, at the bottom of the 20-45% range recommended by its technical experts ahead of last week’s meeting.
That value can be further reduced by up to two-thirds if the host country has an emission-reduction plan covering forests, a long-term climate strategy and a framework for the UN’s REDD+ forest protection scheme.
Injy Johnstone, senior research fellow at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute, said that, while these are important governance measures, their existence does not necessarily demonstrate that the underlying risk of forest carbon loss has been reduced.
“It is important to distinguish between evidence of actual risk reduction and assumptions about the effectiveness of policy commitments,” she added.
Moving target
A UN source told Climate Home News that, under the approved formula, improved cookstove projects must set aside at least 9% of credits linked to saved wood if they operate in the lowest-risk areas and the host country can claim all available discounts. The share of credits rises significantly in regions with high natural risk values, such as Guyana, Sri Lanka and Timor Leste, or that do not have REDD+ programmes.
These factors could change in the future as the Supervisory Body asked its technical experts to recommend revisiting the risk values “should credible new evidence arise”.
Climate change is likely to make forest destruction events, such as wildfires or hurricanes, more frequent and more severe in certain regions. Meanwhile, national policies on forest protection can shift significantly depending on government changes.
Johnstone said the UN carbon market needs periodic reassessment to respond to new evidence showing that previously assumed levels of risk were too low.
“The integrity of credits is not guaranteed simply because a reversal risk tool exists,” she added. “The real test will be whether the mechanism provides equivalent atmospheric protection over time, rather than simply introducing another layer of accounting requirements”.
The post UN carbon market