A landmark global goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 is close to slipping beyond reach – and may have not been achievable when it was set in 2022, according to a former UK lead negotiator.
Will Lockhart OBE represented the UK in UN nature negotiations from 2021 until the end of COP16 talks in Rome in February of this year.
He tells Carbon Brief that the agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in Canada in 2022 was a “huge personal highlight” that made nature “frontpage news”.
But when asked about whether it is possible to reverse the rapid decline of biodiversity in just five years – the headline “mission” of the GBF, commonly referred to as the “Paris Agreement for nature” – he says:
“The trajectory right now would suggest, no, it’s looking incredibly hard to achieve. But…with exactly the right interventions at exactly the right scale, it might still be possible.
“A fair question might be was it ever possible?…There has always been a contested evidence base about whether it could ever have been achieved.”
Shortly after the GBF was agreed in 2022, Carbon Brief spoke to a range of biologists who expressed doubt that it would be possible to totally reverse the decline of nature over such a timescale.
Earlier this year, Carbon Brief and the Guardian published an investigation finding that more than half of countries who have submitted plans to the UN failed to commit to protecting 30% of their territories for nature – one of the key levers for reversing biodiversity loss.
Countries have never fully met any target to help nature since the UN biodiversity convention was established in the 1990s.
The world’s biodiversity is declining at a faster rate than at any other time in recorded history. Around one million animal and plant species already face extinction.
Aiming high
The GBF is a global agreement with an aim to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss” by 2030 and achieve “harmony with nature” by 2050.
To help achieve its aims, the GBF sets out 23 targets for countries covering a wide range of topics, from protecting and restoring ecosystems to slashing subsidies for activities harmful to nature and providing funding to developing countries.
The GBF follows the Aichi targets, the previous set of UN goals for tackling nature loss by 2020 that ended in collective failure.
Towards the end of the 2010s – as it became clear that the Aichi targets were likely to fail – a flurry of research papers were published examining what it would take to “bend the curve” on biodiversity loss.
Among the most influential was a 2018 commentary in Nature Sustainability, led by the late pioneering biodiversity scientist Prof Georgina Mace. It urged countries to “clearly specify the goal for biodiversity recovery” in their post-2020 agreement for nature, “analogous to the [UN climate change] 1.5-2C target”.
On biodiversity loss, Mace and her team wrote:
“This declining trend must not only be halted, but also reversed.”
The post-2020 agreement for nature – covering the decade from 2021 to 2030 – was meant to be finalised in 2020. However, the Covid-19 pandemic caused the COP15 biodiversity summit to be postponed several times, before it was eventually held in two parts, starting in October 2021 and concluding in December 2022.
When negotiators met in Montreal to decide the details of their post-2020 agreement, the idea of halting and reversing biodiversity loss within a few years was already viewed as a steep challenge, Lockhart says:
“The important thing is that people spent a lot of time thinking about why we were setting certain kinds of targets…We wanted them to be specific, measurable and achieveable. What does achievable mean? What does ambitious mean? What message are we trying to send? This is politics; this isn’t necessarily science.
“If the answer is that it was never possible in the first place, then the question is: ‘Why did the world agree to it?’ And the answer to that is: ‘Because it matters that we try.’”
When Carbon Brief spoke to biologists about the feasibility of the goal in 2023, they expressed similar sentiments.
Dr David Obura, founding director of Coastal Oceans Research and Development, Indian Ocean (CORDIO) East Africa and current chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), told Carbon Brief in 2023:
“As a scientist, whether we can achieve halting and reversing by 2030, I’m highly doubtful.
“[But] for a political document like this, there has to be a time-bound [element]. So, in that sense, I think halt and reverse by 2030 is the right language to have, for sure.”
The future of COPs
But whether setting a lofty target truly spurred sufficient action on biodiversity loss remains an open question.
Following on from the agreement of the GBF in 2022, countries were asked to submit new national plans for how they will meet its goal. These are known as national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
In October 2024, Carbon Brief and the Guardian reported jointly that 85% of nations had missed the deadline for submitting their NBSAPs.
As of June 2025, only 26% of parties have submitted new NBSAPs. (Separately, 67% of parties have submitted shorter – and less detailed – national targets.)
Further Carbon Brief and Guardian reporting found that, of countries that have submitted nature plans, more than half do not commit to protecting 30% of their territories for nature by 2030, which was billed as one of the headline targets of the GBF.
