Leveraging Local and Global Action for Nature Towards the UN Biodiversity Conference COP17: striking numbers but wrong audience
In sustainability, I often hear about the importance of including all stakeholders. But why does it seem so difficult to convene most of them in the same room, especially when it comes to action points?
Last week, I attended a conference at the International Environment House II: "Leveraging Local and Global Action for Nature Towards the UN Biodiversity Conference COP17 | From Geneva to Yerevan | International Day for Biological Diversity".
The panel looked interesting, featuring NGOs, international organizations, and local actors in Geneva, as this year's UN Biodiversity Convention theme is "Taking Action for Nature".
On this Friday morning, I was struck by Musonda Mumba's eloquent intervention as Secretary General of the Convention on Wetlands. I knew that our system relied on biodiversity, yet I had never specifically thought about the variations in wetland degradation dynamics as a revealing indicator of local biodiversity health, and ultimately of the risks for communities and businesses.
She also challenged the simplistic view that wetlands are only a concern in peripheries and the countryside. They are equally present in cities: in garden ponds, in the rivers we swim in, and in the waterways we depend on for hydraulic power. She further drew a link to human rights. I always value interventions that acknowledge the intertwined relationship between biodiversity and communities. We often struggle to think about these issues holistically, yet none of them can be singled out and tackled in isolation. The impacts of biodiversity loss on communities must remain part of the conversation.
Another topic that generated significant discussion was the need for scale and investment in nature-based solutions. Ivo Mulder, Head of the Climate Finance Unit at the UN Environment Programme, highlighted that biodiversity loss is already causing sovereign credit rating downgrades of up to 7 notches, which is a non-negligible risk for governments, businesses, and the financial industry that is somehow absent from public debate, at least in the circles I move in. Every day, for every dollar spent on nature-based solutions, we invest $30 in destroying nature. As he put it: "We have always been fighting against nature."
His numbers and punchlines were impressive, and visibly resonated with both speakers and audience. Seeing the scale of investment "against" nature placed alongside what we dedicate to nature-based solutions is striking, especially knowing that all businesses ultimately depend on nature and ecosystem services. As Mulder also said: "We throw pocket money at nature." His intervention, like Mumba's, underlined the urgency to act and the uncomfortable reality that we are not doing nearly enough. I felt energized to hear speakers be so direct and pragmatic.
That said, I couldn't help but notice something I have observed at other conferences and meetings: everyone in the room already agrees on the urgency. The speakers don't need to convince us, since we came precisely because we are looking for solutions, wanting to understand the challenges and how they can be addressed. This frustration led me to ask: if scale and investment are so critical, where is the private sector in the audience? Where are the actors with the power and resources to act?
We often complain about working in silos, yet we fail to invite and convene the actors who are most dependent on, and most responsible for, the biodiversity chain. Ecosystem services involve indigenous peoples, farmers navigating pesticide pressures, artisanal small-scale miners whose livelihoods depend on extraction even as it damages nature, businesses, and consumers trying to make responsible choices while navigating opaque labels. Yet I never see these actors in the same room.
Without the presence of the main stakeholders, notably the beneficiaries and users of ecosystem services, conversations will fail to produce sustainable solutions. Excluded stakeholders will resist change, and efforts from any single party, whether the UN or NGOs, will fall short. The investment gap will also persist as long as policymakers and investors from both public and private sectors remain outside the conversation.
One possible entry point: applying the stakeholder mapping tools we already use for conventional supply chains. If we accept, however debatable, treating biodiversity as a commodity, we could identify the key actors and engage them as we would in any stakeholder process. That said, commodifying nature carries real risks worth acknowledging. The carbon credit market offers a cautionary tale: oversimplification of complex systems, pollution offset by payment, displacement of indigenous communities, and uneven revenue distribution. Could we instead work toward having representatives for each affected group? The challenge remains that biodiversity loss is simultaneously local and global, shaped by supply chains that cross borders and sectors. And on that, I don't yet have an answer.
Watch the full event here.
For more information, see the UNEP Finance for Nature website on financial flows.