We use cookies that are necessary to make our site work as well as analytics cookie and third-party cookies to monitor our traffic and to personalise content and ads.
Please click “Cookies Settings” for details on how to withdraw your consent and how to block cookies. For more detailed information about the cookies we use and of who we work this see our cookies notice
Necessary cookies:
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website and cannot be switched off in our systems. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will then not work. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Optional cookies:
Statistic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers. We work with third parties and make use of third party cookies to make advertising messaging more relevant to you both on and off this website.
COP29’s call to action: transforming finance and business models to support biodiversity
Laura García Vélez, Nature Specialist, LOIM
With the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) commencing in Baku, Azerbaijan, global attention is turning toward the urgent demands of both climate action and biodiversity preservation. Recently, the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) concluded in Cali, Colombia, where world leaders gathered to assess progress since the landmark COP15 in 2022.
The commitment to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030 remains a driving goal – the Cali conference underscored both the achievements and hurdles in meeting these targets. In anticipation of COP29, Laura García Vélez, Nature Specialist at Lombard Odier Investment Managers (LOIM), reflects on her experience in Cali, and the outcomes from COP16 and the critical role of nature-based investments in aligning economic growth with a sustainable, nature-positive future.
What are your top 3 key takeaways from COP16?
Although COP16 did not advance negotiations as expected, with no agreement reached on the monitoring framework for the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) nor a substantial increase in public funding for the GBF1, there were significant advances in guaranteeing the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the work of the Convention. Additionally, the agreement to operationalise the Cali Fund2, as part of the mechanism for sharing benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, marks a historic step.
COP16 also had the highest representation of businesses of any biodiversity convention to date, with at least 1,300 representatives, compared to just a handful at COP14. Participants included industry and a wide range of actors across the entire finance value chain, such as insurance companies, asset managers, commercial banks, asset owners, and pension funds, who called on governments to take bold action on nature and to recognise the role of the private sector in the transition to a net-zero and nature-positive economy.3
The finance sector has been focussing its efforts on reducing incentives that are harmful to nature and on increasing nature-positive financing through investments in mechanisms such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds and biodiversity credits. Notable voices at COP16 emphasised the need to integrate and build new instruments that can be used within companies’ supply chains.4
Nature-based solutions are not only the most cost-effective approach to addressing biodiversity loss and desertification, but they can also contribute to over a third of the emissions reductions needed by 2030 to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius
To what extent can nature-based solutions play a role in transforming hard-to-abate sectors?
Nature-based solutions are not only the most cost-effective approach to addressing biodiversity loss and desertification, but they can also contribute to over a third of the emissions reductions needed by 2030 to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. These reductions through nature-based solutions are primarily required in the forestry, land use, and agricultural (FLAG) sectors, which are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. Additionally, these sectors present favourable opportunities to integrate nature-based solutions, such as agroforestry and organic inputs, into the production of commodities like coffee and cacao.
What are the main challenges in shifting towards a nature-positive economy? How can we address them?
The primary challenge lies in translating the concept of a nature-positive economy into concrete actions that companies can implement and finance within their value chains. Although there has been an increase in nature investment products such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits; we also need to see new and innovative products specifically tailored to transforming the value chains of the FLAG sectors. These products will likely attract the demand of big corporations, who are the natural buyers of nature-based solutions, achieving the scale needed in nature markets.
What does nature-positive mean?
Ensuring there is more nature in the world in 2030 than in 2020, and continued recovery after that (Nature Positive Initiative, 2023).
How can we be sure nature-positive investments are not only impactful, but also avoid greenwashing?
According to the Multilateral Development Banks’ Common Principles for tracking nature-positive finance5, nature-positive investments should make a substantial contribution to the preservation and enhancement of nature. Their expected outcomes should be positive, measurable, and capable of being assessed and monitored against a baseline, and they should not introduce significant adverse environmental risks or impacts.
In our view, the impact of these investments is further amplified when the financed activities are integrated into the transformation of companies’ value chains.
How can technology and innovations be scaled up to move towards a nature-positive economy?
In addition to incorporating nature-based solutions within the FLAG sectors, nature-based solutions, along with advanced technologies, enable the transformation of other sectors that depend on fossil-based and non-renewable resources by substituting these resources with bio-based alternatives.
It is important to note that each sector requires different levels of innovation and technological advancement to transition to a nature-positive and net-zero production model. For example, the construction sector is adopting new technologies and processes to produce engineered wood products that can replace and environmentally outperform steel and concrete.6 Similarly, the pharmaceutical sector is utilising molecular-level technologies to develop new drugs, identifying novel applications such as anti-inflammatory compounds from marine sponges, antimicrobial agents from marine bacteria, and innovative cancer therapies derived from diverse marine organisms.7
In this transition, it is also essential to highlight the role of nature-tech, which encompasses a broad range of technologies that can accelerate and scale the implementation of nature-based solutions. This includes products such as drone technology for reforestation, satellite monitoring to verify impact claims, and blockchain to ensure transparency, among others.
each sector requires different levels of innovation and technological advancement to transition to a nature-positive and net-zero production model
What strategies can financial institutions use to assess and mitigate nature loss risks in their portfolios?
The first step should be to prioritise the areas within the organisation where nature dependencies and impacts are most material. Currently, there are multiple tools available for conducting a high-level materiality assessment, such as Encore.8
Once this is completed, the specific impact of investments on nature should be analysed, with the understanding that the analysis will improve as we move forward. Although nature-related disclosures are on the rise, it is important to remember that only 1,800 companies are currently reporting the impact their value chains have on biodiversity, while a third of the global stock market is disclosing water data.9 Therefore, the initial assessments will rely heavily on proxies.
In terms of risks, the recommendation is to begin by integrating climate risks into nature risk assessments and ensuring that efforts across these two dimensions align within the portfolios. A particularly relevant area of overlap, for instance, is climate adaptation and how invested companies are preparing for physical risks projected to affect their operations and productivity. Regarding opportunities, the finance sector should actively engage with companies to deploy nature-based solutions and technologies to adapt to these risks, while also allocating funding to nascent nature-positive products.
How do regulatory frameworks impact the scale-up of nature-based investments, and how can governments and the private sector collaborate better?
Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in driving demand for nature-positive products and services. As of today, corporations are seeking solutions that verifiably deliver value-chain climate mitigation to comply with potentially punitive climate and nature regulations in many countries. Some examples include the EU Deforestation Regulation and the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Due Diligence Directive.
At COP16, businesses and investors emphasised the need for countries to update their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, which have only been presented so far by 44 countries.10 Clear targets and a monitoring framework are not only needed to assess the implementation of the GBF targets at the country level but also to align private efforts with these goals.
Currently, investments in nature-based solutions total only USD 200 billion annually, while estimates suggest this needs to increase nearly fourfold by 2050 to deliver nature and climate targets
Why does nature loss need to be seen as an investment issue, rather than only an ecological one?
Nature loss must be viewed as an investment issue rather than solely an ecological one due to its significant economic implications. Currently, investments in nature-based solutions total only USD 200 billion annually, while estimates suggest this needs to increase nearly fourfold by 2050 to deliver nature and climate targets. Simultaneously, 8% of global GDP, or USD 7 trillion, is spent each year on activities that degrade nature, such as conventional agriculture and fossil fuel extraction. The private sector accounts for 70% of these harmful investments but contributes less than 20% to investments in nature-based solutions.11
As awareness grows regarding the need to close the nature investment gap, there is potential for a major revaluation of nature-positive products and services
As awareness grows regarding the need to close the nature investment gap, there is potential for a major revaluation of nature-positive products and services. This shift is expected to be driven by four key factors:
Demand from both corporates and governments for climate mitigation solutions.
Increasing demand for climate adaptation solutions as corporations and governments seek to avoid costly disruptions to value chains and communities caused by escalating climate and nature crises, which can lead to issues like food inflation.12
Demand from corporations for products and services that verifiably deliver climate mitigation within their value chains to comply with potentially punitive climate and nature regulations.
New scientific knowledge and technologies available to implement nature-based solutions and measure their outcomes in economic and environmental terms.
nature-based solutions and advanced technologies can reshape other sectors that currently rely on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources
What are some examples of ways that business models can be built around nature, rather than simply feeding off it?
Over the last few decades, we have seen increasing recognition of the need to shift away from linear, extractive, and wasteful production and consumption models. In this time, the concept of a ‘circular economy’ has become more widely used and captures the need for value chains and economic systems that eliminate waste and pollution and re-use products and materials.13 More recently, this thinking has evolved further to recognise that we need to shift to a ‘circular bioeconomy’. The circular bioeconomy is an economic paradigm focussed on developing circular and bio-based value chains through the restoration, protection, and sustainable use of nature, as well as the application of scientific knowledge and technologies.14
In a circular bioeconomy, nature-based solutions are central to value chains. These solutions can not only be used to produce biological resources like food, cotton, and timber but also provide vital ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, pest control, and soil and water regulation. Furthermore, nature-based solutions and advanced technologies can reshape other sectors that currently rely on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources, such as chemicals, textiles, plastics or construction15.
These examples illustrate how business models can be structured around nature, fostering sustainability and resilience while actively contributing to the health of our ecosystems.
What role can the finance sector play in driving the transition to a new nature-positive economy?
The finance sector should focus on reducing incentives that are harmful to nature and increasing nature-positive financing. This corresponds, respectively, to Targets 18 and 19 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which are also interlinked with the imperative for businesses to assess, disclose, and reduce biodiversity-related risks and negative impacts (Target 15).
What are some examples of opportunities arising from the transition to a new nature-positive economy?
At COP16, representatives from the agriculture and energy sectors showcased their initiatives to deploy NbS. For example, some food and beverage companies presented how they are scaling regenerative agriculture practices to accelerate their transition to net-zero and nature-positive, whilst supporting the livelihoods of farmers and local communities.16
There are numerous examples of nature-positive financing instruments. In this regard, it is important to note that at COP16, a framework was launched to guide the development of a high-integrity biodiversity credit market. Notably, this framework encourages the use of biodiversity credits for making evidence-based contributions to nature goals, local compensation of biodiversity impacts under strict criteria, and proactive investment within buyers’ supply chains.17
the circular bioeconomy approach specifically calls for prioritising investments in solutions within sectors that are responsible for a significant proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation
This initiative is particularly timely as there are already other investable nature-based solutions projects that can be integrated within agriculture and forestry business supply chains – mapped at over USD 21 billion18 – but also because the circular bioeconomy approach specifically calls for prioritising investments in solutions within sectors that are responsible for a significant proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation.
This is a marketing communication issued by Bank Lombard Odier & Co Ltd (hereinafter “Lombard Odier”).
It is not intended for distribution, publication, or use in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, or use would be unlawful, nor is it aimed at any person or entity to whom it would be unlawful to address such a marketing communication.
share.