What can be done to address the global biodiversity crisis and deliver “nature-positive” solutions for sustainable development? This was the central theme of the 2023 Global Development Network (GDN) conference. Researchers, policymakers and practitioners from across the world came together at the event in Quito, Ecuador, to discuss this conundrum – and potential solutions.

Advocating dramatic action to address potentially devastating losses of flora and fauna might rely on a moral case about respect for species and the intricate relationships between them. We are all part of that global ecosystem, after all. It might equally focus on self-interest, however. The natural world provides numerous essential ecological services, including food, medicine and clean water, without which humanity would be in dire straits.

The latter argument should certainly work well with private sector organizations, which increasingly need to account for both their impact on the natural world and their reliance on its resources in the form of raw materials and other inputs for production processes. The material risks to business that are associated with biodiversity loss are a critical matter for both companies and investors.

What’s more, emerging evidence not only shows that “‘biodiversity risk’” affects the prices of privately issued financial assets, such as equities, research also suggests that it hurts sovereign credit ratings in places where ”partial ecosystems collapse” has harmed fisheries, tropical timber production and wild pollination. Financial markets are no longer ignoring nature.

Food and agriculture

One sector with a particularly substantial impact on nature is food and agriculture. As the World Bank notes, “it is the foundation of food security, yet extremely vulnerable to climate change and a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions as well as habitat and biodiversity loss.” Managing the trade-offs between ecological conservation and providing enough for everyone to eat is one of the big challenges for nature-positive development.

The GDN conference featured a plenary session on balancing production and conservation goals, at which Jyotsna Puri of the International Fund for Agricultural Development said: “We are already producing enough food for ten billion people, and the food industry contributes to a third of carbon emissions. We need to rethink the food production system to treat nature in its own right.” Elena Lazos Chavero of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico added: “What we have to bring in the discussion of sustainable agriculture, food security and biodiversity is food justice and social equity.”

But is Big Food doing enough for sustainability? No, suggests the latest Food and Agriculture Benchmark from the World Benchmarking Alliance which ranks the 350 most influential companies in the sector on their environmental, nutritional and social impact. According to the data, the vast majority of companies fail to recognize their responsibility to protect the Earth and feed the world’s population in an equitable way.

Trade

International trade is another key area for trade-offs. Trade can exacerbate biodiversity degradation, but it also has the potential to support conservation, sustainable use and restoration. Leading a session on nature-positive trade for sustainable development, Marianne Kettunen of TRADE Hub said that international cooperation and the alignment of trade policies with environmental regulations, removal of harmful subsidies and promotion of sustainable practices can help to address the biodiversity crisis.

A report for the UN Environment Programme remarks that the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in December 2022, provides a fresh reference point for the relevance of trade policy to the biodiversity agenda. The increasing focus on the environment and sustainable development at the World Trade Organization also presents an opportunity to discuss where trade policy could support delivery of the agenda – and align it to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals – with sustainable trade as part of the solution.

Finance

What about interactions between nature and the financial system? As with climate change in recent years, biodiversity loss is increasingly recognized as a source of financial risk that may threaten financial stability. It thus falls within the mandates of central banks and financial supervisors. A report from the Network for Greening the Financial System recommends that these public authorities start to assess the degree to which financial systems are exposed to the risk, by developing biodiversity-related scenario analysis and stress tests, and dashboards of biodiversity metrics.

The report also calls for “the necessary financial architecture for mobilizing investment for a biodiversity-positive economy.” This challenge was extensively discussed at the conference, including reference to the “Summit on a New Global Financial Pact” convened in Paris by President Macron in June 2023. Its aim was “to lay the foundations for a renewed international financial system, creating the conditions for a financing breakthrough so that no country has to choose between reducing poverty, combating climate change and preserving biodiversity.” 

A key part of the financing agenda is creating new classes of nature-positive assets. These were discussed at a conference plenary on financing biodiversity conservation. Camilo Santa of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) cited a number of examples, including Ecuador’s “debt-for-nature” swap, which involves selling “blue bonds” that will funnel money into conservation of the Galapagos Islands, one of the world’s most precious ecosystems. This Ecuadorian case may be a model for other highly indebted but nature-rich countries. The IDB has also helped countries, such as Colombia and Costa Rica, to develop post-pandemic recovery strategies based on natural capital.

The way forward

The ultimate aim of all these projects and programs around biodiversity and sustainable development is to support a shift in global financial flows away from nature-negative outcomes and toward nature-positive outcomes. As was broadly agreed by participants at the GDN conference, that must involve a combination of public and private sector initiatives, as well as a variety of carrots and sticks to encourage the required changes in individual and collective human behavior.

