Policy recommendations for effective implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework

Encourage and enable businesses to adopt and implement sustainable resource management plans that outline how they demonstrate environmental stewardship, work collectively to minimize cumulative impacts in landscapes, water basins and seascapes and minimize environmental impacts. 

Justification: Sustainable resource management plans would ensure that nature's contributions to people, such as clean air and water, are protected while also helping businesses to reduce their energy consumption, water usage, and waste production. This leads to significant cost savings, improved operational efficiency and increased profitability. As part of a credible nature strategy, using resource management to contribute to sustainability goals is also good for business reputation, as consumers and investors are increasingly looking towards companies that are committed to sustainability. These plans should also focus on demonstrating environmental stewardship and cover planned activities beyond direct operations and support efforts in the broader landscapes or seascapes wherein supply chains exist with the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This is aligned with the approach recommended by the Science Based Target Network (SBTN).   

Adopt and implement national strategies and targets to reduce over-consumption and production footprint, in an equitable manner and supported by strong governance and accountability at the highest political level. 

Justification: Reversing nature loss by 2030 requires addressing unsustainable consumption and production to reduce our current environmental footprint by 50% globally. Efforts to reach this global objective will need to be differentiated depending on whether a country has an initial footprint above or below environmental limits. National strategies should include numerical targets, defined at the national level according to local circumstances, for sectors and consumption patterns with high negative impacts on nature. Alignment with existing corporate frameworks such as SBTN could support compliance. Targets should be designed to be equitable, supporting vulnerable parts of society and be complemented by sectoral transition pathways (see Ask 10). While there are no perfect metrics, the best approach involves using a set of footprint indicators to measure progress. This is particularly relevant for high consumption countries. For Least Developed Countries measuring progress through material footprint per capita may be sufficient.

Adopt mandatory requirements for companies to set science-based, context specific  water usage and water quality targets for industry and agriculture, and enforce stronger monitoring and control, while ensuring social equity and fair transition for smallholders.    

Justification: Water scarcity and water pollution pose a significant risk to both society and businesses. Mandatory water usage and pollution targets set at the catchment level, and prioritized in water-stressed or near water-stressed watersheds, will provide a framework for sustainable water management. This approach helps industrial and agricultural businesses optimize water-use practices, reduce water waste and pollution, and mitigate the risks of water scarcity. This aligns with the recommendations of The Global Commission on the Economics of Water. Targets should be socially and culturally equitable, environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial and defined through stakeholder-inclusive processes that incorporate site and catchment-based perspectives. Effective enforcement with appropriate penalties is essential to incentivize companies to invest in water efficiency technologies, tools, and Nature-based Solutions. 

Promote financial, fiscal and regulatory incentives to support the economic viability of transitioning all farming systems to outcome-based agro-ecological and regenerative models, providing a fair and stepwise transition route for farmers.

Justification: Food and agriculture are a major driver of biodiversity loss and the hidden cost of food systems externalities is estimated to be at least $10 trillion per year. Transitioning to agro-ecological and regenerative farming models offers a holistic, resilient and sustainable approach with the potential to contribute $1.2 trillion to the global economy by 2030. While these models will lead to increased profitability for farmers in the long-term, shifting from conventional input-based practices to agro-ecological practices requires a significant shift in how farmers operate, requiring upfront investments that can lead to a temporary income gap in the first few years of implementation. Governments should prioritize economic fairness and social justice, alongside food security. They should incentivize all actors in the food supply chain to reduce risks for farmers and provide effective support through remunerative pricing and stable commercial relationships. Special support is needed for smallholders and rural women farmers who produce over a third of the world’s food. 

Adopt mandatory requirements for harmonized assessment and disclosure of nature-related impacts, dependencies and risks, including requirements for business and financial institutions to develop and disclose nature-positive transition plans. 

See our detailed recommendation on Target 15 implementation. 

Justification: Mandatory nature-related assessment and disclosure is an essential first step to inform business decisions and investments and drive action. This should be mandatory to level the playing field between companies and to provide the right information to investors, governments, consumers, and civil society. For markets to function effectively, and avoid a lack of integrity, participants must have access to all relevant material information, including nature-related information. Governments should provide capacity building to all companies and consider  additional guidance will be required for SMEs. Tools and methodologies already exist, and governments are encouraged to standardize and harmonize reporting requirements, including with the disclosure recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). These mandatory requirements should follow CDPs Principles for High Quality Mandatory Disclosure. Building on collected data and in alignment with national sectoral transition pathways co-developed by governments (see Ask 10), individual business transition plans are essential to define a plan of action, and serve as an accountability mechanism for investors and other stakeholders. Guidance is starting to emerge that can inform policy. 