And research published in Nature Ecology and Evolution found that countries that have submitted nature plans have broadly failed to commit to another GBF target to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
Following on from a set of fractious UN environmental negotiations last year, some experts have called for “reforms” to the way that these summits – known as COPs – work.
Lockhart tells Carbon Brief that, following his time representing the UK at the highest level at COPs, he still carries hope for the future of these summits. But, he says, he also has questions about how the world views the role of these negotiations in addressing environmental problems:
“A question that everyone has to bear in mind is: ‘What [is the] value the [of] COPs?’
“You pour a huge amount of time and resource into a global dialogue, which results in a very, very carefully negotiated outcome. It’s extremely important, in my view, that you have a space where the whole world can come together in a room and agree that it wants to do something.
“The question is, where does the world locate that process?”
He said that he fears the “world is simultaneously asking too much and too little of COPs”, continuing:
“It’s asking too much in the sense that there’s so much coverage and intense scrutiny of ‘this person’s arrived’, ‘this comma has moved’…There’s an extraordinary media circus. [There is] extreme expectation on each individual meeting.
“And, at the same time, it’s simultaneously asking too little of them. It’s like: ‘Great, this word was in so it was a good COP’, or ‘this word was out so it was a bad COP’. And, of course, COPs are just one tiny part of this huge global process that needs to happen if we’re going to tackle these problems. I rather worry – and I know that colleagues feel the same – they’re just viewed as ends in themselves.”
COPs were “always” meant to be just one “part of the jigsaw puzzle”, he adds:
“We agree stuff. It doesn’t get delivered, by and large. It doesn’t get delivered because the implementation processes aren’t in place back at home in different government departments.
“The reasons that the implementation processes aren’t in place varies based on political factors, capability factors, jurisdictional factors, all sorts of different things. The problem is that by focussing on COPs as an end to themselves, we risk missing the wood for the trees.”
Lockhart is now working as the director of climate and energy at Apolitical, an online platform offering training and support for governments globally.
The post World might have set itself an unachievable nature target, says former UK negotiator appeared first on Carbon Brief.
World might have set itself an unachievable nature target, says former UK negotiator
The UN’s flagship climate fund has selected five locations for its new regional offices, a move aimed at bringing it physically closer to developing countries and making its finance easier to access.
After fraught discussions during a meeting last week, the board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) decided in a secret vote on Saturday to open regional offices in Panama City, Amman in Jordan, Suva in Fiji, Nairobi in Kenya and Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire. The African office will be split across two locations to better serve the continent with the largest number of countries and projects supported by the fund.
The decision marks a significant shift for the fund, which has operated from its headquarters in Songdo, South Korea, since its launch in 2013.
“This is a landmark moment for [the] GCF,” said the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte. “It has taken a lot of work, careful negotiation and persistent advocacy for a model that will bring us closer to the countries, to our partners and the communities we were created to serve”.
‘Less delay, more action’
The new offices are expected to act as the GCF’s front line, working more closely with governments, the private sector and civil society to improve access to climate finance and support the delivery of projects aimed at cutting emissions and strengthening resilience to climate impacts.
Welcoming the decision in a LinkedIn post, Fiji’s Permanent Secretary for the environment and climate change Sivendra Michael described it as “a win for the entire Pacific”, citing “long hours” and “tough negotiations” behind the outcome. “Less delay, more action — real support where it matters most,” he added.
-
Can new CEO steer Global Center on Adaptation back on course?
Madagascar’s Rindra Rabarinirinarison takes the helm of the troubled organisation promising to prioritise fundraising, rebuild trust with donors and hone its mission
A total of 43 countries applied to host the new offices, with 16 making a final shortlist after the GCF secretariat assessed bids on criteria including cost, connectivity and the ability to attract a “world-class workforce” through quality of life and access to international schools.
Panama emerged as the top-ranked location overall, according to a document seen by Climate Home News, while some selected hosts, including Amman and Abidjan, scored lower than rival candidates in their regions.
Establishing the new hubs is expected to cost an initial $6.5 million, but the fund anticipates these upfront expenses will be offset over time through operational savings, including lower staff and travel costs.
First Palestinian entity approved
The GCF board also accredited the first organisation in Palestine that will be able to directly apply for and access funding.
Created by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the Municipal Development and Lending Fund supports local infrastructure projects and services. Working with partners, including the World Bank, it is developing projects to help communities cope with escalating climate risks such as drought and extreme heat.
