by Tom Picken (RAN)
Some of the most important decisions about biodiversity finance at COP17 may not be about biodiversity finance at all. Much of the money driving biodiversity destruction flows through perfectly legal, often highly profitable activities, frequently supported by harmful incentives. These flows remain largely unchecked by the rules governing banks, investors and other businesses.
Consider the scale of the problem. Globally, private financial flows harmful to biodiversity outweigh positive private finance by an astonishing 213 to one. For every dollar of private finance supporting biodiversity, more than 200 dollars are helping to destroy it, according to a breakdown of UNEP figures.
The first Global Review of the KMGBF makes for uncomfortable reading. Targets 14 and 18, which address the alignment of financial flows and reform of harmful incentives, are among those where implementation is most lagging. There is also little evidence that governments are systematically tracking whether financial flows are becoming less harmful to biodiversity.
In the final week of COP17, Parties have an opportunity to respond to these findings through two important
decisions.
The Global Review decision should explicitly acknowledge the need to address the economic and financial systems driving biodiversity loss, including aligning financial flows with the Framework's goals. It should also retain meaningful language on identifying, eliminating, phasing out or reforming harmful subsidies and incentives.
Reforms must also be fair, reflect countries' differing responsibilities and capacities, be supported by developed countries meeting their international financing commitments, and respect the rights and needs of affected communities.
Meanwhile, negotiations on mainstreaming biodiversity offer a chance to get more practical. The draft text offers a route to integrating biodiversity into government budgets, fiscal policies, regulations and sectoral planning. These are decisions for finance ministries, regulators and other economic authorities, not just environment ministries. Financial institutions, too, need to be held accountable for their impacts on nature, rather than being left to self-police or focus solely on the financial risks biodiversity loss poses to their businesses.
Nearly four years after adopting the Global Biodiversity Framework, governments have devoted remarkably little attention to what aligning financial flows with its goals actually requires. The first Global Review has exposed just how little progress has been made.
Parties should leave Yerevan having made clear that tackling harmful finance is central to implementing the Framework, with an expectation that governments will begin addressing the policies, incentives and weak regulations that allow biodiversity destruction to remain legal and profitable.