Adopt through multi-stakeholder collaboration and across ministries, national sectoral transition pathways to ensure all economic sectors, in particular high-impact sectors, contribute to a nature-positive economy in alignment with net-zero transition pathways.  

Justification: To drive credible action, sector-specific approaches are necessary to reflect how different sectors depend on and impact nature. Sectoral transition pathways, with clear targets and prioritized solutions, can provide clarity to businesses on the transition needed and their expected contribution. These pathways will outline how each sector is expected to align with national legislation including National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), as well as address synergies and trade-offs between the actions of multiple sectors. They should be integrated with any existing climate and net zero sector pathways to provide clarity to the private sector on how to address both crises together. Business for Nature, the World Economic Forum and WBCSD developed for 12 sectors specific actions businesses should take to credibly help halt and reverse nature loss. This can be used to kick-start discussion at national level.  

Reform tax systems on the extraction or use of natural resources to ensure taxes and fees reflect the true value of nature in final products and incentivize circularity, decarbonization, sustainable management and production.  

Justification: Current tax systems do not reflect the true value of natural resources, and combined with harmful subsidies, this encourages unsustainable business models that rely on the over-exploitation of nature. Well-designed tax policies can promote sustainable resource use by discouraging waste, encouraging efficiency practices, and incentivizing circularity. This would level  the playing field by bringing down the cost of more sustainable products and increasing the cost of resource intensive ones. Tax rates on resource extraction or use should be introduced progressively, based on the environmental impact and scarcity of the resource, and alongside time bound transition plans to provide businesses time to adjust. These reforms should ensure all actors throughout the value chain contribute fairly. 

Integrate nature-related risks into central banks’ and financial regulators’ decision-making, regulations, mandates and operations and ensure financial regulators explicitly recognize nature-related risks as part of the fiduciary duty of financial institutions and companies. 

Justification: Traditionally, financial regulators’ mandates and fiduciary duty have been narrowly interpreted: the mandate of financial regulators being understood as ensuring market integrity and protecting consumers and the fiduciary duty aiming at prioritizing financial returns for shareholders. However, these narrow interpretations can unintentionally come at the expense of broader societal and environmental concerns. There is growing recognition that both financial regulators’ mandates and the interpretation of fiduciary duty for private actors should be expanded to explicitly incorporate nature, in addition to considerations related to climate and social issues. Financial stability and systemic risk can only be preserved if nature-related risks are identified, quantified and mitigated. The Network for Greening the Financial System published a Framework for nature-related financial risks, which upholds this view and provides valuable insights for policymakers. It is increasingly recognized that nature-related risks and impacts can negatively impact investment values. 

Reform all Environmentally Harmful Subsidies (EHS) by eliminating or redirecting them, starting by conducting a national assessment to identify existing EHS, then developing a robust reform roadmap, in collaboration with stakeholders, that ensure a just transition, supported by a strong accountability and governance process. 

See our detailed recommendations on Target 18 implementation. 

Justification: One key barrier to corporate action on nature is that our economic system unintentionally promotes short-term profit over long-term value creation, and incentivizes businesses that over-exploit nature instead of supporting sustainable practices. Globally governments still spend trillions supporting activities that are harmful to nature, especially  agriculture, fossil fuels and water management. Environmentally Harmful Subsidies (EHS) distort prices and skew resource allocation decisions towards destructive economic patterns built on the overexploitation of nature and hinder the transformation of business models. Redirecting these subsidies towards sustainable practices would accelerate the transition towards a nature-positive economy. This ask is also supported by investors.  

Promote alignment and matching of public investments to leverage private investments and mechanisms to pool resources, to accelerate nature finance, including to support smallholder farmers and small businesses to access funding for more sustainable practices.  

Justification: Blended finance can helps scaling-up sustainable finance. Public-private partnerships should be promoted and public sector finance should be matched by, and linked to, private sector investments, supported by robust governance systems. Governments’ and Multilateral Development Banks’ funding can mobilize additional private sector investment towards projects that benefit both society and the environment.  This approach helps address key concerns and barriers for private investors, such as investments perceived as risky or offering lower returns compared to other options. While increasing public and blended finance is  essential , it cannot replace addressing the underlying structural economic and governance issues that contribute to nature loss and covered in the rest of this paper.  

Ensure that, by 2025, at least 30% of international climate finance is channeled to high quality nature-based solutions, in alignment with recognized standards, to reflect their potential to provide 30% of the emissions reductions necessary for viable 1.5°C pathways and support adaption needs. 

Justification: Nature loss is accelerated by climate change and exacerbates its impacts. Yet, nature-based  solutions only receive a very small part of global public  finance dedicated to mitigation measures, despite the potential to abate 30% of greenhouse gases by 2030 as part of a 1.5°C pathway. This potential should  be reflected in the allocation of climate finance. Effective nature-based solutions should  protect, improve management and restore forests and other biomes in alignment with the  Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) mitigation hierarchy and recognized standards such as the IUCN Nature-Based Solution standard. This will deliver positive impacts on nature, contribute to food security, livelihoods, and other ecosystem services. Such measures should be developed in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and local communities.   

Set robust nature requirements and adherence to the mitigation hierarchy into public procurement policies and infrastructure development guidelines for all major economic sectors to enhance biodiversity outcomes including the application of nature-based solutions and incentivize a nature positive economy.

Justification: Public spending through procurement is an important lever for promoting the protection, restoration and/or sustainable use of nature. By encouraging and incentivizing suppliers to deliver nature-positive outcomes, including though net-positive requirements, as part of their contracts, governments can encourage innovation while creating new markets for sustainable products and services and for nature-based solution. Governments should recognize credible supply chain sustainability mechanisms and consider whole life carbon emissions and other life-cycle assessment considerations.  

Adopt an integrated approach to the implementation of the Rio conventions on climate, nature and desertification by aligning national strategies,  recognizing the synergies, co-benefits and trade-offs and defining a clear role for the private sector.

Justification: Breaking the silos is vital to ensure the policy coherence needed to support meaningful environmental action from the private sector. Global Stock-take processes should integrate progress assessments on climate, nature and desertification. To ensure a just and social transition, manage trade-offs and embrace co-benefits and synergies to accelerate positive results, a harmonized approach is needed between Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for climate change; and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and National Action Programs (NAPs) to combat desertification. A coherent legislative framework makes business action easier and more cost-effective. These national action plans should include business action plans to clarify the role of business and financial actors and create an enabling environment. For more details, see BfN’s recommendations on NBSAPs.  

Reform WTO rules to promote sustainable trade by reforming import and export restrictions, removing tariff and non-tariff measures and barriers on environmentally preferable products and services, eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies, as well as ratify and implement the 2022 WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement.

Justification: The rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) constitute the major legal architecture of the global economy and 40% of trade is directly related to nature. Redesigning subsidy rules could help eliminate Environmentally Harmful Subsidies while creating a level playing field globally for countries and taking into consideration the needs of developing countries. The WTO’s 2022 Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was a historic step in tackling overfishing. While progress has been made, the agreement must now be ratified and enter into force. Additionally it should be strengthened to curb subsidies that promote excessive fishing and unsustainable practices. 

Adopt and ratify an ambitious UN treaty to end plastic pollution, with legally binding global rules that address the full life cycle of plastic, phase out most problematic and avoidable plastics and establish a common policy framework to promote reuse systems, circularity, and improved waste management practices.

Justification: A global plastics treaty means a level playing field for businesses and investors and will  prevent a patchwork of disconnected solutions. System-wide transformation is needed to prevent plastic waste from being created in the first place; to improve transparency, and to create a circular economy that tackles all steps of the value chain with a high level of ambition. Sector-specific strategies will be essential to incentivize investments in new solutions to promote the elimination, reuse, and substitution of plastics. Currently, most plastics are not designed for a circular economy. Yet, if applied at scale, circular solutions can reduce annual volumes of plastic pollution by at least 80% by 2040. Leading businesses represented by the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty strongly support an ambitious treaty.  

Support a global moratorium on deep seabed mining.

Justification: The deep sea constitutes the largest contiguous habitat for species and ecosystems on Earth. Given the slow pace of deep-sea processes, and little disturbance from human activities, the deep sea is likely to have low levels of resilience leaving it vulnerable to damage. Extraction of deep seabed minerals risks direct destruction of ecosystems, biodiversity and genetic resources, including from light, noise and sediment pollution. Leading businesses are calling for a moratorium. This is supported by a growing number of scientists, civil society, youth, and political leaders calling for the environmental, social and economic risks of deep seabed mining to be comprehensively investigated; and that before any deep sea mining occurs for there to be scientific proof that such activities can be sustainably managed without harming the marine environment.