In the West Bank, which is occupied by Israel, just under half of the population lives in areas classified as having high to very high climate exposure, according to a recent study.
The post Green Climate Fund picks locations for five developing country hubs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Green Climate Fund picks locations for five developing country hubs
Farmers and fishermen in the Maldives have long relied on an ancient calendar to guide their daily lives.
The Nakaiy system divides the year into 27 distinct periods, each named after a star or constellation in the night sky.
Any one period in the calendar tells you about expected weather and tidal patterns, navigational routes, and fishing conditions. The Nakaiy was created through centuries of careful observation and local knowledge, passed down through families as an essential tool for survival.
But things are now changing. The climate crisis is leading to more extreme weather events across the Indian Ocean island nation and upending the Nakaiy calendar.
“When you go and speak to communities and ask them what kind of impacts they are facing, a lot of elders will tell you that the weather, it doesn’t follow the calendar anymore,” explained Aishath Reesha Suhail, a programme officer in the Maldives’ Ministry of Tourism and Environment.
As the effects of climate change worsen, it is a real prospect that the Nakaiy may be abandoned by local people, representing a major cultural loss to the Maldives.
‘Systemic and growing threat’
With extreme weather becoming the norm, communities are observing a domino effect of consequences in their everyday lives. The slow onset of heritage loss is now being seen across continents, but notably among small islands in remote parts of the ocean.
“Climate change represents a systemic and growing threat to cultural heritage worldwide,” a UNESCO spokesperson told Climate Home, adding that the World Heritage Committee has identified climate change as “one of the most significant long-term risks affecting properties across all regions.”
UNESCO, the UN body for education, science and culture, defines the loss of cultural heritage as “the erosion of traditional knowledge systems, craftsmanship, social practices and identity, particularly where communities are displaced or livelihoods disrupted”. A clear example is historical sites and even entire islands washed into the ocean as a result of rising sea levels and coastal erosion.
The Maldives is dealing with such a situation now. The Koagannu Cemetery is a 900-year-old resting place, located on the country’s southernmost atoll, a mere 50 metres from the shoreline. The monument’s intricate coral gravestones are being actively threatened by the encroaching Indian Ocean.
The government and local community have responded to this challenge with emergency protection measures. Sandbags and concrete structures have been installed along the coastline, complemented by large numbers of palm trees to create a seawall. A wider solution is ‘beach nourishment’, a common practice in the Maldives where sand from elsewhere is brought in to replace what has been lost through erosion. Taken together, these solutions have so far protected the cemetery.
Among the many issues climate change creates, cultural heritage is not always front of mind. In the Maldives, one of the main barriers people face is awareness. “Most of what we are dealing with relates to the erosion of our islands along with areas such as fisheries… but we are quite limited in our capacity to do something about it,“ Suhail said.
“We don’t understand the full breadth of the issue at present because we haven’t been able to do extensive research on the matter,” she added. However, assessing the extent of the damage – and how to respond effectively – is a key priority for the government, outlined in its latest climate plan, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution, and as part of its National Adaptation Plan process.
Fishing is at the core of the country’s culture and identity, employing thousands of people. Most dishes include fish – “we have it for breakfast, lunch and dinner,” Suhail noted – but the climate crisis and overfishing are shifting how and when communities can fish. Tuna makes up 98% of all fish caught in the Maldives, but warmer ocean temperatures are changing migratory patterns, pushing the species into deeper, colder waters.
As a critical economic and cultural resource, the government has outlined a range of solutions to protect the fisheries sector in its first Biennial Transparency Report to the UN. These include using real-time tracking data to improve the efficiency of fishing operations; investing in canneries to increase fish storage; and diversifying away from tuna through marine farming.
Culture and nature go hand-in-hand
The same pattern is playing out elsewhere.
Palau and the Maldives are not close to one another. The two states are separated by around 4,000 miles and sit in different corners of the ocean. But both are experiencing very similar climate challenges, based on their position as a set of scattered, low-lying islands surrounded by an imposing body of blue water.
In the same way as the Maldives, Palau’s cultural heritage is closely tied to “land, coastlines and traditional food systems,” according to Toni Soalabla, at the Palau Office of Climate Change.
“Many of the places that hold stories, history and identity of our communities are located along the coast and are increasingly exposed to erosion and sea level rise,” she said.
One of these places is Ngerutechei village, reportedly the oldest in Palau, and home to ancient stone paths and carvings. The village provides a glimpse into the past social values and culture of the people in this western Pacific nation.
