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
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines