In a late night session in Rome, the COP16 biodiversity talks – which resumed this week after failing to reach consensus last year – adopted a finance roadmap that will work towards a 2030 deadline, pushing back a final decision on how to channel scarce funding to help countries protect nature.
Under the roadmap, countries will assess whether to create a new, independent global biodiversity fund to replace the existing one sitting with the Global Environment Facility (GEF). This issue caused a major row at last year’s COP16 in Cali, Colombia – and is set to resurface in future discussions.
In an emotional final plenary in Rome in the early hours of Friday, COP16 president Susana Muhammad, who is Colombia’s outgoing environment minister, said: “I announce officially that we have given legs, arms and muscle to the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework”.
That framework, agreed in 2022 in Canada, is a global agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by protecting at least 30% of the planet’s land and seas by 2030 – but it remains unclear where the money will come from to pay for the efforts required.
“More than any other issue, the successful implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework will depend on whether the world meets its financing targets,” said Brian O’Donnell, director of advocacy group Campaign for Nature.
UK aid budget cuts threaten climate finance pledge to vulnerable nations, experts warn
Countries have agreed to mobilise $200 billion a year in finance for nature by 2030, including $30 billion from wealthy governments to poorer ones. The total for 2022 was around half that, official figures show.
Under the new finance roadmap agreed in Rome, by COP18 in 2028, countries committed to “identify and implement measures to enhance the global biodiversity finance to mobilize new and additional resources from all sources”.
A thorny issue on the horizon will be whether to expand the base of government contributors to include not only developed countries but also well-off emerging economies. That was also a major point of disagreement at last year’s COP29 climate summit in Baku.
At the COP16 talks in Rome, countries agreed to discuss the “opportunities for broadening the contributors base” by next year’s COP17.
“Quite simply, we have no chance of halting and reversing biodiversity loss without accelerating and exponentially increasing the delivery of finance to the areas most important for biodiversity,” said O’Donnell.
“This decision today lays out a roadmap. Now, it is up to leaders worldwide to prioritise urgent action for nature,” he added.
Funding gap
Finance has been one of the most contentious issues at the UN biodiversity negotiations. In Cali, countries failed to reach an agreement after clashing for two weeks over the issue. And funding was one of the key barriers holding back last decade’s Aichi targets to stop nature loss, which were largely unmet.
In this week’s three-day session in Rome, countries agreed to create two separate workstreams running until 2030: one focused on the “financial mechanism” to channel funds for biodiversity and another seeking to “improve the mobilization of finance from all sources”.
Experts estimate there is a $700-billion gap in funding for nature protection every year. To close this, countries agreed in 2022 to re-direct $500 billion now spent on subsidies that are harmful for nature, and to mobilise $200 billion from all available financial sources, including government budgets, the private sector, and multilateral development banks.
How COP16 2.0 can unlock business investment to properly fund nature
The new 2030 roadmap was criticised by some developing countries during the negotiations. “Biodiversity cannot wait for a bureaucratic process that lasts forever while the environmental crisis continues to get worse,” Bolivia’s delegate told a plenary on Wednesday.
Nonetheless the final finance agreement in Rome has broken a “longstanding policy deadlock”, said Jill Hepp, biodiversity funding lead at Conservation International. “Now that there is a path forward on how funding will flow, we all must take ambitious action to accomplish our collective goals,” she added in a statement.
New biodiversity fund?
Currently, international funds for nature protection flow through the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), administered by the GEF under an interim arrangement that ends in 2030. The main point of discussion at the resumed COP16 talks was what to do after that date.
The GBFF has struggled to attract funding, raising just $383 million in pledges from 12 developed countries so far. The most vulnerable nations also say the money isn’t reaching them and have criticised the GEF’s bureaucracy, leading a call to make the fund independent.
Under the Rome roadmap, countries agreed to have a permanent fund – but still need to work out whether it will stay at the GEF or whether to create an entirely new one. Governments are set to take this decision by 2028 and, if they opt for a new fund, they will discuss its operationalisation at COP19 in 2030.
Divisions over the new financial mechanism dominated discussions in Rome, while little time was spent on deciding how to increase cash flows. The BRICS group of emerging economies and African countries led the push for a new fund, while the European Union advocated for keeping it at the GEF.
“We will need to have more assurances when we embark on decisions on new financial mechanisms… that we won’t feel abandoned in the future,” said Brazilian negotiator Maria Angélica Ikeda.
Reacting to the outcome in Rome, the GEF’s CEO Carlos Manuel Rodríguez welcomed the decision and added that the GEF has gone through “a series of reforms” to better serve countries. “The GEF has been listening carefully to parties and is committed to continued improvements in order to respond to their expectations and capacities needs,” Rodríguez said in a statement.
Earlier in the week, the secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) launched the separate Cali Fund, which was agreed at last year’s talks in Colombia and is meant to receive voluntary contributions from companies that use genetic material from biodiversity. This is common in sectors like the pharmaceutical, chemical and cosmetics industries.
The fund currently sits empty – but the UN said it is in conversations with potential donors, without revealing names due to commercial confidentiality. “The ball is now in the court of businesses around the world,” said Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, deputy executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
Biodiversity plans lag behind
In Rome, countries also adopted a monitoring framework for the global biodiversity pact, which includes a set of indicators for countries to track progress on their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, known as NBSAPs.
The indicators – which include, for example, the number of species at risk of extinction or land use change in Indigenous territories – will help assess the effectiveness of country plans. Yet those plans remain few and far between.
Just 47 countries have submitted NBSAPs, according to the CBD’s tracker. Despite a formal deadline of last year’s COP16, only a handful of nations have presented new plans since, with Austria being the sole country to unveil its plan at this week’s resumed session in Rome. Key so-called “megadiverse” countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Brazil have yet to submit their NBSAPs.
Experts note that a lack of funding is a major obstacle for poorer countries in developing the plans, which require long consultation processes, in particular with Indigenous communities.
This is especially the case in Africa, where almost all countries have national biodiversity targets – a looser format that requires less spending – but not full NBSAPs.
With the finance decision now adopted in Rome, Hepp of Conservation International urged countries to focus on implementing their goals to safeguard nature and “urgently moving funds to protect lands and seas that sustain all of us”. “We must not take our eye off the ball,” she added.
The post UN biodiversity talks agree finance roadmap, pushing decision on a new fund to 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN biodiversity talks agree finance roadmap, pushing decision on a new fund to 2030
Confusion reigned in Antalya on Wednesday morning as some delegates heeded the Turkish organisers’ warning to get to the COP31 venue before 7am today. Others saw a later UN clarification that this wasn’t necessary, and many more decided not to chance it and work from their hotel rooms.
Additional restrictions seem to have been put in place so that the 40 or so world leaders due to speak could be ferried from the airport to the venue and so that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could plant some symbolic olive trees without ordinary COP delegates ruining the photo op.
The list of world leaders speaking today is considerably shorter than the (already short) list from just six days ago, with the leaders of Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, the Netherlands and Sweden among those dropping out.
Still on there are the co-hosts Erdoğan and Australia’s Albanese plus Brazil’s recently re-elected President Lula and the European Commission head Ursula Von der Leyen. The leader of rainforest-rich DR Congo and the vice president of clean energy and coal superpower China will also speak, as well Barbados’s Mia Mottley and Saudi Arabia’s energy minister Abdulaziz bin Salman.
While the leaders of big-emitting countries have not turned up, there will be plenty of voices from the frontlines of climate change with heads of government from desertifying Mauritania, water-stressed Iraq, the sinking Marshall Islands and drought-hit Somalia all speaking.
Today is also “Zero Waste” Day, with First Lady Emine Erdoğan holding an afternoon roundtable on her pet topic. Before COP, Climate Home News visited a landfill and zero waste education centre in Ankara to find out how well – or otherwise – Türkiye is doing in its pursuit of waste reduction.
Türkiye pushes “zero waste” at COP31, but is it delivering at home?
We’re watching out for any news on the country’s single-use plastics ban, which has been introduced to parliament but not yet – after some lobbying from the plastics industry – got the president’s signature.
The post COP31 Bulletin Day 3: With the people stuck outside, world leaders jet in appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP31 Bulletin Day 3: With the people stuck outside, world leaders jet in
The amount of public funding pledged to help developing countries tackle climate change has dropped by more than 70% in 2026, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Developed countries are required under UN climate treaties to provide “climate finance” and have traditionally announced multi-year pledges to feed into their global commitments.
Most of these pledges expired in 2025 and, since then, the US has withdrawn from international climate efforts and many European aid budgets have been cut.
A civil-society tracker shows that only five nations have announced new multi-year pledges, including just one major donor – the UK.
Germany, France and Japan are among the key contributors that have so far failed to set out plans for new climate finance, while none is expected from the US.
As a result, the total amount of public climate finance pledged over the next few years amounts to just $11.7bn a year in spending, down from recent levels of around $40bn.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that global conflict, fiscal constraints and the rise of the far right are all making it harder for developed-country governments to pledge new funds.
As the COP31 summit in Turkey gets underway, developing countries are stressing their urgent need for new finance, after nations agreed to a new global target just two years ago.
Missing pledges
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries are obliged to provide climate finance to help developing countries cut their emissions and prepare for climate disasters.
This financial assistance can be channelled through multilateral development banks, UN climate funds and investments “mobilised” from the private sector.
But a large chunk is also expected to come directly from the public coffers of developed countries – primarily their foreign-aid budgets. This public spending has made up roughly a third of climate finance flowing to developing countries in recent years.
The EU, the US and others agreed just two years ago that they would “take the lead” on scaling up annual climate finance from $100bn in the early 2020s to $300bn by 2035.
Donor countries have traditionally supported such goals by announcing multi-year targets that indicate how much they plan to spend on climate finance.
Nearly all of these pledges expired in 2025 – and hardly any major donors have announced new ones to replace them, covering the period out to 2030.
This lack of new commitments is captured in a tracker of old and new financial commitments by climate NGOs NRDC and E3G.
Carbon Brief analysis of this data, based on an annualised breakdown of targets, shows that developed countries had previously pledged around £42bn a year in public finance.
As the chart below shows, based on current pledges, this has fallen by around 71% to £11.8bn, on average, over the remainder of the 2020s.
Not all contributors announced public climate-finance pledges in advance for the pre-2026 period. Some did not hit their stated targets, while others exceeded them.
While official data for 2025 is not yet available, bilateral public finance reached £43.9bn in 2024, broadly in line with the amount pledged by developed countries.
Big contributors
International climate finance has been consistently dominated by five nations – Japan, Germany, France, the US and the UK.
These countries – together with the EU – have provided around 90% of all the bilateral, public climate finance going to developing countries in recent years.
Of these key players, only the UK has announced a new pledge, committing £6bn ($8bn) of aid between 2026-27 and 2028-29, plus £6.7bn ($8.9bn) from outside its aid budget.
This accounts for half of all the annual funds pledged from 2026 onwards – averaging $5.7bn a year.
The European Commission makes up most of the remainder, with an average annual contribution of $4.5bn promised out to 2027.
Rather than a new pledge, this is due to the commission promising to spend €28bn ($31.8bn) over its 2021-2027 budget period. Its post-2027 contribution is currently being discussed as part of wider EU budget negotiations.
Canada has promised to spend CA$5.3bn ($4.1bn) by 2030, averaging $860m a year. The Netherlands, Switzerland and Belgium have also pledged relatively small sums.
Overall, despite developed countries committing to scale up climate finance, these new pledges are either less ambitious – or only slightly more ambitious – than previous ones. This can be seen in the chart below.
The UK’s pledge appears more ambitious, but this is because the government has changed how it counts climate finance to include $8.9bn in “additional” public finance. When only the like-for-like aid components are compared, the new pledge amounts to a drop in ambition. (For more details, see the methodology.)
The most significant absence is the US, which committed to reaching $11.4bn in annual support by 2024 under the Biden administration.
Since president Donald Trump took power, the US has – for the second time – withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and shrunk its aid budget. It will not provide any official climate finance in the coming years.
Another notable absence is Australia, which is jointly hosting the upcoming COP31 summit, alongside Turkey. Josie Lee, policy and advocacy lead at Oxfam Australia, tells Carbon Brief:
“If Australia fails to announce a climate-finance pledge as president of negotiations, it would send a problematic message to those resisting action on climate change that might serve to embolden their agenda.”
Japan is the largest overall contributor of public climate finance, but it has not traditionally announced targets for this type of spending. Instead, the government set out overall goals that also bundle in finance “mobilised” from the private sector.
As a result, its public-finance ambitions have not been included in this analysis.
So far, the Japanese government has not announced any new multi-year climate-finance pledges, from either the public or the private sector.
European cuts
Europe provides the majority of international climate finance, but European governments have massively cut their aid spending in recent years, citing economic strain and defence spending needs.
Germany and France, the two largest European climate-finance contributors, both pledged to reach €6bn ($6.8bn) per year by 2025. Neither has committed to anything beyond that.
Both nations have slashed their aid budgets in recent years, including funding for climate programmes. Germany missed its 2025 climate-finance goal due to these cuts.
Dr Anja Carolin Gebel, a senior policy advisor at Germanwatch, tells Carbon Brief that this issue has become more politically fraught since the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) won the 2025 election and began leading a coalition government:
“The issue of climate change – and, subsequently, climate finance – has taken a back seat in the current government coalition.”
There has also been a political shift in France, Gaïa Febvre, international policy coordinator at Réseau Action Climat, tells Carbon Brief. She adds:
“The upcoming presidential election and the growing influence of the far right are likely to make new international financial commitments politically more difficult.”
Other significant European donors are also undergoing political turmoil.
Spain’s centre-left government has triggered a snap election for the end of November, making a new climate-finance pledge during COP31 less likely.
Following a narrow election win, a centre-left bloc in Sweden is still in the process of trying to form a new coalition government.
Some nations have signalled that their climate finance will continue flowing, even though they have not officially set out specific new pledges.
The Dutch government, for example, has said it will provide “at least” €300m ($334m) of specific climate funding annually out to 2031. However, it has also indicated that its total public climate finance is likely to be considerably higher in both 2026 and 2027.
To highlight the lack of new pledges, developing countries are championing a “climate-finance work programme” at COP31, which could provide a space to discuss scaling up public climate finance from developed countries.
In response, the EU has stressed that its member states are the “largest providers” of public climate finance and called on developing countries to submit overdue plans for cutting emissions. The EU and its member states provided a record €32.3bn ($40bn) in 2025.
Membership
Support award-winning climate journalism
Against this backdrop, EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra recently told Bloomberg that “any conversation on new fresh money is dead in the water”.
Joe Thwaites, international climate finance director at NRDC, who runs the commitment tracker, tells Carbon Brief that “developed countries would be wise to show how they are continuing to lead on climate finance”. He says:
“The lack of new announcements is making the finance negotiations tougher than they need to be. The debate around the climate-finance work programme is arising because developing countries have little clarity about how much public climate finance there will be in coming years.”
Methodology
This analysis is based on the climate-finance commitments tracker, run by the NGOs NRDC and E3G, supplemented with additional research.
Only the 23 “developed” countries that are obliged to provide climate finance are considered in this analysis, plus the EU. This includes western Europe, the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Japan and Norway both provide substantial sums of climate finance, but have not announced specific public-finance pledges and therefore are not included.
Carbon Brief converted multi-year pledges into single years, with 2025 used as the baseline “pre-2026” year. Some countries committed to reaching a certain amount “by 2025”, in which case that value is used. Others said they would provide a total amount over several years, in which case the average value per year is used. Belgium, Switzerland and the US only set initial targets as far as 2024, so their 2024 values were used instead of 2025.
These values were compared with the average annual contribution for the remainder of the 2020s, based on the new pledges from the UK, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Some climate finance has been committed by the Netherlands, but this is not expected to be its total contribution. The EU, Portugal and Greece have earlier pledges that extend into the latter half of the 2020s, although the latter two make very small contributions.
NRDC and E3G include all the UK’s newly pledged public finance in their tracker, including $8.9bn in “additional” public finance, which covers “equity, debt, guarantees, insurance and export credit” to mobilise private finance.
In previous Carbon Brief analysis comparing the UK’s new climate-finance target to its old one, this funding was not included. This is because the government did not previously count these funds towards its climate-finance goals, instead focusing exclusively on aid spending.
This analysis does not include pledges that some countries, including Germany and France, have made to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). However, these pledges would not substantially change the main finding, shifting the overall reduction from 71% to 70%.