Blog | Unveiling Synergies: Biodiversity and the UN’s Climate Conference of 2023

Blog post

2 Jan

With the global climate negotiations progressing, and countries now - for the first time ever! - being called on to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, the role of biodiversity in tackling the climate crisis is becoming more and more apparent.

Unprecedently, the most awaited final text of COP28, the Outcome of the first global stocktake, emphasised “the importance of conserving, protecting and restoring nature and ecosystems towards achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal”. It also referred to the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM GBF), adopted at the UN Biodiversity Conference in December 2022. Looking at it from the bigger picture, it even re-creates a notional bridge between the biodiversity regime and the climate regime. This direct reconnection builds on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, both agreed on in Rio in 1992, but not very synergistic since then. However, with the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the adoption of the KM GBF in 2022, these milestone texts can act as consensual reminders of where our societies should find themselves in 2050. Whereas the Paris Agreement focuses on mitigating climate change, building a climate-resilient world and aligning financial flows consistent with these two aims, the KM GBF endorses an ambitious pathway to reach “the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050”. The KM GBF’s key elements - 4 goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030 – also provide specific multi-thematic building blocks and a roadmap to reach the endorsed vision, making this so-called “Paris Agreement for biodiversity” up-to-date and instrumental in tackling the biodiversity crisis and climate crisis, if implemented.

Acknowledging in the global fora the fact that biodiversity loss and climate change are intertwined is key, but we also need to be more specific about their synergistic relationship. At the same time, vigilance is needed as various loopholes may lead to false solutions and trade-offs. With both crises accelerating and the windows for action rapidly closing, it is essential to invest in solutions that tackle both issues simultaneously and prevent those solutions that might unintentionally undermine the other cause. The good news is that the scientific community has been quite aware of these dynamics as win-win synergies, as well as trade-offs between climate and biodiversity, have been explored at the IPBES-IPCC Co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change.

The links between biodiversity and COP28

But how did the COP28 in Dubai reflect nature and biodiversity loss? As the two-week-long negotiations covered a plethora of agenda items, each having a direct or indirect influence on biodiversity (such as agriculture or the implementation of climate policies in general), it’s not, of course, possible to cover all the interlinkages in this short text. However, six key considerations are described below:

1) In the most monitored output of this year’s climate conference, the decision on the Global Stocktake, which describes the overall ambition of countries to fulfil the Paris Agreement and the way forward, biodiversity is mentioned 5 times and ecosystems 12 times. Specifically, it is mentioned, for instance, that for the achievement of the Paris Agreement temperature goal, nature and ecosystems should be conserved, protected and restored, “including through enhanced efforts towards halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030”, in line with the KM GBF. As Carbon Brief notes, this is the first time such a pledge has garnered formal recognition under the UNFCCC. In addition, nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches are mentioned several times across the text, in terms of both adaptation and mitigation.
The second most anticipated output of the conference was the text on global goal of adaptation, called the “UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience”. This framework should guide parties to become more climate resilient and, especially based on developing countries’ requests, elevate adaptation to the same level as is given to mitigation. In this text, the reference to ecosystems and biodiversity is quite vague. However, “ecosystems” is one of the seven themes with broadly defined voluntary targets that should be achieved by 2030, “and progressively beyond”.
In the context of underfinanced climate action, nature finance is receiving more and more attention in many various contexts as innovative sources of funding are sought. Several related initiatives arose at the COP28, such as debt-for-nature swaps, touching upon developing countries’ crippling indebtedness disabling climate adaptation and mitigation.
Regarding transitioning away from fossil fuels and building a climate-resilient world, the question of finance is crucial. One of the agenda items relevant to nature finance is linked to carbon markets and Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, one of the most contentious, technical, political, and complex matters. The discussions on carbon markets and other “cooperative approaches” were not successfully completed. However, in the real world, several transactions based on offsetting and helping developed countries meet their climate targets are undergoing. With the potential of (voluntary) carbon markets being untapped, it is necessary to be cautious of related risks. One of such bad practices takes place in the African continent. In a new “scramble for Africa”, rich entities buy crucial biodiversity hotspots of million hectares potentially to be used as carbon offsets, while at the same time undermining local sustainable development.
Many side events and press conferences further investigated the relationship between biodiversity and climate change. For instance, the State of Finance for Nature Report by the UNEP was presented together with several sobering facts: “Close to $7 trillion is invested globally each year in activities that have a direct negative impact on nature from both public and private sector sources”. While investments in nature-based solutions are increasing, finances flowing to activities directly harming nature were only in 2022 30 times larger. Other events focused on addressing biodiversity and climate change synergistically, on scaling up implementation for success, financing biodiversity mechanisms, special youth dialogues on nature, adaptation, biodiversity, the role of international law in planetary security etc.
Last but not least, China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, was active in linking climate and nature. As the CBD COP15 host it launched together with the COP28 UAE Presidency the Joint Statement on Climate, Nature and People, further stressing the need for an integrated manner when solving the biodiversity loss and climate crisis. Also, at COP28 China announced through the COP15 president Huang Runqiu that it will join the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, which calls for 30% of Earth to be protected by 2030.

Looking at the number of identified synergies between climate protection and nature restoration, we can expect that with time the discussion at the global fora will become even more complementary. Regarding events taking place this year we can already see links between biodiversity and climate preserved and deepened. For instance, Colombia announced to host the UN Biodiversity Conference in 2024, instead of Türkiye which withdrew its nomination earlier in 2023. Colombia being active in both climate action and biodiversity protection, expectations are high for the summit.

However, in order for climate and biodiversity negotiations to be a success, it is fundamental that countries act responsibly and implement biodiversity and climate policies at home, where the spotlight of global media houses does not shine that much.