Connect with us

Published

on

More than 85% of countries are set to miss the UN’s deadline to submit new nature pledges ahead of the COP16 biodiversity summit in Colombia, according to a joint investigation by Carbon Brief and the Guardian.

Three of the G7 nations are among those not to publish new national pledges, known as national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), ahead of the talks, which will take place in the city of Cali from from 21 October to 1 November..

Only five of the 17 “megadiverse countries” – which together provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity – have produced new pledges for tackling nature loss, according to the Carbon Brief and Guardian analysis.

The three nations that hold the vast majority of the Amazon rainforest – Brazil, Peru and COP16 host nation Colombia – have all failed to produce new nature plans before the talks.

All of the six countries responsible for the Congo basin in Africa, the world’s second-largest rainforest after the Amazon, also missed the deadline.

Representatives from environment ministries across the world tell Carbon Brief and the Guardian that “technical difficulties” and “structural barriers” – ranging from the need for lengthy consultations with stakeholders to delays caused by general elections – prevented them from meeting the deadline.

Biodiversity on Earth is declining at a faster rate than at any time in human history. Around one million animal and plant species face extinction, with human activity having already altered 70% of the land surface and 87% of the ocean.

Missed deadlines and delays

At COP15 in 2022, nations signed a landmark agreement called the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which aims to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. It is often described as the “Paris Agreement for nature”.

As part of the agreement, countries agreed to submit new NBSAPs “by” COP16 in October 2024.

NBSAPs are blueprints for how individual countries plan to tackle biodiversity loss, as well as ensure they meet the targets outlined in the GBF.

They are similar to nationally determined contributions (NDCs), plans that outline how individual countries envisage meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, a key difference is that countries are legally obliged to submit NDCs, but not NBSAPs.

The publishing of new NBSAPs was meant to ensure that countries actually implement the targets of the GBF within their borders. A lack of implementation was widely cited as one of the major factors behind the failure of the last set of global biodiversity rules, the Aichi targets, which were agreed in 2010.

However, the Carbon Brief and Guardian analysis shows that just 25 countries and the EU have met the deadline to publish an NBSAP ahead of COP16. This leaves 170 countries that have not met the deadline.

(Carbon Brief’s in-depth NBSAP tracker contains a full list of the 26 parties that have published an NBSAP and examines what their plans say about stemming biodiversity loss.)

Countries that had submitted updated NBSAPs by 14 October (green).
Countries that had submitted updated NBSAPs by 14 October (green). Data source: UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Map by Joe Goodman for Carbon Brief

Rainforests at risk

Only five of the 17 “megadiverse countries” – which together provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity – have produced new NBSAPs. This includes Australia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Mexico.

The megadiverse countries to miss the deadline are Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela. (The US is a megadiverse country, but is not a signatory to the biodiversity convention.)

A representative for COP16 host nation Colombia tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that the country has been working “for over a year” on its NBSAP, starting before the country knew it would host the next round of biodiversity talks. (Colombia offered to host COP16 last year after the original host Turkey was forced to withdraw following major earthquakes in the country.)

In 2024, the environment ministry “organised more than 30 events in every region of the country, reaching more than 20 cities” to consult a range of Indigenous and local community groups on the ministry’s proposal for tackling nature loss in the country, the spokesperson says.

This lengthy consultation process has caused the country to miss the deadline, the spokesperson adds. However, they say that Colombia plans to publish its NBSAP at the start of the COP16 summit.

A representative for Brazil – the most biodiverse nation on Earth, home to nearly 60% of the Amazon rainforest – also tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that the publishing of its NBSAP has been delayed by a “broad consultation process”.

Braulio Dias, director of biodiversity conservation at the Brazilian ministry of environment, who is responsible for the NBSAP process, says:

“Brazil is a huge country with the largest share of biodiversity [and] a large population with a complex governance. We are a federation with 26 states and 5,570 municipalities. We started the process to update our NBSAP in May last year and have managed to conclude a broad consultation process involving over a thousand people in face-to-face meetings.

“We are in the process of consolidating all proposals received, consulting all the departments of the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, all the federal ministries and agencies engaged in the biodiversity agenda and the National Biodiversity Committee, before we can have a high-level political endorsement. Then we still have to build a monitoring strategy, a finance strategy and a communication strategy. We will only conclude this process toward the end of the year or early next year.”

The representative of another megadiverse nation, India, declined repeated requests for comment on why it has not published its NBSAP.

Back in August, Dr V Rajagopalan, chair of India’s working group tasked with reviewing the country’s NBSAP, told Carbon Brief that one challenge for the country was translating the global goals of the GBF into a workable plan for the nation:

“Our situation is different from the west: what can be done there, cannot be done here. [F]or example, [the issue of] subsidies is a challenge for us – similarly, pesticides – because of our agricultural status and food-security requirements. But, still, we have kept our targets very ambitious.”

UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that she expects India to announce its NBSAP during COP16.

Commenting on why so many nations have missed the deadline to submit new NBSAPs before COP16, Schomaker says that some countries have struggled to access the funding needed to prepare their plans or have been delayed by pursuing a “whole of society” approach to pulling them together. She adds:

“More NBSAPs would be better. That’s clear…These are different processes and better than we’ve had in the past.”

Major economies missing

Three of the G7 nations did not produce new NBSAPs ahead of COP16. Germany and the UK missed the deadline, while the US is not a signatory to the convention.

Missing the target time could be particularly damaging for the UK’s reputation at the negotiations. It campaigned for an ambitious agreement at COP15 and is the oceans lead of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People group of nations.

The UK pledged to publish its NBSAP by May of this year – and even organised a launch event at Wicken Fen nature reserve in Cambridgeshire for that month – before a change of government in Scotland forced a postponement.

The release of the strategy was delayed further by a UK general election in July – and the new Labour party government now intends to publish it in the new year, as revealed by Carbon Brief earlier this month.

Although it will not now publish a new NBSAP before COP16, the UK did provide the UN with a technical document, known as a national target submission, in place of its strategy. (Around 77 countries have submitted national targets to the CBD ahead of COP16, according to Schomaker.)

When approached about missing the deadline for producing a new NBSAP ahead of COP16, a spokesperson for the Department for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) referred to the UK’s national target submission, saying:

“Nature and our wildlife underpin everything – the economy, food, health and society. That is why we have submitted the UK’s biodiversity targets to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), aligning us with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and committing us to achieve the agreements made at COP15.”

The post COP16: More than 85% of countries miss UN deadline to submit nature pledges appeared first on Carbon Brief.

COP16: More than 85% of countries miss UN deadline to submit nature pledges

Continue Reading

Climate Change

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Published

on

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

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com