- 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
Grethel Aguilar is the Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Climate change is not just a crisis of rising temperatures—it is a crisis for humanity and nature alike. By failing to act on climate change, states are gravely undermining the human rights of vulnerable communities.
But apart from the devastating direct impacts, climate change also threatens nature, and consequently also the services that nature provides people with. Climate and nature are deeply interlinked, and these links cannot be overlooked in global action to address the climate crisis.
Today, we represented IUCN and we backed numerous other experts and organisations in arguing before the International Court of Justice in The Hague that countries have a binding legal responsibility to fight climate change. But uniquely, as the global authority on the state of nature, we also highlighted the impacts of climate change on the natural world – and the need to consider nature in climate action.
The climate crisis is also a biodiversity crisis. Climate change alters ecosystems in a myriad of ways, and at the same time the loss of nature is fuelling the extent and impact of climate change globally. One cannot be addressed successfully without the other.
As ecosystems shift and species are pushed to extremes, the natural world—on which we all depend—is under immense pressure. Yet, hope lies in recognizing the deep interconnection between nature and climate action. By restoring forests, protecting coral reefs, safeguarding soil health, and conserving vital habitats, we not only protect biodiversity but also strengthen nature’s ability to buffer us against climate impacts.
Big emitters accused of hiding behind climate treaties in international hearing
Today, we used our unique expertise to tell the court that nations need to take responsibility for climate change – but this cannot be realised if nature is overlooked.
As others like Vanuatu have argued, in failing to act on climate, states are undermining the human rights of vulnerable communities – particularly the right to life, health, housing and culture. By failing to reign in climate change, states are also undermining nature’s ability to provide communities with food, fisheries, productive farmland, and other services – impacting lives and livelihoods.
For millions—herders, farmers, fishers, and Indigenous peoples—nature is more than a resource; it is a lifeline. They will suffer the most from our inaction. Climate change is already affecting nature, and the impacts are escalating. For example, climate change and severe weather are a threat to 7,412 species (16%) on the IUCN Red List, including 19% of freshwater fishes and 44% of reef-building corals – two species groups that are integral to the lives of millions across the world.
Similarly, degraded land impacts 3.2 billion people, leaving communities more vulnerable to droughts that are increasing in severity and frequency – depriving them of the basic rights of access to food and water.
Over a billion people are estimated to benefit from coral reefs in some form, for instance, for food, income, and protection. As a Union that includes Indigenous peoples’ organisations as well as states and civil society, IUCN is well placed to speak out on this. This is an additional reason why action on climate must be a legal obligation for states, and why a failure to act should entail legal consequences.
The desertification (UNCCD) COP in Saudi Arabia just heard how up to 40% of the Earth’s land is degraded, impacting 3.2 billion people, including the world’s most vulnerable communities. These trends are compounded by biodiversity loss and declines in soil health as well as climate change, both of which contribute to the impacts of droughts – which are increasing in severity, frequency, and intensity. Some estimates suggesting that three quarters of the global population could be affected by 2050.
We know that action to limit climate change requires a just and inclusive transition to a low-carbon future via significant renewable energy development.
Here, too, climate and nature are connected. While a just and speedy transition to renewables is an absolute priority, biodiversity must also be considered in humans’ responses to climate change. For example, the energy transition entails changing land use – such as planting biofuels – and building energy infrastructure such as wind turbines and dams. Nature must be factored in and protected in the midst of these changes – when planning biofuel projects or energy infrastructure – to ensure that these responses do not impact ecosystems and species negatively.
Let us remember that the link between climate and nature is two-way – climate change threatens nature but failing to protect forests, grasslands, coral reefs, seagrass meadows and other ecosystems also worsens climate change, and leaves communities more vulnerable to its impacts. Nature is a crucial ally in the fight against the climate crisis, and we simply cannot afford to overlook it.
The post ICJ climate justice proceedings must recognise links between climate and nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
ICJ climate justice proceedings must recognise links between climate and nature
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. 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.
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.
