I have just returned from COP16 in Cali with mixed emotions of pride in how far we have come and an urgency to move even farther. If you remember, I attended the 15th COP in 2022 held in Montreal and I shared with you the seven things that CSF can contribute to the Global Biodiversity Framework, and more specifically on which targets we could apply our economic tools and capacity building expertise.  While in Cali I was proud to connect with so many of our partners and share the tools we have been creating, such as the Mining Impacts Calculator, and the important work we have been doing working with Indigenous communities, and on financing protected areas in Bolivia. I was also excited to see so many members of my Latin America team, most of whom I don’t see very often since we are trying to limit our work travel.  

On the other hand, I realize that we are not moving fast enough to meet our 2030 GBF Targets, and our time is running out.  While there are increasing commitments from the private sector to invest in nature and there is clear interest in investing in nature, most of this remains boutique and small-scale.  I heard many examples of #ConservationFinance projects over the past week, but are we doing enough, fast enough?  I don’t think so.  

As an example, I met a policy planner from Papua New Guinea who is desperately seeking financing for PNG landowners who are selling their logging rights to foreign entities because they have no other options. He wants to compensate the landowners to prevent the destructive logging, but he can’t work with the government, and is therefore limited in his funding opportunities both within the country and internationally, and they have tried the carbon credit route, without success.  “What are the alternatives?”he asked me in frustration. We spoke about biodiversity credits, a potential solution, but not a guarantee. I also mentioned other ideas, including WCS’s HIFOR program, but this is still quite early in its implementation with the announcement of a project in the Congo in August. 

The solution is that governments need to mobilize funding, MDBs need to mobilize more funding and more quickly. Unfortunately, I am not encouraged by the CBD negotiations. One highlight of the negotiations that I read about is the new fund financed by profits from companies using information from a digital sequencing database. But contributions to the funds by these companies are voluntary. This is essentially philanthropy, which frankly we cannot count on alone. We have to make it clear that funding nature is the best business decision. Nature is an investment with incredible ROI, not a charitable donation.

How does CSF support the GBF?

CSF is hard at work on GBF Targets 2 and 3 with multiple projects and initiatives underway. We recently completed a GEF-funded project with WWF developing national plans to achieve 30 x 30 in six countries, including Nepal, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Chile, Ecuador and Namibia. The goal was to establish a roadmap for how these countries could achieve 30 x 30, including the data needs, the financing options and the political processes. We presented on four of the countries’ progress at the COP alongside WCPA’s new guide for countries for inclusive, equitable effective implementation of Target 3. Target 2 specifies that 30% of degraded areas are under effective restoration, but a greater understanding of the costs and benefits associated with restoration projects will be critical to attract funders and investors. We are partnering with Conservation International on a GEF project to develop a Global Restoration Cost Calculator, building upon the success of our innovative hub for decision-support tools. This hub includes our mining impacts calculator, our indigenous lands management calculator and our deforestation impacts calculator.  

Targets 5 and 9 refer to the sustainable and responsible use, management and trade of wildlife species. We are interested in developing another useful tool that can help conservation managers and government policy makers understand the costs of illegal wildlife trade. We want to increase the funding that goes into eliminating illegal wildlife trade, and clarify the return on investment inherent in preventing this harmful activity as a means to help policy-makers make the financial case for conservation. This target also relates to our tackling of nature crimes more generally, which includes deforestation and mining. We are partnering with organizations like Amazon Conservation, IBAMA and others to address these destructive activities. 

Two years ago I wrote about Target 14 as one of the most important targets of them all. I stated how biodiversity values should be integrated into all aspects of government planning and budgeting, but I should have included Target 15 too, which includes businesses assessing, disclosing and reducing their biodiversity-related risks. We have recently begun working more with the corporate sector as they have a keen interest in our unique expertise and perspective, and our experience in understanding and quantifying biodiversity values.

Target 18 aims to eliminate, and ideally reform, perverse subsidies that create or exacerbate market failures. This is one of the toughest targets of the whole bunch because it is so political. Special interest groups, and corporations, for example in farming and fishing, and the fossil fuel industry, are very protective of their subsidies and assistance. The GEF hosted a special one-day session at the COP to identify how the participating stakeholders and others could advance this goal. Aligning the incentives and a complete mindset shift will be necessary to affect change on this topic.  There are billions of dollars at stake and governments are currently only making the situation worse for our planet, not better.

And lastly, Target 19.  It is all about the money. Last time I wrote about how I kept hearing about financing and funding nature, who is going to pay for all of the work necessary to achieve these targets? This time I heard more about understanding the value of nature to make a case to businesses and to governments that nature provides multiple benefits to corporations, governments and communities that can be quantified. This is exactly what we do. 

Interested in working with CSF on any of these GBF Targets? Reach out to me anytime - let’s make a strong economic case for nature.