Nature preservation is a goal of climate resilience – it may also be a tactic

There are thought to be around 8.7 million species on our planet, and all of them, from the tiniest ant to the tallest redwood, are a vital part of the environments in which they exist. 

But we are seeing huge species loss as a result of human activity. While the main human cause is land use, the effects of reduced biodiversity are closely interwoven with the effects of climate change, so that this loss is both driven by and driving climate change. In regions of the Amazon rainforest, for example, cut wood from deforestation is providing fuel that, in times of extreme drought caused by a warming climate, are making natural wildfires last longer and burn more fiercely, releasing sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change in a vicious circle.

 

If the Earth can be thought of as a machine, then every living thing is a vital cog. 

Biodiversity is at risk of being forgotten

A 2024 IPBES report highlighted the risk of siloing biodiversity. By focusing on climate challenges in each area separately, like agriculture, or energy, we risk solving one problem but creating, or worsening, another.

Building solar or wind farms helps us generate energy free of fossil fuels, for example, but can negatively impact bird or marine life as animals are displaced from their habitats. UAE clean energy developer Masdar, for example, is addressing this challenge through wind farm developments in Central Asia and the Western Balkans, where projects are designed to minimize impacts on migratory bird populations through careful siting, AI-powered monitoring, and turbine curtailment.
 
We need shifts like this in how we think of the interaction between biodiversity and climate change, to recognize biodiversity as a vital part of our climate infrastructure. With the right approaches, sustainability and nature conservation can go hand in hand.   

Changing the conversation

We are starting to see a shift since COP28, which took place in Dubai in 2024. COP28 was the first to feature a full Nature, Land Use, and Oceans Day to highlight the interconnectedness of nature, land, and oceans and to discuss the importance of nature-based solutions as part of climate action. 

The focus on nature-based solutions has highlighted how they are just as valuable as technological ones: wetlands sequester carbon at a faster rate than forests, while coral reefs protect nearly 200 million people from coastal flooding, saving billions in potential food damage in the USA alone.

Biodiverse landscapes, then, are not just pretty to look at. They are essential tools for countries serious about meeting net-zero and other climate targets. Nature-based solutions can deliver emissions reductions that will help signees meet Paris Agreement goals, and when done in collaboration with local workers and indigenous communities, they support the use and enhancement of existing skills and knowledge.

Nature-based solutions require funding, and that funding is currently biodiversity funding coming predominantly from public funds. Private investors remain hesitant for a range of reasons, such as the relative novelty of the idea or the perceived risk, but nature-based solutions that don’t just protect, but utilize biodiversity have been proven to produce a good return on investment.

A recent report by the UN calculated that an investment of $7.4 trillion is needed by 2030 to meet key nature-related sustainable development goals, but this would provide a huge $152 trillion return, that’s $20 for every $1 spent. Investment firms are already seeing good returns for clients: biodiversity-linked investments averaged 11% in 2024, outperforming funds focused on other green sectors.

Investment can take various forms. It can mean businesses investing in upgraded processes or new, nature-based solutions in their own value chain. It might mean investing in companies that offer nature-based solutions. Or, it might be investing in companies which are innovating in tech or other products that protect biodiversity, like regenerative agriculture. The returns are generated by profits when new solutions are adopted, or savings made in the value chain when ecosystem services (such as preventing flooding or maintaining clean waterways) are protected.
But hesitancy remains. It can be unclear to investors how revenue will be generated from nature-based solutions and the returns can be longer term, requiring patience. 

Supporting Investment

Government policy can help de-risk private investment through a few different approaches. Blended finance uses public or charitable capital to encourage private investment in early-stage projects, where perceived risk is highest because of lack of proof of a return on investment. Biodiversity bonds can offer a way for investors to see clear, measurable outcomes, by tying returns to ecological goals, such as percentage of species recovery. Then there are public-private partnerships, which allow governments and private investors to share in the risk, and the reward, both financial and public, like lives saved from climate disasters.

A mix of these funding approaches can bridge the financing gap and make nature-based solutions a viable, investable type of climate infrastructure.

Knowing when it works

With more investment and greater international support for nature-based solutions and biodiversity projects, there will come a need to report on outcomes, but there is still a lack of standardized reporting models. Efforts to create them are underway.

Among the most developed is the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), launched in 2021 by Global Canopy, the United Nations Development Programme, the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, and the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) as a “market led initiative,” made up of 40 financial institutions, corporates, and market services. In 2023, it published 14 recommended disclosures for nature-related risks and opportunities, which provide organizations with a guide to assess their impact on nature. Over 520 companies have committed to reporting using the TNFD recommendations.



The TNFD, though, is a voluntary framework. To ensure corporations are held accountable for their impact on and protection of biodiversity, governments must step in to mandate reporting aligned with frameworks like TNFD.

Managing emerging markets

Biodiversity markets are promising, but still in their nascent stages. To ensure they develop responsibly, we would be well advised to take note of successes and failures from carbon markets, which have seen oversupply, poor tracking and accountability, and vulnerability to fraud.

To avoid the same pitfalls, biodiversity credits need some thought. With a biodiversity market, there is a risk that ecosystems could be reduced simply to commodities, although they have value beyond this as places of natural beauty, for example, or homes to indigenous populations. To avoid this outcome, markets should be place-based, so that offset projects are local to the environment from which credits are generated. Local and national biodiversity offset schemes can reduce complexity, barriers to action, and bureaucracy, meaning schemes are more likely to have real, measurable, and locally relevant impacts that can be managed by people with vested local interests.

Biodiversity in transition

When it comes to folding biodiversity protection into climate action, governments and private companies both have critical roles. Governments can take the lead and embed biodiversity targets into their climate policies and make TNFD-aligned disclosures a mandatory part of risk reporting. The private sector should acknowledge the financial value of protecting biodiversity and communicate this to stakeholders. And together, governments and corporations must work to support investment in nature-based solutions and other protective measures.

These steps will help bring biodiversity to the fore in climate action. Our ecosystems have been damaged by human activity yet remain integral to adapting to and reversing its effects.

|Our natural world, then, is worth saving in part because it may, in fact, save us.