- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
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.)
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
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.
The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, it adds that this list of developed countries “shall” be reviewed periodically and amended “if necessary”.
The list was last amended in 2006.
(See this “jargon buster” which explains the specific meaning and legal weight of various terms and verbs used in UN formal documents.)
Discussions around this fraught subject had reached a dead end at intersessional talks this year, but resurfaced in Yerevan.
The first “non-paper” had four different options for expanding the contributor base. These ranged from using the World Bank’s country income groups “as a proxy” to identify high-income countries, to commissioning a study on the impacts of being included on the list.
By 21 October, the number of options swelled to eight, including two from Saudi Arabia and one from Peru.
Some countries “expressed concern” that certain options were based on a CBD secretariat study on “what constitutes a developed country”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported.
By the end of the first week, it was clear that the finance deadlock would have to go into informal ministerial consultations for any consensus to emerge.
At a press conference on 28 October, Christopher O’Sullivan, Ireland’s nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief:
“Our position isn’t that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it’s been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected. I don’t fully understand why there’s so much opposition to that.”
The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see on that list.
Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network, meanwhile, called the push for others to “assume the obligations” of developed countries “sheer hypocrisy”, adding that any country could make a voluntary contribution. She told Carbon Brief:
“At a forum like the CBD, this linking of income status with finance does not take into account where historical and current responsibilities lie. If you want to generate more funding for biodiversity, let’s look at sovereign debt burdens and rules, which are inequitable for developing countries. But if you can fund wars, and provide resources for your defence industry, then you know where the priorities are.”
On 29 October – at a plenary meant to adopt final texts for the most contentious subjects – Norway’s Gaute Hanssen announced that resource-mobilisation discussions would go in