Much can be learned from our response to the threat of climate change. For example, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which galvanized corporate reporting on climate risks, has inspired the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). The latter describes itself as “a market-led, science-based and government-backed initiative providing organizations with the tools to act on evolving nature-related issues.” The TNFD has issued detailed guidance for business and finance on how to integrate nature into decision-making.

Governments are also beginning to draw lessons from the response to climate change by providing funding for nature conservation – for example, in Brazil’s National Green Growth Program and the European Green Deal. And representing more of a stick than a carrot is the European Union’s (EU) proposed nature restoration law. As with previous EU legislation to tackle climate change, this law would establish legally binding targets for forest, marine, urban and agricultural ecosystems.

Such initiatives effectively constitute self-imposed pressure on governments to deliver on conservation objectives – and they, in turn, will put pressure on the private sector and society as a whole.

In the end, the case for biodiversity protection can be made on the basis of the economic, social and health benefits of nature. Nature-positive development is good for both people and the planet.

The photograph accompanying the article and titled ‘Before the sun sets’ was captured by Santiago Sainz-Trápaga. It earned 3rd place preserving biodiversity section of the photo contest held by GDN in collaboration with WWF Ecuador during GDN’s 2023 conference on biodiversity and development.

The post Preserving biodiversity: trade and finance for nature-positive development appeared first on Globaldev Blog.

“In a world where cities are growing and expanding at an unprecedented rate, it becomes increasingly clear that we must make strategic investments in green urbanization to ensure a sustainable future… To keep our cities healthy, clean and prospering, biodiversity must be a priority and financing must follow.”

These are the words of David Cooper, acting executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, on World Cities Day in October 2023. His call to action coincided with his appearance at the 2023 Global Development Network (GDN) conference in Quito, Ecuador, where researchers, policymakers and practitioners from diverse backgrounds came together to discuss the threat that the loss of the variety and abundance of species and ecosystems poses to sustainable development. A central focus of the event was the potential of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which seeks to drive actions that will protect 30% of the Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas and inland waters by 2030, and achieve “a world living in harmony with nature by 2050”.

In the context of the urban environments, in which two-thirds of the global population are likely to live by mid-century, the key to delivering on the latter objective lies in “nature-based solutions”. These elements of green infrastructure might include trees, plants, wetlands, parks and open spaces that generate oxygen, take in carbon, mitigate air pollution, absorb rainfall and provide wildlife habitat. In general, they promote both a healthy environment and the well-being of inhabitants.

This blog presents key policy lessons from the GDN conference on how to bring nature-based solutions into the mainstream and our cities for a more sustainable future.

Urban futures

The importance of preserving species and ecosystems is not just an issue about oceans and tropical rainforests. At the opening plenary of the conference, Thomas Elmqvist of Stockholm University noted an emerging consensus: in our “urban century”, the health of the Earth depends on the coexistence of rapidly growing cities and the natural world.

One strategy for guiding cities towards the goal of conserving nature for biodiversity and human well-being is to facilitate a planning process based on positive visions for urban systems among stakeholders. Elmquist outlined the Urban Nature Futures Framework, a way of developing alternative visions and scenarios for the management of nature in cities based on three sets of values.

First, there is “urban nature for nature”. This is based on the intrinsic values of biodiversity and supports, for example, the rewilding of urban parks with native species. Second, there is “urban nature for society”, which is based on utilitarian values of what is best for human well-being and which encourages nature-based solutions, such as green infrastructure, green roofs and artificial wetlands to improve climate, air and water quality, and physical and mental well-being. And third, there is “urban nature as culture”. Based on relational values[MK1]  – the values of interactions between people and nature, and those among individuals in society – this is manifested in parks, botanical gardens and urban agriculture, and is celebrated in festivals and art.

Mainstreaming biodiversity for sustainable development

Several GDN conference sessions focused on the need to broaden discussions on the values and benefits of nature to as wide an audience as possible and at all levels of society, from local to global. Gabriel Quijandría of the International Union for Conservation of Nature explained that such “mainstreaming” means integrating biodiversity considerations into decision-making processes and policies in key areas like poverty reduction, climate change mitigation, and trade and international cooperation. It also applies to sector-specific plans in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining, energy, tourism and transport.

But as many participants recognized, mainstreaming is a complex and challenging task. It might range from talking to local communities about the importance of river dolphins in the food chains and freshwater ecosystems of Ecuador – as described by Jessica Pacheco of WWF-Ecuador – to persuading international investors of the benefits of investing in bonds, trust funds and other financial instruments promoting conservation – as referred to by Camilo Santa of the Inter-American Development Bank.

