The UK will miss the UN’s deadline to publish a new national plan for how it will address nature loss ahead of the COP16 biodiversity summit in Colombia this month, Carbon Brief understands.
At COP15 in 2022, countries agreed to submit new national nature plans – known as “national biodiversity strategies and action plans”, or NBSAPs – “ahead” of COP16, which will take place in Cali from 21 October to 1 November.
In December 2023 at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, the UK pledged to publish its nature strategy by May of this year – and even organised a launch event at Wicken Fen nature reserve in Cambridge 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 government now intends to publish it in January, Carbon Brief understands.
The missed deadline comes after UK foreign secretary David Lammy said that the government would prioritise action against biodiversity loss, describing it as a “more fundamental threat” than terrorism to the nation.
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.
The UK made this submission at the beginning of August in order to be included in the documents being prepared for COP16, Carbon Brief understands.
Biodiversity in the balance
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 within their borders, as well as ensure they meet the international 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.
Carbon Brief analysis shows that most countries are set to miss the deadline for submitting new NBSAPs. This includes COP16 host Colombia and Azerbaijan, which recently made a formal bid to host COP17 in 2026. (The US is not a signatory to the GBF.)
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.
While it will not publish a new NBSAP, the UK did provide the COP16 secretariat with a national target submission. (A number of countries that missed the NBSAP deadline instead submitted new national targets.)
This submission includes information on how the UK will aim to meet the 23 targets outlined in the GBF.
The submission says that the UK will “ensure and enable” the protection of 30% of the UK’s land and seas by 2030, as well as a pledge to restore 500,000 hectares of “wildlife-rich habitat” outside of protected areas by 2042.
In addition, it says the UK will “substantially and progressively” increase financial resources available to developing countries for tackling biodiversity loss, adding that the UK will contribute to “global targets” of mobilising at least $200bn per year by 2030.
The submission also says that the UK will take action to ensure fair and equitable benefit sharing from “digital sequence information” (DSI).
(DSI is a term for how countries share and use genetic information from biological resources, such as for the creation of new drugs and products. It is a major area of disagreement in international negotiations.)
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.”
However, Adrian Ramsay, an MP and co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said the government should not be arriving at COP16 “empty handed”, telling Carbon Brief:
“It is extremely disappointing to learn that the UK will fail to submit its national nature strategy ahead of crucial COP16 talks. These should be key priorities for the government, not issues to be kicked into the long grass.”
Meg Randles, global political lead on oceans for the NGO Greenpeace, tells Carbon Brief that it is “concerning” that the UK will not publish a nature strategy ahead of COP16, adding:
“Given how quickly the natural world is disappearing, it’s concerning that the UK government has not been more visible on this issue. As one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth, it is vital we get our own house in order to bolster the global goal of protecting at least 30% of land and sea by 2030.
“[The UK] must follow up with a full and updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and by providing our fair share of funds to deliver it as soon as possible.”
The post UK misses deadline to submit nature pledge ahead of UN COP16 biodiversity summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
UK misses deadline to submit nature pledge ahead of UN COP16 biodiversity summit
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
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.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously reveal