Manuel Pulgar-Vidal on unifying action for climate and nature ahead of COP16

By Climate Champions | October 18, 2024

With the global Biodiversity Conference, COP 16, getting underway, we spoke with Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, WWF Global Climate and Energy Lead, Chair of the IUCN Climate Crisis Commission and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Action Agenda Champion for Nature and People. With  almost 40 years of experience in environmental law and policy, Manuel served as Peru’s Minister of the Environment (2011–2016) and presided over COP 20 in Lima, in 2014. 

As COP20 President Manuel played a key role in laying the groundwork for the successful negotiations at COP21, which resulted in the historic Paris Agreement in 2015. He is also considered by many as the ‘father’ of the UNFCCC Action Agenda, which was introduced at COP 20. 

We discussed the origins of the action agenda, Manuel’s hopes for COP16, the synergies between climate and nature, and the potential to engage all stakeholders in the decisive decade.  

What are the most critical steps countries and stakeholders should take to meet the global goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030? 

In late 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was established at the Biodiversity COP15, marking a pivotal moment with clear vision and targets for global action. While this agreement is a significant milestone, it cannot stand alone; urgent action is required to achieve the GBF goals within the next five years—an incredibly short timeframe from a planetary perspective.

First, we must acknowledge the intrinsic link between the GBF’s objectives and the economy; sustainable economic development must align with nature conservation. The Paris Agreement of 2015 provided a vital framework for addressing the climate crisis and has generated substantial political awareness and investment. However, nature loss— which is critical to maintaining humanity within safe planetary limits— has currently received less attention, which is why COP 16 is so important.

The interrelationship between climate change and biodiversity loss demands a dual approach; addressing both crises simultaneously will enhance our effectiveness. Non-State actors, including businesses, mayors, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and investors, play a crucial role in implementing the GBF by bridging the gap between government initiatives and grassroots actions. By aligning these various sectors with the GBF’s goals, we can move beyond mere policy development to implement tangible actions.

Additionally, effective resource allocation is essential. Mechanisms must be designed to ensure public budgets prioritize nature protection, integrating biodiversity objectives across key sectors like agriculture, infrastructure, and health. This approach will embed biodiversity conservation into broader national development plans, rather than confining it to environmental budgets.

Harnessing these elements can create a powerful gravitational force, drawing all actors toward nature and climate action to achieve the goals of the GBF and the Paris Agreement.

What key outcomes do you hope to see at COP16?

The outcomes of COP16 will vary across different levels, which I envision this as five concentric ‘rings’ operating in parallel. Each ring serves as a forum to elevate the voices of diverse constituencies and influence shared goals.

The innermost ‘ring’ focuses on negotiations aimed at finalizing key sections of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). A primary objective is to mainstream biodiversity targets, ensuring nature is prioritized across all sectors, including food, energy, and finance. Another critical area is mobilizing finance for implementation, particularly through Target 19, which seeks to secure USD 20 billion per year in public finance by 2025. Technical discussions will also cover the establishment of fair access and benefit-sharing (ABS) systems related to genetic resources, essential for research and conservation. I hope COP 16 translates the GBF commitments into actionable plans, and the involvement of non-State actors is vital to achieving these plans.

The concept of ‘net zero’ has gained significant traction, with 88% of the global population now represented by national net zero commitments. We must create similar momentum around ‘nature positive,’ which encapsulates the GBF’s objectives to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, providing a third of the necessary climate mitigation, with a full recovery targeted by 2050.

Achieving a nature-positive approach by 2030 requires integrating nature into strategic planning, establishing clear targets, and developing benchmarks. Through these efforts, non-State actors can send strong signals to investors, leaders, and the world’s most vulnerable populations that we are unified in our objectives.

The Action Agenda in the climate realm has demonstrated its ability to mobilize governments, businesses, and civil society, cascading national goals through societal layers. Although the Action Agenda for Biodiversity is still developing, it can gain significant traction at COP16 by making the role of non-State actors more visible.

Finally, it’s important to recognize that the GBF is not a static document; it is a dynamic instrument that must evolve to align with our developmental, economic, and social objectives. For non-State actors, the COP offers a platform to produce and develop new mandates, collaborative strategies, and essential information for negotiators and parties, making their participation crucial.

What innovative approaches have you seen to protect biodiversity while supporting economic development?

We must build innovative actions for the future based on our existing knowledge. One of the most effective strategies for safeguarding nature and biodiversity and halting deforestation is establishing national and regional protected areas, such as the UNESCO World Heritage site, the Central Amazon Conservation Complex. Additionally, Indigenous Peoples play a crucial role in protecting their lands, demonstrating that protected areas and Indigenous rights are highly effective and should continue to evolve. It has been proven that through these two systems – nature protected areas and Indigenous rights, are highly effective, and should continue to evolve.  

However, many non-State actors working to protect local biodiversity often lack alignment with the broader Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), making it challenging to track and coordinate progress toward global biodiversity goals. This disconnection can limit their influence on international agreements. We need to encourage all stakeholders—banks, civil society, business and others—to adopt a more synergistic and globally-minded approach to enhance outcomes.

Moreover, policy instruments should be connected. Currently, national climate goals (NDCs) and long-term strategies often operate separately from National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Integrating these commitments at the domestic level would significantly improve their effectiveness.

Europe’s Green Deal exemplifies governance focused on driving net zero and nature-positive transitions by addressing climate, biodiversity, and pollution control. This integrated approach could serve as a model for other regions.

Finally, innovating public budget allocation is crucial. By prioritizing nature-positive investments, budgets can deliver co-benefits such as climate mitigation, disaster resilience, and improved public health. Protecting nature spans multiple sectors—agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and more—yet traditional budgeting often confines funding to specific departments, leading to inefficient resource use. It is essential for every country to embed nature at the core of development and competitiveness.

How can action by the private sector and civil society benefit the biodiversity community?

When we created the Lima Paris Action Agenda in 2014, it was clear that achieving the Paris Agreement would require the active participation of non-State actors.

While the Secretariat of the Convention, the host country for each COP, and the respective Parties are essential, we recognized the need to integrate the ‘doers’ of the economy—non-State actors—into a semi-formal structure. This led to the creation of a three-geared mechanism – comprising Parties, non-State actors and the UN – designed to mutually drive and promote action, positioning the Action Agenda as a pivotal mechanism for facilitating dialogue.

We also understood that addressing the immense challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss necessitates engaging key economic sectors—such as agriculture, food, energy, and industry. Importantly, we anticipated that the mandate of the agreement would evolve over time, highlighting the need for these sectors to identify gaps and maintain the momentum of the Paris Agreement and the GBF. By showcasing impactful actions, we aimed to raise awareness and draw more stakeholders into the conversation.

Some have proposed separating the COP into two distinct groups: negotiators in one camp and non-State actors (NSAs) in another. I believe this would be a grave mistake; as the participation and recognition of NSAs is the only way to preserve the dynamic of the implementation of those agreements.

Since the launch of the Nature Positive for Climate Action in 2023, more than 450 non-State actors are driving nature-based solutions on the ground. How can this momentum be replicated and scaled?

To keep momentum towards national objectives, we need to clearly communicate the vision for the concept of ‘nature positive.’ Nature positive refers to actions and policies aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss, ensuring that ecosystems are restored, and natural resources are sustainably managed, resulting in a net gain for nature. It emphasizes restoring ecosystems to enhance their resilience, biodiversity, and overall health, benefiting both nature and people. It is not just a phrase, we need to help audiences to translate the concept into objectives, measure progress and define standards, so that it becomes recognisable and enforceable.

Secondly, we also need to translate the goals of the GBF into clear plans for sectors. By organizing those sectors and by defining activities and action, we can be more effective. 

Thirdly, we need to use clear mechanisms to achieve those objectives. Nature-based Solutions have emerged as one such mechanism for addressing both nature conservation and climate change, for example, by protecting, restoring, and sustainably managing ecosystems to address challenges like food insecurity, and water management.

Innovation in these mechanisms means finding ways to better integrate public finance, private investment, and local actions to ensure resources flow efficiently towards projects that promote both nature-positive and climate-resilient outcomes.

Do you think the  climate and biodiversity pledges should be unified into a single UN Convention?

We have to recognize that in 1992 the world had decided that the best way to promote maturity, awareness, understanding and knowledge about the key topics of climate, biodiversity, desertification – was to create fragmented Conventions for each independent issue. This was done with a view to later seeing how the Conventions could be reconnected.

I think the fragmentation worked well initially to build momentum for issues that back then, were much more abstract. However, over time, differences in the level of maturity have emerged, it is clear that the climate Convention developed more maturity in comparison to biodiversity and desertification. Now the signs are that we have to recognize the level of interconnection in between those crises and see how they can be reconnected.

Will this lead to a single conveying Convention? We don’t know yet. For now, we need to take steps to create synergetic relations, and then we will see if it makes sense to move to a single convention. Probably, now is too early for a single convention to emerge that is able to address the three crises at the same time. 

Also, we must not forget the importance of aligning environmental progress with broader development objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs serve as a framework for addressing interconnected issues and provide a roadmap for sustainable development beyond 2030. Integrating environmental conventions with the SDGs can help clarify priorities and guide actions that contribute to both ecological, health and social well-being. As we plan and strategize for future actions beyond the current SDG timeline, thereby ensuring continuity and sustainability in environmental governance, the synergies developed today can inform the evolution of conventions.

At the domestic level, we have to be more effective in connecting policies. In my view, we have to work on clearly defining the connections between ‘NDCs’ and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to allow clear allocation of resources and organization of public budgets. This is happening in the developed world, for example, France is a leader in issuing green bonds, which cover not just climate, but also biodiversity protection and pollution control. 

By synergising the needs of climate and nature, key actors can create a more integrated and effective response to the interconnected crises facing the planet.

What are the main barriers to mobilising climate and nature finance?

Financing nature is crucial, but significant barriers hinder the mobilization of sufficient funds. A major issue is the financial system’s structure, which traditionally evaluates investments based on security and profitability. For instance, in sectors like shipping, where companies are testing clean fuels required for a net zero transition, these investments often don’t meet conventional investor expectations. However, when viewed through the lens of the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the GBF, the value of these investments is undeniable. 

To close the gap, we need innovative mechanisms that reorganize the financial system to unlock resources. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels requires demonstrating the long-term value of climate and nature-positive initiatives. Improved benchmarking for the financial sector is also essential to align investments with 1.5°C and nature-positive goals. Non-State actors play a key role in leading this shift, and many investors are starting to explore how to restructure their portfolios accordingly.

In Latin America, dependence on fossil fuels impedes progress. Many countries lack long-term strategies for climate and biodiversity, leading to short-term, erratic actions. Effective domestic planning is critical, and political will must drive this transformation—it’s not just an economic issue. Countries need a long-term vision to guide financial sector alignment with net-zero and nature-positive solutions.

As a professor of environmental law, what are your hopes for litigation as a lever for climate action?

Climate and nature litigation is not something new. I have been working in this space for many years and historically courts around the world have applied criminal law in the defence of the environment.

For example, the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND) was created in response to major oil spills, particularly the 1967 Torrey Canyon disaster which affected the UK and France. The spill revealed gaps in international law around liability and compensation for environmental damage. The convention established a global system where oil companies contribute to a fund to compensate affected nations, easing the financial burden on governments. This framework which was adopted in 1971, highlights the long-running tradition of international law being applied for environmental protection.

Both the climate and nature systems have been developed on a voluntary basis – with public sector and private sector actors being encouraged to define their plans, to define their targets, to move their action. But because the speed has been too slow, now we need to accelerate towards a more enforceable system. The way to make the system more enforceable, is through regulation, which is happening in Europe, for example through the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD); an EU regulation aimed at holding companies accountable for identifying, preventing, and mitigating human rights and environmental impacts across their supply chains.

While the number of countries setting net zero targets has plateaued, the proportion of these targets formalised into national laws or official policy has steadily risen, now covering 73% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And since governments are seeking to strengthen their climate plans, courts are increasingly recovering their instrumental role of making country commitments more mandatory, as this is the only way to ensure targets are met within the timeframes set out by science.

After years of delay, human rights courts are now recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental human right, reflecting principles embedded in many national constitutions at their formation. Countries like Norway and India enshrined environmental protections early on, but courts were slow to link environmental harm with human rights violations. Recent rulings, however, now recognize that environmental degradation directly affects rights to life, health, and dignity. This shift aligns modern legal frameworks with the foundational constitutional values of environmental stewardship and human well-being.

For example, in April of this year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of a group of older women from Switzerland – the Klima Seniorinnen – who brought the case arguing that their human rights were violated as their government’s response to the climate crisis was lacking. The Court agreed, ruling in their favour. Similarly,  in Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Portugal, and most recently in Ontario, Canada – young people have sued governments on the basis that climate complacency is jeopardizing their futures.

Through this wave of legal cases, climate change is becoming part of the human rights system. And we need to work to establish the same approach when it comes to nature protection.