The OECD has produced a “blueprint for action” on biodiversity mainstreaming, the central message of which is for governments to “establish a strong social and business case”. That proposes a national assessment of ecosystem services and their full social benefits, including monetary values, where feasible, and a database of evidence on the drivers, pressures and state of biodiversity. The report also recommends developing targeted messages for stakeholders and working together to identify solutions, an idea that was echoed repeatedly during the conference.

Research, policy and education

Bridging the gap between research and policy is a core GDN objective – and there was much discussion at the conference about how this can be achieved most effectively in the areas of the biodiversity crisis and sustainable development. As ever, there is a need for more research. The natural sciences need to keep improving our understanding of ecosystems and the social sciences need to show us how human behavior, social structures and institutions influence conservation efforts – and how to build capacity for research and policy impact in low- and middle-income countries.

All agreed that a huge educational effort is needed, not just with students and the general public, but with policymakers. Gabriel Quijandría highlighted a key challenge of mainstreaming the environment and biodiversity in public policies: “When you discuss the proposals with a cabinet of decision-makers in the public sector, no one goes against the idea of protecting biodiversity. The problem lies in implementing the proposals. The idea of approaching the issue is limited by the budgets, the bureaucracy and the idea of changing things.”

But there is hope of change. The words of Carolina Rosero Cordero of Conservation International Ecuador in the opening plenary offer a suitable call to action: “We need to be ambitious and dedicated, and collaborate across all sectors to address biodiversity and development issues. And we all need to work together – non-governmental organizations, business enterprises, academia, civil society organizations and governments, while integrating indigenous people and communities into policymaking and implementation.”

The photograph accompanying the article and titled ‘Geoffroy´s Cats Fate’ was captured by Santiago Sainz-Trápaga. It earned second place general and first place in the biodiversity loss section of the photo contest held by GDN in collaboration with WWF Ecuador during GDN’s 2023 conference on biodiversity and development.

The post Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in the urban century appeared first on Globaldev Blog.

“Truly sustainable economic growth and development means recognising that our long-term prosperity relies on rebalancing our demand of nature’s goods and services with its capacity to supply them. It also means accounting fully for the impact of our interactions with Nature across all levels of society.”

With these powerful words, Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge launched his independent review of the economics of biodiversity, commissioned by the UK Government and published in 2021. In a similar way to the Stern Review of 15 years earlier, which warned of the costs of inaction on climate change, Dasgupta’s final report explores the dangers of biodiversity loss – declines in the variety and abundance of species and ecosystems – and what can be done to preserve the ecological underpinnings of our economies, livelihoods and well-being.

The Dasgupta Review was published before the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, which culminated in a new international agreement. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), agreed at COP15, spells out a plan to preserve nature and make sure it is a long-term engine of jobs and growth that also reduces carbon emissions. Key commitments include, by 2030, to:

• protect 30% of the Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas and inland waters – the ‘30×30’ aspiration;
• reduce the annual government subsidies that encourage environmentally wasteful activities by $500 billion;
• and cut food waste by half.

The 2023 Global Development Network (GDN) conference focused on what these ambitions mean for public policy, business practices and civil society. The meeting, which brought together researchers, policymakers and practitioners from diverse backgrounds around the world, especially the Global South, was organized with Future Earth and hosted by the Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador. This location felt particularly appropriate given Ecuador’s status as one of the world’s megadiverse countries – those that harbour the majority of the Earth’s species and a high number of which are endemic.

The challenge of biodiversity loss for development

The Earth is experiencing a dangerous decline in nature as a result of human activity. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), one million species of flora and fauna – almost a quarter of the global total – are threatened with extinction due to deforestation, habitat loss, overexploitation, pollution and climate change.

This loss of biodiversity has far-reaching consequences, including the disruption of ecosystem services, such as pollination, soil regeneration and carbon sequestration, which are critical for human well-being.

But a change of direction is possible. As Odile Conchou of the Agence Française de Développement said in opening one of the conference plenaries, the GBF has set the path to “a world living in harmony with nature by 2050” and now it is time to act. That requires local, national and global cooperation among public policymakers, the private sector and civil society.

Adequate financing is essential to ensure protection of biodiversity, conservation of ecosystems and to avoid excessive depletion of natural capital (the world’s stock of natural assets). It is also critical for the alignment of these goals with the other objectives of sustainable development: tackling poverty, inequality and climate change.

Poverty, inequality and sustainable development

Several conference sessions focused on the links and possible trade-offs between biodiversity loss, climate change, poverty and global inequality. For example, Luciano Andriamaro of Conservation International, Madagascar, noted that many communities depend on the ecosystem services which are being altered by the climate crisis, and that resource exploitation is also causing biodiversity loss. And Deshni Pillay of the South African National Biodiversity Institute looked at the benefits of maintaining her country’s ecological infrastructures, which have the potential to create jobs and improve food and water security.

Independent consultant Ivan Borja described the need to raise agricultural productivity in Ecuador. This will not only increase farmers’ incomes, but also discourage the further loss of natural forests that harms both the climate and biodiversity. Hajer Kratou of Ajman University took a more macro perspective, exploring the effects of biodiversity loss on inequality in 60 countries over a 25-year period. Her analysis confirms the devastating impact of deforestation on the access to food and water for the most vulnerable communities.

Food systems and the balance between production and conservation were discussed at length during the conference, including in a conversation between Jyotsna Puri of the International Fund for Agricultural Development and Elena Lazos Chavero of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico. They emphasized the importance of putting biodiversity concerns at the heart of the agriculture and fisheries sectors and, in particular, the need to address the one-third of food production that goes to waste, largely in the Global North. There are difficult issues here around ownership of land and production, when one-third of food is produced by smallholders and the rest by transnational corporations.

Indigenous peoples and local communities

Another recurring theme at the conference was the importance of working with local communities, including indigenous people who constitute 5% of the world’s population but live in the places that encompass 80% of the world’s biodiversity. Girma Kelboro Mensuro of the University of Bonn argued that in the tropics, people and nature “belong together” and interact more closely. For indigenous communities, he explained, biodiversity is more than a source of resources: it is also their history and belonging – ”culture defines nature and nature affects culture”.

How to respond in terms of policy-making is a challenge. Laila Thomaz Sandroni of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research pointed out that although ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’ are cited 16 times in the GBF, their inclusion is based in policies that are often led by other actors and institutions. The framework, she added, reflects increasing awareness, but it does not contemplate entirely changing pre-existing power asymmetries: the main instruments to protect 30×30 are the same ones that have produced injustices in the past.

Marla Emery, co-chair of the IPBES assessment report on the sustainable use of wild species, cited an example of the potential conflicts between scientific solutions to environmental threats, and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. Wind turbines built in Norway on the ancestral lands of the Sami people have become a huge controversy, setting demand for renewable energy against the rights of reindeer herders to preserve their culture.

Targets and measurement

Among the GBF’s key elements are four goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030. In world affairs, these now sit alongside the net-zero commitments of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the 169 targets of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Whether such targets are an effective way to make change happen was heavily debated at the conference. The balance of opinion seemed to be that they are a ”necessary evil”. Vanessa Ushie of the African Development Bank suggested that they enable a global coordination effort: “we need more research, knowledge and engagement from different actors in society, and integrated targets might help the private sector to understand”.

Plenty of other systems of measurement might also prove useful for addressing biodiversity loss. One is the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Global Ecosystem Typology, which aims to identify the ecosystems that are most critical for biodiversity conservation, research, management and human well-being. Another, introduced by Alison Fairbrass of the University College London, assesses countries’ performance on “‘strong environmental sustainability” . This measure is based on scientific standards that represent the situation at which natural capital can maintain its functions over time.

An overarching theme of discussions around all these targets and measures was the need to address a continued failure to value nature in a way that has a real impact on human behaviour. As an August 2023 article in Nature began, “Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making.”

This problem was central to Partha Dasgupta’s review. He argued that gross domestic product is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to judging the economic health of nations. It is, he concluded, based on a faulty application of economics that does not include depreciation of assets, such as the degradation of the biosphere.

At the conference, Simon Levin of Princeton University and Dasgupta’s co-author of a recent study of economic factors underpinning biodiversity loss, talked about ”inclusive wealth”. This concept encompasses not just physical and human capital but natural capital too.  And it not only considers natural capital’s total stock, but also its distribution across humanity – while recognising that ”we are embedded in Nature”. It can be used to identify the institutional reforms that need to be introduced to manage global public goods, such as the oceans, the atmosphere and tropical rainforests.

Dasgupta and Levin’s conclusion serves as a call to action: ”Humanity’s embeddedness in Nature has far-reaching implications for the way we should view human activities – in households, communities, nations, and the world.” It was a theme that echoed throughout the conference and in the closing remarks by GDN president Jean-Louis Arcand.

Arcand urged continued collaboration to achieve “nature-positive” development. This has to happen at all levels: between the public and private sectors, local and global perspectives, the natural and social sciences, and between researchers and policy-makers.

The photograph accompanying the article and titled ‘Love is in the Ocean’ was captured by Santiago Sainz-Trápaga. It earned third place in the photo contest held by GDN in collaboration with WWF Ecuador during GDN’s 2023 conference on biodiversity and development.

The post Biodiversity and sustainable development: the agenda for science and policy appeared first on Globaldev Blog.