More than half of countries have not committed to protecting 30% of their land and sea for nature by 2030 in plans submitted to the UN – despite signing a global agreement to do so less than three years ago, a Carbon Brief and Guardian investigation can reveal.
In December 2022, nearly all nations agreed to protect “30% of Earth’s land and sea for nature” by the end of the decade. This commitment – referred to as “30 by 30” – is the flagship target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), often likened to the “Paris Agreement for nature”.
But, 70 out of the 137 (51%) countries that have submitted UN plans outlining how they will meet the targets of the GBF do not commit to “30 by 30” within their borders, according to analysis of these documents by Carbon Brief and the Guardian.
Instead, these countries either pledge to protect a lower percentage of their territory for nature or fail to explicitly commit to a numerical target at all.
Countries failing to commit to “30 by 30” in UN plans represent just over one-third of Earth’s land surface, the analysis shows.
The list includes some of the most nature-rich nations on Earth, such as Indonesia, Peru and South Africa, along with developed countries such as Finland, Norway and Switzerland.
Speaking to Carbon Brief and the Guardian, one nation said that meeting “30 by 30” within its borders would be “extremely challenging” to achieve, while another said that developing countries in particular should not face an “unnecessarily heavy burden” in reaching the global goal.
The investigation shows that “many countries have not been ambitious enough with their domestic conservation commitments and, as a result, we are collectively not currently on track to meet the global 30 by 30 target”, one expert said.
A third of Earth
At the COP15 nature summit in 2022, countries agreed to the GBF, a broad set of targets and goals with an overall aim to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
Target 3 of the GBF – which says countries should ensure “at least” 30% of Earth is in protected areas or governed by other conservation measures by 2030 (“30 by 30”) – is considered by many to be the flagship aim of the agreement and has been likened to the 1.5C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement in articles and speeches stressing its importance.
All countries were asked to submit plans to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity outlining how they will meet the targets of the GBF within their territories ahead of the COP16 nature summit in 2024. These are called national biodiversity strategies and action plans, or “NBSAPs”.
A separate Carbon Brief and Guardian investigation last October found that 85% of countries missed the deadline to submit their NBSAPs, with some arguing that the deadline was too challenging or that they were not able to access funds to help prepare their documents.
Countries unable to produce their NBSAPs were asked to instead submit national targets to the UN. These are simple lists of targets that countries will aim for without an accompanying plan of action.
As of 24 February 2025, 44 countries and the EU had submitted NBSAPs to the UN, while 124 parties had submitted national targets. (As some countries submitted both national targets and NBSAPs, it means that, overall, 137 countries have put forward a plan of some kind.)
To investigate whether countries have committed to the “30 by 30” pledge within their borders in these plans, Carbon Brief and the Guardian analysed the full text of each NBSAP, as well as any target that had been tagged as relating to target 3 of the GBF.
The analysis finds that, of 137 countries that have submitted plans to the CBD, more than half – 70 countries, or 51% – do not commit to protecting 30% of their land and sea by 2030.
Of these, 21 countries did not supply a numerical target for protecting their land area, 26 set targets for land protection that were less than 30% and eight set land targets of or greater than 30%, but sea-protection targets less than 30%.
Of the remaining countries, 13 did not submit any targets relating to coverage of protected areas. Two others set goals further in the future than 2030.
A further 10 countries, or 7%, do not make it clear from the plans that they submitted whether or not they have a pledge that meets the conditions of 30 by 30. This includes: countries that specify that they will protect 30% of “areas of particular importance”; countries that gave a target for improvement, but did not provide a baseline; and countries that submitted only one or two targets.
Just 42% of countries – 57 in total – commit to protecting 30% of both land and sea by 2030.
The chart below shows the countries that have submitted NBSAPs and/or national targets to the UN. On the chart, countries are clustered by the percentage of land they have pledged to protect and the size of each bubble represents their land area. (Countries clustered around the 30% line and outlined in grey all have pledges to protect 30% of land area.)
Countries clustered below “no target” are those that have not pledged a numerical target for protecting their land or those who have produced a plan, but have not included a protected area target.
The analysis shows that, collectively, more than one-third of the Earth’s land area is covered by a pledge that does not fulfil the “30 by 30” target, while around half is covered by a “30 by 30” pledge.
Seven of the 17 “megadiverse” countries – which together provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity – have not committed to 30 by 30, the analysis finds. This includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela.
A further 61 countries have not submitted an NBSAP or national targets and so have not been assessed in the analysis. This includes the world’s most biodiverse nation, Brazil.
The figures also do not include the US, which – although a megadiverse country – is not party to the CBD and, therefore, is not subject to the goals and targets of the GBF.
Former US president Joe Biden committed the country to the “30 by 30” pledge. However, the “Project 2025” policy blueprint – which Donald Trump is largely following – calls for the target to be scrapped.
The EU submitted an NBSAP that covers its 27 member states and commits to 30 by 30.
However, individual countries are also party to the CBD and are expected to submit their own national plans. For the purposes of this analysis, EU member states were only considered to be meeting “30 by 30” if they submitted their own NBSAP or national target that did so.
‘Extremely challenging’
Carbon Brief and the Guardian reached out to megadiverse countries and developed nations to ask why they had chosen not to commit to “30 by 30” in their UN plans.
Indonesia, a megadiverse country that is home to the world’s third-largest rainforest, did not give a numerical target for how much of its territory it is able to protect for nature in its NBSAP.
A government spokesperson says that it is Indonesia’s view that “it is not essential to explicitly state that the 30% protection target is for terrestrial and marine areas” in its territory, explaining:
“Indonesia is of the view that all of us need to understand that the GBF is indeed global. And, by being global, it is natural that this framework should be implemented globally and collectively, without putting an unnecessarily heavy burden on some of us.
“Indonesia is committed to ambitious yet practical targets for the GBF, with an emphasis on the fact that not all parties are at the same level if targets are assessed numerically.”
The spokesperson adds that “managing biodiversity is not an easy task” and that the “balance of economic, social and environmental aspects must be maintained, particularly for developing countries like Indonesia”.
In its NBSAP, megadiverse nation Mexico commits to protecting 30% of its oceans, but only 22% of its land.
Dr Andrea Cruz Angón, coordinator of biodiversity strategies and policies at Conabio, the federal government’s biodiversity commission, says that the targets are still “being reviewed and adjusted” by the appropriate federal agencies.
She adds that the targets were produced after workshops were held “with subnational governments, youth, Indigenous peoples and Afro-Mexican communities” to identify “barriers and opportunities for these actors to make voluntary commitments to the targets”.
Finland, one of the EU’s member states, has not yet released an NBSAP, but submitted its national targets for meeting the goals of the GBF to the UN in August 2024. In these plans, Finland does not commit to “30 by 30”.
A spokesperson for the Finnish government says it was still preparing its NBSAP and, as a result, none of its targets are final, but adds:
“Achieving a 30% increase in protected area by 2030 would be extremely challenging, as to reach this target, for example, the protected area in land areas would have to increase by about over 700,000 hectares per year.”
In its NBSAP, Norway committed to protecting 30% of its land for nature by 2030 – but says it was still assessing its ocean protection target and “will come back with a plan for how a future goal can be achieved in a way that also facilitates the sustainable use of Norwegian marine areas”.
A spokesperson for Norway says the nation is “committed to contribute towards the 30 by 30 target”, adding:
“A national conservation target for Norwegian sea areas has not yet been concluded. This is due to an ongoing national process to assess which marine areas that can be recognised as protected through ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECM), in accordance with [UN biodiversity] criteria.
“The conclusion of this process will clarify the current conservation status of Norwegian waters, and consequently enable us to set a national target.”
‘Go back to the drawing board’
Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that “30 by 30” is a “global target and how countries take that on board at the national level will be different across the world, depending on national circumstances”.
She points to the Protected Planet Report 2024, which shows that only 17.6% of land and 8.4% of the ocean is currently being conserved for nature – with just five years to go until the “30 by 30” deadline, adding:
“As the world faces a nature and biodiversity loss crisis, it is clear we must go much further, much faster. This will not be possible without financial, technical and capacity support for many countries.”
Responding to Carbon Brief and the Guardian’s investigation, Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, a group advocating for the 30 by 30 target, says:
“Many countries have not been ambitious enough with their domestic conservation commitments and, as a result, we are collectively not currently on track to meet the global ‘30 by 30’ target. This is troubling and action must be taken to put the world on track.”
To get on track for “30 by 30”, developed nations must “directly fund” the target to enable developing countries to protect more of their territories for nature, he says, adding that the “30 by 30” pledge also needs to be championed at a higher level by global leaders and the UN.
He adds that countries not committing to “30 by 30” in their UN plans “should go back to the drawing board and update their plans with ones in which conservation is commensurate with the challenge of biodiversity loss and the needs of communities”.
The full Carbon Brief and Guardian analysis can be found here.
The post Revealed: More than half of nations fail to protect 30% of land and sea in UN nature plans appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: More than half of nations fail to protect 30% of land and sea in UN nature plans
Two days into COP30, the world’s most populous country and third-biggest emitter – India – has yet to announce its 2035 NDC emissions target. Of the G20 major economies, only India and Saudi Arabia have still not done so.
The delay has confounded the pre-summit expectations of the UN and Indian media. Citing government sources, the Indian Express and The Hindu separately reported back in September that it would be announced “during, or just ahead of” COP30.
The government of India – which was enraged by the ending of the last COP where it fiercely rejected the new climate finance goal – has so far had a low-profile at this one.
With local elections going on in Bihar, the country’s speech at the leaders’ summit was delivered not by the prime minister or even a minister but by the country’s ambassador to Brazil.
He announced nothing new of substance – other than joining the Tropical Forest Forever Facility as an observer – but criticised developed countries for depleting the carbon budget while developing countries lead the way in taking “decisive climate action”.
…but Mexico and Korea land new goals
In contrast, Mexico’s environment minister announced in Belém that the country will aim to cut emissions by up to 50% by 2035 compared to a business-as-usual scenario.
For the first time, the oil-producing nation has set a limit on absolute emissions of 365 million-404 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035. It also targets – conditional on international support – a lower level of 332-363 million tonnes by the same year.
According to a recent UN report, the country’s current policies will keep emissions rising and Mexico’s 2030 target allows them to do so until at least 2030 before they start coming down to reach net zero by 2050.
In South Korea, the government on Tuesday announced a target to reduce emissions 53-61% from 2018 levels by 2035. The country’s emissions peaked around 2018 and have started heading slowly downward. It had earlier promised a 40% cut by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050.
The new 2035 target is more ambitious than two scenarios proposed just a few days ago by the environment ministry. However, sectoral targets for industry are less ambitious than the total, which is seen as a response to pressure from energy-intensive industries.
Climate minister Kim Sung-whan told a press briefing that higher ambition for manufacturing was not possible “as too few investments have been made in the past to suddenly decarbonise manufacturing industries by a significant amount”.
Gahee Han, from Korean NGO Solutions For Our Climate, said the government would aim for the lower end of the range – 53% – which “falls far short of what is needed”. She called for the government to target at least the upper level of 61%.
The post COP30 Bulletin Day 2: India’s targets missing but Korea and Mexico make pledges appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP30 Bulletin Day 2: India’s targets missing but Korea and Mexico make pledges
For the first time in the history of COP climate summits, the US – the world’s largest historical emitter – has not sent a delegation to the talks.
Back in January, newly inaugurated US president Donald Trump signed a letter to the UN to trigger the start of a US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement for a second time.
Although this process is not yet complete, the White House confirmed earlier this month that no “high-level officials” would be attending COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
The US joins Afghanistan, Myanmar and San Marino as the only countries not registering a delegation for the summit, according to Carbon Brief’s analysis of the provisional lists of delegates published by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Despite these absences, more than 56,000 delegates have signed up to COP30, provisionally placing the summit as one of the largest in COP history.
This is despite the run-up to the negotiations being dogged by reports of a shortage of beds and “sky-high” accommodation costs.
Brazil even offered free cabins on cruise ships moored in Belém to delegations from low-income nations who were otherwise unable to attend.
According to the provisional figures, 193 countries, plus the European Union, have registered a delegation for the summit.
Unsurprisingly, the largest delegation comes from COP30 hosts Brazil, with 3,805 people registered.
This is followed, in order, by China, Nigeria, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
This year also sees the largest number of “virtual” delegates, with more than 5,000 people signed up to attend the talks online.
Party delegations
With 56,118 delegates registered, COP30 is provisionally the second-largest COP in history, behind only COP28 in Dubai, which was attended by more than 80,000 people.
This is the provisional total, based on the delegates that have registered to be at the summit in person. At recent COPs, the final total is at least 10,000 lower, which would drop COP30 down to the fourth largest.
(The UNFCCC releases the final figures – based on participants collecting a physical badge at the venue – after the summit has closed.)
The chart below shows how the provisional figures for COP30 compare to the final totals in past COPs – going back to COP1 in Berlin in 1995.
The participant lists provided by the UNFCCC are divided between the different types of groups and organisations attending the summit. The largest group at COP30 is for delegates representing parties. These are nation states, plus the European Union, that have ratified the convention and play a full part in negotiations.
This group adds up to 11,519 delegates – the fourth largest behind the past three COPs.
(In keeping with recent COPs, the UNFCCC has published spreadsheets that name every single person that has registered for the summit – excluding support staff. Previously, COPs have typically included thousands of “overflow” participants in which countries and UN agencies could nominate delegates without their names appearing on their official lists.)
For consistency with Carbon Brief’s analysis of previous COPs, the above chart includes overflow delegates as a single group. However, the participant lists do divide the overflow delegates between parties and observer groups. Including the overflow numbers approximately doubles the total for party representatives to 23,509.
US no-show
Overall, of the 198 parties to the UNFCCC, 194 have registered delegations for COP30.
The most notable absentee is the US, which has been present at every other COP in history – even throughout Donald Trump’s first presidency.
On average, the US sends a delegation of around 100 people, typically making it one of the larger groups at the talks.
The absent parties – Afghanistan, Myanmar and San Marino – have been more sporadic attendees at past COPs.
Despite reports of a “logistical nightmare” hosting a COP summit in the Amazon, there has been no drop-off in the number of countries registering delegations for COP30.
In addition to hotel rooms and rental properties in Belém, beds have been made available on cruise ships, in converted shipping containers and in motels that Reuters primly described as being typically “aimed at amorous couples”.
Reports suggested that many developing nations considered scaling back their presence at COP30, with smaller delegations or attendees only coming for a few days.
While the average party delegation size of 59 (excluding overflows) is lower than the previous two COPs, it is similar to the average in COP26 in Glasgow and COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The map and table below present the delegation size – split between party and overflow badges – for all the countries registered for COP30. The darker the shading, the more delegates that country has signed up. Use the search box to find the data for a specific party.
The largest delegation comes from host country Brazil, with 3,805 people registered. China (789) and Nigeria (749) follow with the second- and third-largest, respectively.
Making up the rest of the top 10 are Indonesia (566), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (556), France (530), Chad (528), Australia (494), Tanzania (465) and Japan (461).
The UK comes someway down the list with a delegation of 210.
(It is worth noting that some countries – such as Brazil – allocate some of their party badges to NGOs, which can artificially inflate the size of their official delegation.)
The smallest delegation is the one person registered to represent Nicaragua. There are five delegations of two people (North Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Slovakia).
Ahead of COP30, Latvia's climate minister, told Reuters that the country had asked if its negotiators could dial into the summit by video call. However, Latvia does not appear to have registered any delegates to attend virtually.
In total, 40 parties registered virtual delegates. Party totals are all in single figures apart from the Philippines (31), Costa Rica (21) and Turkey (16).
Changing gender balance
The UNFCCC’s participant lists typically provide a title – such as Mr, Ms, Sr or Sra – for each registered delegate. In the past, this has allowed Carbon Brief to work out the balance of men to women in the delegations that each country has sent to a COP.
(This analysis always carries the caveat that the titles are designated by UNFCCC and not by Carbon Brief. In addition, Carbon Brief recognises that gender is not best categorised using a binary “man” or “woman” label and appreciates that the UNFCCC’s lists may not be wholly accurate.)
Overall, the COP30 provisional list suggests an average gender balance of party delegations of 57% men to 43% women.
As the chart below shows, this makes COP29 the most balanced COP in history. For consistency, the COP28, COP29 and COP30 figures only include those on party badges, not overflow ones.
(Note: Since COP28 last year, the UNFCCC has also used titles that do not indicate gender – such as Dr, Prof, Ambassador and Honourable. Therefore, for this analysis, these non-gendered titles – which make up 1% of all the people at COP30, for example – have not been included.)
There are four party delegations this year that are all men – Tuvalu (three delegates), Niger (three), North Korea (two) and Nicaragua (one) – and one that is all women (Nauru, with five delegates).
The full list of COP30 party delegation sizes can be found here.
(For previous COPs, see Carbon Brief’s delegate analysis for COP21, COP23, COP24, COP25, COP26, COP27, COP28, COP29)
The post Analysis: Which countries have sent the most delegates to COP30? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Which countries have sent the most delegates to COP30?
Isa Mulder is a policy expert on global carbon markets at Carbon Market Watch.
In recent months, industry players as well as some conservation groups have been pushing to effectively lower the integrity and ambition of carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
However, the need to finance nature does not excuse creating a carbon crediting mechanism devoid of environmental integrity, just to keep carbon projects commercially viable. The bar set by the Article 6 crediting mechanism must be high, as the price that nature will pay if we opt to rely on hot air credits to offset ongoing emissions is much higher.
Carbon credit markets have been a controversial feature of international climate politics since the establishment of the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, and later adoption under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
Although the Article 6 rulebook was finalised at last year’s COP in Baku – albeit with many worrisome gaps – the nitty-gritty of its carbon crediting mechanism is still being developed. That work is overseen by the Supervisory Body (SBM), a de facto regulator accountable to the signatory countries of the Paris Agreement.
Permanence rules weakened
Between July and September 2025, the Methodological Expert Panel (MEP) – the technical advisory committee reporting back to the SBM – produced draft rules on permanence, intended to spell out the steps that carbon market projects must take to guarantee their emission reductions or removals are permanently and securely stored on climate-relevant timeframes (centuries to millennia).
The MEP’s final recommendation introduced requirements for carbon projects considered at risk of losing their achieved results. This included requiring projects to monitor their claimed mitigation until it could be reliably demonstrated that the likelihood of re-releasing sequestered CO₂ (e.g., carbon stored in trees) into the atmosphere was negligible, such as through events like fire or logging. In essence, high-risk projects would need to keep a watchful eye on emission reductions or removals for as long as that risk remains significant.
The rationale behind this is that carbon credits are often used for offsetting purposes as a means to supposedly compensate for ongoing fossil fuel emissions, of which the negative impacts are nearly permanent.
-
EU’s new climate target lines up multibillion-dollar boost for carbon markets
Analysts estimate the EU will buy at least 50 billion euros worth of carbon credits in the 2030s to help meet its emissions-cutting goals, giving a huge boost to the market in offsets -
Zimbabwe forest carbon megaproject generated millions of junk credits
Verra is seeking compensation for offsets issued “in excess” by the controversial Kariba REDD+ scheme. But the registry’s track record in obtaining remedies raises concerns
It is therefore reasonable to expect that the carbon credits designed to compensate for this damage also guarantee positive impacts over a comparable duration. Failing to do so would mean that any apparent short-term benefits of offsetting would eventually become harmful and lead to net temperature increases, even before considering the broader environmental and social concerns related to offsetting.
However, this seemingly sound rationale rubbed many market actors the wrong way.
Whereas such documents typically attract only a handful of stakeholder responses, this one received over 170 reactions during the first and second rounds of consultations on the proposed rules.
Carbon Market Watch found that in the second round, three-quarters of commenters held direct or indirect financial interests in carbon markets and most of them strongly opposed the draft requirements. Their efforts were successful, and, as a result, weaker rules were adopted.
Carbon credits cannot save nature alone
Now turning their attention to COP30, many of the same market actors, along with some conservation organisations, are asking countries to further erode the integrity of the carbon crediting mechanism under Article 6.
Efforts to dilute these rules further risk derailing Article 6 at COP30, a conference which is meant to place nature front and centre. The misconception at the heart of this dangerous campaign is that stronger rules would negatively affect nature-based projects.
While it is undeniable that financing nature is essential for reaching our Paris Agreement goals, the need to finance nature is no good reason to create a carbon crediting mechanism lacking in environmental rigour, motivated by market actors’ desire to keep carbon projects commercially viable.
Is “hard-to-abate” really that hard – or is it a justification for delay?
Those in favour of weakening the rules often seem to conveniently overlook that most credits approved and circulating have been of very low quality and that they are used – mainly by big oil – to excuse business-as-usual emissions.
The scientific consensus holds that finance for nature must be scaled up to protect the natural world, but not by linking it to the offsetting of fossil emissions, whose climate impacts last for millennia. In fact, scientists have warned time and again about the serious shortcomings of relying on offsetting as a climate solution. If the credits used to compensate for fossil fuel emissions can’t make good on their promise, then climate change will worsen, and nature will end up being worse off.
The choice ahead of us is clear. Countries at COP30 will have to make a decision on the direction of travel for this discussion. The question is not how to bend carbon market rules to create a financing mechanism for nature-based offsetting projects, but how to uphold and strengthen those rules to protect nature itself.
The post Carbon market supporters risk cheating the nature they wish to protect appeared first on Climate Home News.
Carbon market supporters risk cheating the nature they wish to protect
COP30 Bulletin Day 2: India’s targets missing but Korea and Mexico make pledges
Analysis: Which countries have sent the most delegates to COP30?
Analysis: Which countries have sent the most delegates to COP30?
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases3 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”
-
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