The importance of biodiversity

Nature-based solutions

The publication of the recent IPCC AR6 Synthesis report, progress by the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework along with wider factors, signal the rapidly increasing global awareness about the urgent need to preserve biodiversity. The restoration of biodiversity, through nature-based solutions such as rewilding, is now widely seen as the leading solution to address residual greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the ‘net’ in net zero transition plans. This presents a unique opportunity to simultaneously tackle the climate challenge, restore biodiversity loss, and create positive outdoor nature spaces for local communities. This is a rare opportunity, but only if done in the right way.

Natural resources such as peatland and forests are now increasingly being classified as ‘natural capital’ with a financial value associated to these assets. Although this poses a clear risk of commodifying nature, appropriately assigning value may be a vital step in protecting and restoring nature, given the current construct of our economy. In an economy that typically profits when a forest burns (e.g., through the additional financial spend on the resources and services to tackle the fire), does it not make sense to consider shifting the dynamic, so the economy loses if the forest burns and gains if the forest thrives?

The U.K.’s stock in natural capital itself contributes an estimated £1.8 trillion to our economy.[1] Nature-based solutions are seen as a key solution in addressing climate change, estimated to provide 37% of climate change mitigation needed by 2030[2] through sequestration. Despite these facts, the rate of nature loss continues to escalate, with a 69% decrease in wildlife abundance over the past 50 years alone.[3]

Against the backdrop of new promising technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC), typical nature-based solutions such as tree planting are recommended by the United Nations[4] and increasingly seen as a lower-risk option for carbon removal and achieving the ‘net’ in net zero for organisations. In the context of greater scrutiny and accountability for net zero targets and transition plans, in particular the legacy offset market, it is not a surprise that we are already seeing headlines regarding the risks surrounding the voluntary carbon markets, in particular current initiatives for carbon removal.

Progress is being made in this space, but more needs to be done if we are to achieve our sustainability targets. For example, the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) and the Defra-seeded Big Nature Impact Fund are starting to provide structure and assurance for investors, which is helpful, but the pace needs to accelerate. Given the decades of lead time for biodiversity restoration projects to reach maturity and sequester carbon, we cannot afford to let the errors of carbon offsetting slow down the positive action that needs to happen around credible carbon removal. Planning for this needs to start now to reap long-term societal and ecological benefits.

Where we see financial organisations investing in land to establish an afforestation scheme, as an example, we will likely see the trees themselves treated as real assets, with extensive insurance and risk mitigation to protect against risks such as disease, weather events and wildfire. In my view, a fascinating opportunity in multiple dimensions exists if access for local communities can be guaranteed in parallel with biodiversity being restored in a credible way by the right specialists.

The key question we all need to ask ourselves is how we can achieve our sustainability targets responsibly without handing over unbridled control of nature to the many private and public sector organisations seeking carbon removal or biodiversity net gain. Collaboration is necessary to find a path that restores or enhances nature appropriately for each project, validates carbon sequestration in a scientifically robust way, and does not restrict access to local communities.

Nature-based solutions have a crucial role to play in our future, alongside technological solutions such as Direct Air Capture (DAC). We need to find the right way to implement these solutions, which includes engaging local communities in a just transition and preventing negative externalities. Ultimately, organisations cannot solely rely on removals to meet their net zero goals. Avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions is the largest section of the mitigation hierarchy, and we need to fundamentally change our behaviours through a transition away from fossil fuels to meet our emissions targets.

As the IPCC delivered its ‘final warning’ on climate change, we cannot continue as normal. A new framework is needed to protect nature where we have historically failed to do so. A conversation needs to happen on how we can ensure nature is conserved and restored while ensuring equitable access and management of natural assets.

[1]UK Natural Capital Accounts: 2022

[2] https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/inline/files/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers.pdf

[3] https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/embargo_13_10_2022_lpr_2022_full_report_single_page_1.pdf

[4] https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1046752