UN Biodiversity Chief Warns Corporate Action Is Falling Behind the Pace of Nature Loss

8 月 4, 2026

11:18 上午

As governments prepare for the first global review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at COP17, Convention on Biological Diversity Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker is calling for faster corporate assessment of nature-related risks and greater alignment between financial flows and biodiversity commitments.

LONDON — Many companies and financial institutions have yet to respond adequately to the economic and operational risks associated with nature loss, according to Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Schomaker said that while some businesses are actively addressing biodiversity, many remain “on the sidelines” and are not investing sufficient resources in understanding how their operations and supply chains affect—and depend upon—natural systems.

“Companies are not investing enough time and energy and resources into analysing their biodiversity impacts and dependencies and risk along the supply chain,” Schomaker told Reuters ahead of preparatory discussions in Nairobi.

Her comments come as governments prepare for COP17, which will take place from October 19–30, 2026, in Yerevan, Armenia. The conference will conduct the first global review of collective progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022.

From Environmental Concern to Business Risk

Companies across the global economy depend on functioning ecosystems for water, agricultural productivity, raw materials, pollination, flood protection and other services. Damage to those systems can create supply disruptions, higher costs and operational uncertainty, although the level and form of exposure vary considerably by sector and location.

Unlike greenhouse gas emissions, nature-related impacts and dependencies are often highly specific to particular landscapes, watersheds and ecosystems. That complexity has made biodiversity risks more difficult for companies and investors to measure consistently and incorporate into financial decision-making.

Schomaker attributed the slow response partly to practical and financial constraints. She also noted that many governments have yet to introduce requirements compelling companies to disclose their biodiversity impacts and dependencies.

Biodiversity loss has nevertheless featured among the World Economic Forum’s leading global risks since 2020, highlighting a gap between general awareness of nature-related threats and their integration into corporate strategy and risk management.

Nature-Negative Finance Still Far Exceeds Nature Investment

The imbalance between financing that supports nature and economic activity associated with its degradation is expected to receive further attention during the COP17 process.

A UN Environment Programme assessment cited by Reuters estimated that more than $7 trillion was invested in environmentally harmful activities in 2023, with most of that financing originating in the private sector.

Schomaker described redirecting private capital toward nature-positive investment as the “biggest challenge.” She also called for development banks and other lenders to reflect biodiversity impacts, dependencies and risks more directly in their financing decisions.

The Kunming-Montreal framework calls for governments to mobilize at least $200 billion annually from public and private sources for biodiversity by 2030.

It also includes commitments to conserve at least 30% of terrestrial, inland-water, coastal and marine areas and to place at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland-water, marine and coastal ecosystems under effective restoration by the end of the decade.

Progress toward those objectives has been affected by financing gaps, differing national capacities and wider pressures on international development assistance.

COP17 Will Examine the Corporate Role

Corporate implementation will form part of the broader COP17 review as governments consider whether existing national policies, financial incentives and disclosure frameworks are sufficient to support the biodiversity agreement’s 2030 targets.

One closely watched issue will be the Cali Fund, established through the CBD process to support the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the commercial use of digital sequence information on genetic resources.

Digital sequence information is used across sectors including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture, cosmetics and food production. The fund seeks contributions from larger companies that benefit commercially from its use, with indicative contributions set at either 0.1% of annual revenue or 1% of annual profit, depending on the basis selected by the company.

Questions remain over how contributions should be calculated when digital sequence information represents only part of a company’s business, how governments can encourage greater participation and how funding should be distributed among countries, Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

A Shared Responsibility for Implementation

The pace of corporate action cannot be separated entirely from the policy environment in which companies operate.

Businesses determine how they assess their supply chains, investments and dependencies on natural systems. Governments, meanwhile, influence those decisions through regulation, disclosure requirements, subsidies, procurement policies and financial incentives.

The emerging debate is therefore not limited to whether individual companies are acting quickly enough. It also concerns whether governments and financial institutions are establishing the conditions needed to make biodiversity risk a routine part of economic decision-making.

COP17 will offer the first collective assessment of whether the international biodiversity framework is beginning to influence those systems—and where implementation remains insufficient to meet its 2030 objectives.

RELATED STORIES: