Steve Edwards is head of biodiversity at South Pole.
The 16th United Nations Biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Colombia late last year underscored an urgent truth: global efforts to halt biodiversity loss remain inadequate.
While many hoped the event would catalyse clear and enforceable pathways for nature protection, the outcomes fell short, marked by vague targets and limited accountability.
This presents a critical challenge – but also an opportunity for businesses to step forward.
The upcoming COP16 intersessional meeting in February – or as I’m calling it, COP16 2.0 – offers a chance to readdress the urgent financial gaps to protect nature and provide businesses with the tools they need to enable biodiversity markets and drive meaningful action.
Supporting early movers
Encouragingly, at COP16 there was a growing presence of private-sector participants and a deepening awareness of the challenges we face in “bending the curve of nature loss”.
These early movers – those that are choosing to go above and beyond regulatory requirements because they recognise the value of staying ahead – hold the power to shape the trajectory of global climate and biodiversity markets.
Industries with agriculture–based value chains like food, packaging and even the mining sector are really stepping up, conducting risk assessments and preparing for the future.
But sectors like fast fashion and technology, including data centres, should follow suit, given their significant environmental footprints and capacity to drive change.
By being among the first to adopt new frameworks, finance mechanisms like biodiversity credits, or influence policies, these early movers set crucial precedents and prove what’s both possible and scalable.
Their leadership isn’t just forward-thinking, it’s essential. They deserve support during COP16 2.0 in Rome this month to amplify their impact and inspire broader action.
Biodiversity market takes off at COP16, in shadow of carbon credit chaos
Public-private working group
To bridge the gap between ambition and action, I believe we need a dedicated accelerator working group to connect governments, companies and project developers.
Such a working group would better understand priorities and align regulatory ambitions with market needs, ensuring a pipeline of viable nature projects. This way, supply can more easily meet demand and corporates will be encouraged to do more.
In short, ongoing collaboration – not delayed discussions at future conferences – is essential to make this work.
De-risking strategy for businesses
Corporate action is indispensable. While halting biodiversity loss requires $700 billion annually, the funding shortfall of up to $500 billion cannot be addressed by governments alone. Private sector contributions, currently less than 10% of global biodiversity finance, could grow to $200–$300 billion annually by 2030.
For businesses, investing in nature isn’t just altruistic; it mitigates financial risk and boosts resilience.
The European Central Bank found that 72% of companies in the Eurozone are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service to produce their goods or provide their services, and this year’s seminal Global Risks Report, produced by the World Economic Forum, listed biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as the biggest risks we face today and in the next decade.
There is increasing awareness that acting on biodiversity today represents a forward-looking de-risking strategy for both corporates and governments. By aligning with science-based targets and disclosure requirements, companies enhance their appeal to regulators, investors and customers alike.
COP16 hands power to Indigenous people but fails to bridge nature finance gap
Building “nature market” readiness
An area where early movers can best focus their efforts is through building “nature market readiness” in countries that are eager to spur biodiversity credits.
This includes England and France, through their collaboration with the International Advisory Panel for Biodiversity Credits, as well as recent expressions of interest from Colombia, Australia and Finland to build on these efforts.
It may be surprising that renowned ”biodiversity hotspots” like in Brazil, Indonesia and parts of Africa are not driving the development of global biodiversity markets. But OECD countries are, I believe, better positioned to drive the early stages of these markets. Stronger governance systems and clearer land ownership, for example, make it easier to roll out projects and set the foundation for market development.
Overcoming market readiness barriers – policy uncertainty, capacity gaps and access to data – will surely accelerate biodiversity market growth.
Efforts must include collaborating with landowners and local communities to establish expectations and technical guidelines, working with financial institutions to develop long-term investment tools and equipping local planning authorities to engage with national and international stakeholders.
Rome must be decisive
The question is no longer whether we can afford to support and protect nature efforts but whether we can afford not to. Biodiversity underpins our economies, ecosystems and future. It’s time we treated it as such.
COP16 2.0 in February gathers the world’s governments once again, presenting a pivotal opportunity to move from rhetoric to action. To seize it, they must shift focus to practical solutions: empowering early movers, establishing frameworks for biodiversity credits and fostering market readiness.