As part of the development of Palau’s National Adaptation Plan, the government has worked with local leaders to identify similar sites of cultural significance. The plan encourages communities to use their own knowledge to create protective measures for these sites.
Climate change is also prompting communities to take up traditional land and food practices again. These include cultivating taro, a stable food source that has historically supported water, soil and food security on the islands.
“These systems developed over generations in response to local environmental conditions, so strengthening them today is both a climate adaptation measure and a way of maintaining cultural knowledge that might otherwise fade,” said Soalabla.
Cultural practices in Palau have developed alongside the natural ecosystems that people rely on to survive. It is within this context that researchers believe adaptation policies should be created. Recognising this relationship “can strengthen both community identity and environmental resilience at the same time”, according to Soalabla.
Heritage on the global stage
The issue of cultural loss has not gone unnoticed in international climate negotiations.
Small island states such as the Maldives have used their role at the UN to push for greater awareness and action, with some key successes.
In 2015, the Paris Agreement established a Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) which recognised that countries needed to do something about climate change now and not later. However, it took six years before a framework and a set of adaptation targets were agreed at the UN climate summit in Glasgow to pursue this goal.
From this came the establishment of seven overall themes – from poverty eradication to access to health – to guide adaptation action and a set of around 60 indicators to measure progress against the targets.
World leaders invited to see Pacific climate destruction before COP31
Emilie Beauchamp, an adaptation specialist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said that “cultural heritage was highlighted as one of the global priorities [of the GGA Framework] and is one of the seven themes, so it is considered very important by the international community.”
The much-debated set of indicators, only finalised in Belém at last year’s COP30, include five related to cultural heritage with a focus on preserving cultural practices and important sites that are “guided by traditional knowledge, Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and local knowledge systems”. A spokesperson for UNESCO said the inclusion of heritage indicators “marks an important recognition that climate impacts extend beyond economic losses”.
While critics said the set of final indicators was rushed through by the Brazilian presidency, they now serve as guidance for national governments that wish to implement plans to protect their common heritage. The missing piece of the puzzle remains how to finance these plans – something notably absent from the Belém text, which made clear that the adaptation indicators “do not create new financial obligations or commitments, nor liability or compensation”.
The lack of financial commitments proved disappointing for many small states grappling with how to prevent their cultural history from being entirely forgotten, especially at a time when adaptation finance remains below requirements. A recent UNEP report found that developing nations would need an estimated US$310 billion per year in 2035 to adapt to climate change, while current public financing was around $26 billion.
At these low levels “only a small percentage of what the framework outlines could be implemented,” according to Beauchamp.
The challenge of cultural heritage
When looking at low-lying islands on a map, they can appear as specks of land amid a vast ocean. Many of the stories from these remote places go unnoticed. But the specks represent millennia of human culture that is slowly being lost to the ocean.
While the international community has now recognised the problem and solutions exist, the recurring issue of scarce finance may prevent governments from taking sustained action. Island communities have already been forced to move home as sea levels rise, leaving behind their cultural connections to a place.
The value of any cultural asset, or of human heritage, can be judged by how it is engaged with over generations. Without human intervention, many historical sites, language, cuisine and other local customs would become a forgotten part of history. The rapid onset of climate change brings the role of cultural heritage into sharp relief, challenging communities to decide in real time what they value, what deserves saving, and how to achieve that.
Stories of cultural loss are not confined to small islands but it is here where the challenge is presenting most acutely. The experiences of these vulnerable nations in protecting their heritage will provide the litmus test for effective adaptation responses elsewhere.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.
(Main image: The Isdhoo Havitha is an ancient Buddhist monastery in the Maldives, located moments from the shoreline. Photo: Ashwa Faheem)
The post Island nations fight to save cultural heritage from climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.
Island nations fight to save cultural heritage from climate change
The invasive emerald ash borer, native to northeast Asia, has spread to 37 states over the past quarter century, killing nearly all of the ash trees it infests. But in Maine, a coalition of basketmakers, scientists and government officials are plotting a future for their trees.
Each strip of wood in Richard Silliboy’s hands started as a year of an ash tree’s life.
Nasdaq Invests in First EU-Certified Carbon Removal Credits from Stockholm Exergi
AI Solutions from Microsoft and NVIDIA Power DOE’s Nuclear Energy Genesis Mission
Green Climate Fund picks locations for five developing country hubs
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years 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 Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years 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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits