Martin Pigeon’s Post

Currently, COP16 is in full swing in Cali, Colombia, where world leaders are gathering to shape the Global Biodiversity Framework. This framework, aimed at reversing biodiversity loss, requires substantial financial resources. One proposed solution is the introduction of biodiversity credits, a market instrument presented as a financing tool. However, this approach raises questions about its effectiveness and potential pitfalls. I recently wrote an article to critically examine the implications of such credits https://lnkd.in/eGhc5s2c

Check out the latest feature from Carbon Pulse to hear FIA's views on how forest investors are positioned in the topic of biodiversity insetting. Making "in-value-chain" biodiversity interventions can support nature-positive objectives, a rising priority for many businesses and investors. #Biodiversity #Investors #NaturePositive #Insetting #ValueChains https://lnkd.in/ehewzNtb

In the last few months we have been working to build consensus on State of Nature Metrics. State of Nature Metrics (SON) measure the extent and condition of biodiversity, and the various impacts of pressures. A universal set of SON metrics can be used for a range of purposes, including biodiversity footprinting exercises, EU corporate sustainability reporting requirements and setting targets and developing biodiversity investment products. Find out more about the process of aligning SON metrics via this article in Responsible Investor. Malcolm Starkey Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) #NaturePositive #MetricsMatter https://lnkd.in/gAePfh4F

🌿 What’s Really Going on with Corporate Biodiversity Commitments? 🌿 Ever wondered if corporate pledges on biodiversity are truly ‘nature-positive’? Check out these insights from the review, “Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes?”: 🔍 Mixed Definitions: There’s no one-size-fits-all for ‘nature-positive’ — different companies mean different things. 📉 Progress Issues: Many companies set high goals, but actual progress often falls short. 🚧 Big Challenges: Measuring real biodiversity impact and keeping reporting transparent are major hurdles. These findings show it’s crucial for companies to get on the same page with clear definitions and solid reporting if we want to see real benefits for nature. #Biodiversity #NaturePositive #Sustainability #CorporateCommitments

“Corporations not only face political pressures to respond to the biodiversity crisis but also recognize a compelling business case for halting biodiversity loss. Firstly, political pressures swiftly translate into societal and consumer expectations, making biodiversity conservation a crucial element of corporate environmental reputation. Secondly, numerous industries depend on ecosystem services like pollination and flood control, which, in turn, rely on maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Thus, biodiversity loss presents a tangible operational risk to these industries. Thirdly, central banks and financial institutions increasingly view biodiversity loss as a systemic risk to financial systems. Investors and shareholders are also taking notice—biodiversity loss is one of the fastest-growing themes in ESG investments and disclosures. Effectively managing biodiversity risks has become an imperative in the financial market.”

Unlike in the carbon market, there is a difference between biodiversity credits and offsets. In the biodiversity market, biodiversity credits are “nature-positive”, meaning that companies pay for contributions to protecting nature without necessarily compensating for harmful impacts from their own supply chains. They get a reputational benefit in exchange, such as being able to brand their products as biodiversity-friendly.

EU Commission's Hugo Schally tried to avoid answering questions from MEPs Carola Rackete and Cesar Luena about its support for doomed biodiversity credits by making up some non-existent distinction between certificates and credits. In reality we all know that credits and certificates are the same, and that they will be used for #offsetting, as stated several times by IAPB co-chair Sylvie Goulard. As for his statement that public funding will not be sufficient blabla, "The implementation of the EU’s Biodiversity strategy and legislation would require an additional €19bn per year during the period 2021-2030," according to the IEEP Trinomics, a really small and achievable figure that does not justify creating a dubious market mechanism. Also let's not forget the $7 trn harmful subsidies that should first be directed.  #nobiodiversitymarket at #cop16 and in the EU https://lnkd.in/e4UxX3ts

"The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) estimates the biodiversity finance gap as $700 billion a year between now and 2030. While the GBF calls on governments to repurpose $500 billion per year in harmful subsidies, the remaining $200 billion a year will have to be mobilized from all sources – public, private, domestic, and international; and private sector and private capital will have to play a central role." Excellent piece in The World Bank Blogs, looking at the role finance plays in supporting the transition to nature-smart production practices and deploying nature-based climate solution, as well as the need for a set of clear, transparent guidelines that will mobilize investors.  Read the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/eZXCkUSD

Ninety One has launched a Sovereign Biodiversity index, providing a quantitative way for investors to assess nature and biodiversity risks at a national level https://lnkd.in/ebyNbdTm #biodiversity #sustainableinvestments #index

This year’s UN Biodiversity Conference 𝗖𝗢𝗣𝟭𝟲 emphasizes the 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀. However, the conference ended without reaching a new consensus on pivotal issues, such as funding for biodiversity initiatives and mechanisms for tracking progress toward key targets. Notably, only 22% of the 196 participating countries introduced new biodiversity action plans. But new incentives and action plans could help to enhance transparent reporting on biodiversity. This 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 is unfortunately mirrored in our GEM 2024 sample. Here are four key points you should know about biodiversity reporting: 𝟭. 𝗕𝗶𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝘆𝗲𝘁: Only a meagre 54 out of 194 companies (28%) identified the topic Biodiversity & Ecosystems as material. 𝟮. 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲: The average reporting score was 31%. 𝟯. 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀: 80% of the companies that identified Biodiversity as material describe actions taken to mitigate impacts. 78% report on how they affect biodiversity and ecosystems. But most don’t go into more detail. 𝟰. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱: Only 6% of the 54 companies provide quantitative information on potential financial effects of risks and opportunities arising from biodiversity-related impacts and dependencies. Get in touch if you want to learn more about the GEM 2024 results and about how you can 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. #COP16 #BiodiversityConference #Cali #SustainabilityReporting #Nachhaltigkeitsreporting #GEM #GlobalESGMonitor