At the COP15 biodiversity summit in December 2022, nearly every country in the world committed to a new global agreement to “halt and reverse” biodiversity loss by 2030 and “restore harmony with nature” by 2050.
Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), countries pledged to release new national plans for how they will achieve a range of goals and targets.
These plans are known as national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
The GBF requires countries to submit new NBSAPs ahead of COP16, the next global biodiversity summit being held in Cali, Colombia in October.
Below, Carbon Brief tracks which countries have submitted new NBSAPs and analyses how each country has pledged to meet the key targets outlined in the GBF.
Table design by Tom Pearson. NBSAP translations by Anika Patel, Yanine Quiroz and Alice Vernat-Davies. A full spreadsheet of this data is available to view.
What are NBSAPs and why are they important for global action on nature loss?
NBSAPs are blueprints for how individual countries plan to tackle biodiversity loss within their borders, as well as ensure they meet the international targets outlined in the GBF.
Each country that is party to the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is expected – but not legally required – to submit NBSAPs.
There are 196 parties to the CBD including the EU. This includes every country of the world except the US and the Holy See, the governing body of the Vatican. (Republican lawmakers have blocked the US from joining the CBD, citing concerns over “American sovereignty” and “financial burdens”.)
Under the GBF, countries agreed to submit updated NBSAPs ahead of COP16, which is scheduled for 21 October to 1 November 2024 in Colombia.
NBSAPs 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 Paris Agreement is an international treaty agreed in 2015 aimed at keeping global temperatures well below 2C, with an ambition of limiting them to 1.5C, by the end of the century.)
The GBF contains a set of four goals and 23 targets, which collectively aim to reverse the rapid decline of biodiversity by 2030 and “restore harmony with nature” by 2050.
One of the most publicised targets is target 3, which commits countries to protecting 30% of their land and seas for nature by 2030 (commonly known as “30 by 30”). The full list of targets is included below.
| Target | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Effective management of land- and sea-use change, loss of highly important biodiverse areas close to zero by 2030 |
| 2 | Effective restoration of 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030 |
| 3 | Effective conservation and management of 30% of land and 30% of oceans by 2030 |
| 4 | Halt human-induced extinctions and maintain and restore genetic diversity |
| 5 | Sustainable use, harvesting and trade of wild species |
| 6 | Mitigate or eliminate the impacts of invasive alien species, reduce the rates of establishment of invasive species by 50% by 2030 |
| 7 | Reduce pollution risks and impacts from all sources by 2030, reduce the overall risk from pesticides by half |
| 8 | Minimise the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on biodiversity |
| 9 | Ensure sustainable use and management of wild species, while protecting customary use by Indigenous peoples |
| 10 | Sustainable management of areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry |
| 11 | Restore and enhance ecosystem function through nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches |
| 12 | Increase the area and quality of urban green and blue spaces |
| 13 | Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources |
| 14 | Integration of biodiversity into policies and development across all sectors |
| 15 | Enable businesses to monitor, assess and disclose their impacts on biodiversity |
| 16 | Encourage sustainable consumption, including by reducing food waste by half by 2030 |
| 17 | Strengthen capacity for biosafety measures and ensure benefits-sharing from biotechnology |
| 18 | Phase out or reform harmful subsidies in a just way, reducing them by $500bn by 2030 |
| 19 | Substantially increase financial resources, mobilise $200bn per year by 2030 from all sources, including $30bn from developed to developing countries |
| 20 | Strengthen capacity-building and technology transfer |
| 21 | Integrated and participatory management, including the use of traditional knowledge |
| 22 | Equitable representation and participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities |
| 23 | Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework |
In their NBSAPs, countries are expected to set out how they will work towards achieving these goals and targets.
But while countries are working towards a shared set of goals, each NBSAP will be highly unique. This is because every country has its own unique blend of species and habitats – and its own challenges when it comes to conserving them.
For example, Ireland’s NBSAP speaks about restoring commercial fish stocks in Irish waters to sustainable levels and repairing the nation’s highly degraded peatlands.
By contrast, Japan’s NBSAP talks about ensuring “appropriate distance between human beings and wildlife is maintained”, likely referring to its booming nature tourism industry.
Which countries have submitted NBSAPs?
As of 2 May 2024, just seven countries and the EU had fulfilled the request to submit an updated NBSAP.
That leaves 188 countries that are yet to submit updated NBSAPs.
The map below shows countries that have submitted updated NBSAPs in green.
At the COP28 climate summit in December 2023, the UK indicated that it will release its updated NBSAP by May.
COP16 host Colombia is among the countries that are yet to submit an updated NBSAP.
What are some key takeaways from the updated NBSAPs?
Reversing biodiversity loss
Examining NBSAPs can offer clues into how countries are responding to the targets set out in the GBF – and their views on traditionally contentious issues such as biodiversity finance, Indigenous rights and the sharing of genetic resources.
The headline “mission” of the GBF is to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
While many people associate “biodiversity” with iconic species and tropical rainforests, the term actually covers the whole spectrum of Earth’s biological diversity, ranging from the organisation of genes within organisms to the communities of animals and plants that make up ecosystems.
Last year, a group of biologists explained to Carbon Brief that halting and reversing all biodiversity loss by 2030 would be a “huge challenge”, with one expert saying they were “highly doubtful” it was scientifically possible.
Out of the small group of countries that had released updated NBSAPs at the time of publication, the vast majority did not mention halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 in their plans.
The EU and some of its member states, such as Ireland and Luxembourg, did make a reference to halting and reversing the loss of pollinators, a target set out in the EU biodiversity strategy.
France’s plan says that it will aim to reverse the decline of “threatened flagship species, especially endemic species in overseas territories”.
All of these references are a far cry from reversing the loss of all biodiversity.
The only country to explicitly mention this target in its NBSAP was China, the host nation for COP15.
Invasive species and pesticides
There are some areas of convergence among the very small number of countries that have released updated NBSAPs.
Target 6 of the GBF is to “mitigate or eliminate the impacts of invasive alien species” and to “reduce the rates of establishment of invasive species by 50% by 2030”.
The EU, China and Japan all mention targets to reduce the impact of invasive species.
However, there are differences in what the targets aim to achieve. For example, EU nations are targeting a 50% reduction in the number of Red List species threatened by invasive alien species, whereas China and Japan are targeting a 50% reduction in the rate of invasive species establishment.
Target 7 of the GBF is to “reduce the overall risk from pesticides by half”. (It is worth noting that some parties wanted a more ambitious target to reduce the use – rather than the risk – of pesticides by half.)
In its NBSAP, the EU references a target whereby “the risk and use of chemical pesticides is reduced by 50% and the use of more hazardous pesticides is reduced by 50%”.
This wording is repeated in the NBSAPs of many of its member states – so far, Ireland, France, Luxembourg and Spain.
By contrast, Japan references a need for a “reduction in risk-weighted use of chemical pesticides”, while China commits to “reduce” pesticides and to “gradually phase out highly toxic and high-risk pesticides”.
Biodiversity finance
When it comes to the topic of developed nations providing more finance to help developing nations protect biodiversity – one of the most contentious issues at COP15 – there is little consistency among NBSAPs.
Japan makes the clearest pledge when it comes to supporting developing nations, with a target that says the country will aim to ensure “financial resources for the conservation of biodiversity are secured to improve biodiversity global finance gap”.
Japan will also aim to ensure that “capacity-building…in developing countries by Japan’s support are further implemented”.
Ireland also mentions a target to “strengthen the inclusion of biodiversity in international diplomacy and financing”.
In addition, Japan makes reference to target 18 of the GBF, which is to “phase out or reform harmful subsidies in a just way, reducing them by $500bn by 2030”. (“Harmful subsidies” refer to those that prop up industries known to harm nature, such as large-scale meat farming and fossil-fuel extraction.)
Japan says it will “consider” the “identification and reforms of subsidies harmful for biodiversity”.
Spain has a more clear target for subsidy reform, stating:
“By 2025, 50% of identified harmful subsidies will be reformed, redirected or eliminated and ensure that by 2030 all subsidies or incentives are neutral or positive for natural heritage and biodiversity and adequately incorporate environmental externalities.”
The post COP16: Tracking country pledges on tackling biodiversity loss appeared first on Carbon Brief.
COP16: Tracking country pledges on tackling biodiversity loss
Climate Change
Cranberry Farmers Consider Turning Bogs into Wetlands in Massachusetts As Temperatures Rise
The state is helping to transform cranberry bogs to into habitats that broaden conservation and climate change resilience.
What happens when a region no longer has the ideal climate for its star crop?
Cranberry Farmers Consider Turning Bogs into Wetlands in Massachusetts As Temperatures Rise
The decline of the reservoir threatens the water and electricity for 40 million people, but is resurfacing vast canyons and lush riversides that the aquatic rodents engineer into robust habitats for many species.
To hike up this narrow canyon, Eric Balken pushed through dense thickets of green. In the shadow of towering red rock walls, his route along a muddy creekbed was lined with bushes and the subtle hum of life. The canyon echoed the buzzing and chirping of bugs and toads. But not long ago, this exact spot was at the bottom of a reservoir.
Diplomats preparing for COP30 in the Brazilian city of Belém next month have been discussing an emerging issue that could feature for the first time at a UN climate summit: the global rush for energy transition minerals.
Metals such as copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel and graphite are vital for manufacturing clean energy transition technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles – creating both new opportunities and risks for resource-rich countries.
Soaring demand for minerals – which are also used in the construction, digital and military sectors – provides an opportunity to spur economic development if mining is responsible and producing countries can turn their resources into high-value products.
But increased mining activity has fuelled environmental destruction, deforestation and conflict with communities, from Indonesia – which is opening new coal plants to power its nickel industry – to Zambia and Chile.
