Biodiversity COP 16 – our key takeaways for UK business and national nature recovery

The Convention on Biological Diversity’s (the “CBD”) sixteenth Conference of the Parties (“COP16”) took place in Cali, Colombia, between 21 October and 1 November 2024.

COP16 was the first biodiversity COP since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at COP15 in 2022 in Montreal, Canada (the “GBF”), widely coined as the ‘Paris Agreement for Nature’. The GBF replaced the previous AICHI Biodiversity Targets agreed in 2010. It contains four long-term goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030, underpinned by the mission to take ‘urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery’. More detail on the goals and targets of the GBF is set out in our article here.

COP16 was all about implementation of the GBF.  There is widespread concern that not enough is being done to meet the targets and goals of the GBF. Many countries (including the UK) faced criticism for failing to submit new National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (“NBSAPs”) prior to the start of the conference (as agreed in the GBF) (NBSAPs should set out how countries plan to meet the GBF’s targets).  

Negotiations at COP16 covered a wide range of topics. Particular achievements included the establishment of a global fund to share the benefits from uses of digital sequence information on genetic resources, and strengthening the role of indigenous people and local communities in biodiversity efforts by way of a new Programme of Work and a subsidiary body. This article does not try to cover all that was agreed or discussed (Carbon Brief produces an excellent summary which can be accessed here). We instead aim to highlight points most relevant to clients and most likely to impact law, policy and nature at a national level. As is often the case, a lot of what is of interest are the announcements made during the conference, outside the formal negotiations.

The 30 by 30 Target 

Targets 2 and 3 of the GBF aim to conserve and restore 30% of land and sea by 2030 (the “30 by 30 Target”). A 2024 report by Protected Planet estimates that global coverage of protected and conserved areas has now reached 17.6% of terrestrial and inland waters and 8.4% of marine and coastal areas.

While not enshrined in national law, the UK has committed internationally to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. During COP16 the UK Government released a policy paper setting out the criteria for land in England to contribute to its 30 by 30 Target. To qualify, land must meet all three criteria:

1. Purpose: Areas should be able to demonstrate that the purpose or management objectives will ensure the delivery of in-situ conservation outcomes;
2. Protection: Areas must ensure that in-situ conservation will be sustained over the long term (at least 20 years), and that the area will be protected against loss or damage to important biodiversity values through legal or other means;
3. Management: Areas should be effectively managed and able to demonstrate progress to towards in-situ conservation outcomes.

Land can either be self-assessed (i.e. suggested by the landowner / land manager and approved by Natural England), or an internal assessment will be made by Natural England based on data held within Defra Group (including core Defra and its delivery bodies). New contributions will be made on a voluntary basis, so the government is trying to encourage buy-in from landowners and land managers, which is why they are interacting and streamlining the target into existing mechanisms, such as the Environmental Land Management Schemes and Biodiversity Net Gain. 

It is helpful now to see the Government’s confirmed criteria and next steps for measuring the 30 by 30 Target. Inevitably, the Government’s suggested criteria has attracted both support and criticism. On the one hand, the criteria pragmatically acknowledges that if there is to be a major shift in land use towards long-term nature conservation, landowners need to be incentivised to do this by being rewarded. This is why the Government has said it will streamline 30 by 30 “… into existing mechanisms, such as Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes and Biodiversity Net Gain”. The 20-year period for in-situ conservation has clearly been selected with this in mind as it maps across to the at least 20-year period for the new Landscape Recovery Schemes Defra is promoting and the 30-year period for mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain.  Critics, however, argue that 20 years in nature conservation terms is certainly not long enough to be meaningful and that by linking the 30 by 30 Target to schemes which are at the whim of changes in Government policy/funding or market mechanisms, the UK will have lost a unique opportunity to ensure that more land in the UK receives permanent statutory protection. It is argued that this is necessary as only 8% of England has statutory protection as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (of which only 3% are in favourable condition) and only around 8.5% of land is owned by the public. The 30 by 30 Target offered a golden opportunity to strengthen and broaden the suite of protected sites in the UK and the Government’s criteria dilutes the target’s effectiveness.

The role of business

Target 15 of the GBF is to take legal, administrative or policy measures to encourage and enable business to regularly monitor, assess, and transparently disclosure their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity in order to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity, increase positive impacts, and reduce biodiversity-related risks to business and financial institutions.

Again, the most interesting developments here occurred outside the formal negotiations. The Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (the “TNFD”), which in 2023 published its recommendations on nature-related financial disclosures (available here), has now published a discussion paper on nature transition plans. The paper contains draft guidance on:

• What a nature transition plan should include; and
• How to disclose a transition plan.

It builds on the market best practice approach developed in the context of climate transition planning, adopting the same five themes as those recommended by Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (“GFANZ”): foundations, governance, implementation strategy, metrics and targets, and engagement strategy. The guidance is open to consultation, with a deadline of 1 February 2025.

This is an important step in the TNFD’s work, and follows a similar trajectory to work on disclosures and transition planning in the climate space. Recommendations by (1) the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and (2) the Transition Plan Taskforce, have now been incorporated into the work of the International Sustainability Standards Board (the “ISSB”), which has developed two sustainability standards, IFRS S1 (general requirements for the disclosure of sustainability-related financial information) and IFRS S2 (climate-related disclosures). IFRS S2 includes a requirement for companies to disclosure details about their climate transition plan.

The UK is in the process of endorsing the ISSB standards, and has said it expects to consult in Q2 2025 on UK companies disclosing against the UK endorsed standards, and for the largest UK companies to disclosure transition plans. The ISSB has previously confirmed that it will look to TNFD recommendations in its future work, and its 2024-2026 work programme includes researching the risks and opportunities associated with sustainability topics beyond climate change. 

Therefore, while nature related disclosure and transition plans lag behind the development of climate disclosures, we expect them to follow a similar trajectory, and in time, to become part of mandatory requirements for many companies.   

(Note, the EU’s CSRD already includes disclosures on biodiversity – see our ESG reporting guide here for more details.)

Finance

Target 19 of the GBF is to “substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources … domestic, international, public and private”, mobilising at least $200 billion per year by 2020.

Finance was a key item on the agenda and subject to intense negotiations. A final draft text on finance proposed establishing a new global biodiversity fund to be governed independently, moving away from the interim fund set up at COP15 (the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, the “GBFF”), which is currently hosted under the Global Environment Facility. However, the draft was circulated too late, as a number of delegates had already left, so there was no longer the quorum required to agree the decision.  

Outside these negotiations, the UK was part of a Joint Donor Statement from eight governments, pledging together an additional $163 million to the GBFF. While the additional funds were welcomed, many criticised the contributions as being wholly inadequate and far short of what is needed (see, for example, a statement by the Ministerial Alliance for Ambition on Nature Finance).

Initiatives to encourage private finance were also discussed. The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (the “IAPB”) (established by the UK and France in 2023 to facilitate the creation and growth of high integrity biodiversity credit markets and encourage enabling policy and regulatory mechanisms) launched its Framework for High Integrity Credit Markets. The framework is made up of 23 ‘High-Level Principles’ grouped around three overarching themes:

1. Verified outcomes for nature
2. Equity and fairness for people
3. Good governance for markets

In our experience, nature and biodiversity markets continue to gain traction in the UK. Freeths has noticed this in its own work, with nutrient neutrality mitigation schemes and the creation of new habitat banks for mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain being a fast-growing area for new instructions. Defra’s consultation, launched on 6 November, shortly after COP16, on the BSI’s (British Standards Institute) new Biodiversity Standard (BSI Flex 702) is another step in the right direction. The new standards have been delivered as part of the UK Nature Investment Standards Programme, funded by Defra to help develop robust nature markets. They aim to standardise how biodiversity benefits are measured and verified, establish clear requirements for high-quality biodiversity metrics, and build confidence in biodiversity credits.

Marine and coastal biodiversity

There were two key decisions agreed at COP16 on marine and coastal biodiversity. The first was ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (“EBSAs”). Designation as an EBSA does not guarantee protection, but instead helps governments identify areas which could benefit from enhanced conservation and management measures. The COP16 decision emphasised that the identification of EBSAs is a matter which is ‘strictly…scientific and technical’ without any legal or economic implications. The decision also includes modalities for the modification of descriptions of existing EBSAs and new areas, allowing for the revision of descriptions as new scientific information comes to light.

The second decision related to the marine environment was on the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity and island biodiversity. The decision recognises the importance of these areas to achieve the GBF's targets. It includes an annex identifying gaps and areas in need of additional focus under the CBD, including, amongst other things, further effort to:

1. Enhance understanding of the extent of degraded marine and coastal areas and the complexities of restoration;
2. To improve understanding of geoengineering activities on marine and coastal biodiversity;
3. To assess, prevent and mitigate the individual and cumulative impacts of all types of pollution, including transboundary pollution; and
4. To enhance the use of nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches across a variety of coastal and marine areas.

On the latter, marine net-gain (“MNG”) is an exciting policy development in the UK that is expected in time to follow the now mandatory biodiversity net-gain. A 2022 consultation confirmed there was strong support for MNG, and in its 2023 consultation response, the government set out the next phase of policy development. This includes developing an assessment framework for MNG delivery, creating and running proof of concept projects, and developing detailed policy on the implementation and delivery of MNG as part of planning decisions.

As we have said before (see here), MNG should help expand protected areas in our marine environment, and we continue to watch closely next steps taken by the government on this initiative.