-
Ahead of COP30, Brazil grants Petrobras a licence to drill for oil in Amazon region
Brazil has authorised Petrobras to explore for oil off the Amazon coast, a move campaigners say undermines global climate goals -
COP30 needs an implementation forum, not another cover decision
The focus in Belém should be a plan to get results on climate action in the real world rather than haggling over a political statement
In preparatory talks over the past couple of months, developing countries with extensive mineral reserves, notably Latin American and African states, have warned that mining could become the Achilles heel of a just energy transition unless environmental and social safeguards are put in place to ensure the costs and benefits are shared fairly.
Diplomats have discussed the impacts of mining in negotiations on the social and economic implications of climate action, known as “response measures”.
They also raised the issue during talks to define the scope of a work stream to ensure that the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is fair to workers, protects nature and support economic development, called the Just Transition Work Programme.
Civil society push for COP to tackle transition minerals
Brazil’s COP30 presidency has made an agreement with “concrete outcomes” on a just transition framework a key priority of the summit in Belém.
Separately, the government has spoken about the need for energy transition mineral production to respect human rights and promote sustainable development.
“In its interventions across international forums, Brazil has expressed support for the inclusion of principles that promote transparency, address illicit activities and corruption, encourage value addition in developing countries, and uphold environmental protection and human rights in the context of critical minerals production,” a COP30 spokesperson told Climate Home News.
The inclusion of energy transition minerals in COP30 decisions will require consensus among all countries but observers are cautiously optimistic.
Colombia proposes expert group to advance talks on minerals agreement
“The stars do seem to be aligning for COP30 to be the first to address the role of transition minerals governance in climate action but it’s still not a given,” said Antonio Hill, an advisor on the Natural Resource Governance Institute’s just transitions advocacy work.
“If achieved, it would address a glaring gap in the current global climate and energy transition agenda,” he added.
More than 200 civil society groups have signed an open letter urging countries to address energy transition minerals at COP30.
They called on them to welcome principles and recommendations of a UN panel on establishing transparent, sustainable and equitable mineral supply chains and to strengthen mineral governance.
A “timely and necessary” discussion
In a submission ahead of talks on the implications of climate measures last month, a coalition of 134 developing countries – known as the G77 and China – called for a “dedicated dialogue” on energy transition minerals.
It described it as “both timely and necessary” to enable countries to consider how growing mineral demand relates to their development priorities and climate plans.
The current dynamic “presents a serious risk of entrenching unsustainable development trajectories, undermining efforts toward industrial diversification, and jeopardising the prospects of a truly just transition for developing countries”, it said.
More than half of energy transition mineral reserves are estimated to be located on or near Indigenous land and a large majority of mines are located in biodiversity hotspots. Indigenous peoples are widely acknowledged to play a key role in preserving tropical forests that act as some of the world’s most important carbon sinks.
The issue was also raised during talks on defining a just energy transition framework.
The Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), which includes Colombia, Chile and Peru, warned that deforestation and land use changes caused by mineral extraction could undermine climate action and affect people’s rights to a healthy environment.
“A just transition approach could offer unique opportunities towards fairness and equity in the mining industry” and contribute to local development, the group said.
Colombia, which is proposing that countries discuss options for a binding agreement on minerals at the UN Environment Assembly in December, went further and called for the designation of “no-go areas” for mining.
No-go mining zones
Colombia’s demands are echoed by Indigenous groups.
Bryan Bixcul is from the Maya-Tz’utujil Indigenous group in Guatemala and serves as the global coordinator of the Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE) coalition. He told Climate Home the Just Transition Work Programme will fail to be a tool for justice if it fails to directly address the harms caused by mining.
Efforts to green lithium extraction face scrutiny over water use
Key to SIRGE’s demand is for the text to make explicit references to the rights of Indigenous peoples, including those in voluntary isolation.
Bixcul said the text should include an obligation to establish “no-go” or exclusion zones on and around the land of the world’s remaining uncontacted Indigenous groups, which cannot give their consent to mining projects close to their lands. This, he said, violates the principle of no contact.
Protecting uncontacted Indigenous peoples
Videos have emerged showing members of an uncontacted Indigenous group warning outsiders away and begging for food on a site where forest was being cleared for nickel mining on Halmahera island in Indonesia.
NGO Survival International warned that the uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people, who live on the island, faced “a threat of genocide” because of nickel mining used to make batteries for electric vehicles.
In September, Norway’s government pension fund divested from French miner Eramet, which operates a large mine on the island, citing “unacceptable risk” of human rights violations, including forced contact. Eramet denied the presence of uncontacted groups in or near its concession.
“If countries don’t take a stance to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, they will fail human rights, not just Indigenous people’s rights,” said Bixcul.
Brazil, which has promised the largest Indigenous participation in COP history in Belém, has called on countries to protect the demarcation of Indigenous lands as a key policy tool to address the climate crisis.
The post COP30 could confront “glaring gap” in clean energy agenda: mining appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP30 could confront “glaring gap” in clean energy agenda: mining
Canada Goes Nuclear Again: This Time It’s a C$3 Billion Bet on SMR
Germany Hits Negative Prices As France Goes Subsidy-Free
Ronald Reagan on America’s Greatness
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy4 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale