The world is facing unparalleled changes in climatic conditions and drastic loss of biological diversity, putting humanity at risk. The breakdown of the earth’s climate and the rapid loss of wildlife are intertwined, yet, response by governments to these crises currently fails to recognise the deep connections between them.

There have been calls for a joint approach to tackling climate change and biodiversity loss for years but, to date, coordinated global policy is still lacking.

In our recent paper published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, we argue that a joint work programme between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the best approach.

Our paper also provides a concept of how this joint programme could be set up, ideas on the type of issues it should tackle and recommendations for successful implementation.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are defined as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”. They have been hailed as a pathway for promoting synergies between the climate change and biodiversity agendas.

NbS have been gaining significant attention, with many governments integrating them into their climate plans. For instance, the Canadian government has implemented a Nature-based Climate Solutions programme, showcasing its commitment to these strategies.

However, the deployment of NbS is not without risks: there are uncertainties and difficulties associated with the implementation of NbS while the evidence regarding their benefits for biodiversity and people remains limited.

For example, rapid afforestation and reforestation practices, a type of NbS, can enhance carbon sequestration but can also harm wildlife and ecosystem resilience. It can also fail to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Despite this, neither the CBD nor the UNFCCC have, so far, adequately addressed the critical risks NbS may pose to nature and people.

The UNFCCC and CBD are pivotal platforms for providing evidence and guiding necessary changes. But they cannot continue to work separately. Higher levels of integration between biodiversity and climate change agendas are essential to close current implementation gaps, identify and address the risks associated with various actions and coordinate policies around the world that benefit climate, nature and people.

The window for action on climate and biodiversity is closing fast

For the moment, there is indeed no platform dedicated to advancing an environmental agenda that equally supports biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

There is also no nominated scientific platform dedicated to assessing the evidence and issues around approaches such as NbS and their implementation.

This disjointed approach is unlikely to deliver on biodiversity or provide cost-effective solutions to the climate change crisis.

Both conventions recognise that their agreements are interdependent and have begun collaborating. At COP28 in Dubai in November 2023, a statement of cooperation was issued. However, a concrete policy framework is needed to move from merely voluntary actions to coordinated implementation.

A joint programme between the UNFCCC and the CBD should cover key topics of interest to the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement and serve multiple functions for aligning global climate and biodiversity goals. Specifically, it should:

Oversee the alignment of national biodiversity strategies and action plans and nationally determined contributions to achieve shared objectives;

Organise technical expert dialogues; identify climate actions that are harmful to biodiversity and put in place coherent safeguards that can operate between the two conventions;

Form a platform for visibility and recognition of efforts undertaken by countries, local governments, non-state actors and indigenous peoples and local communities, to advance the programme priorities;

Be a hub for developing methods to monitor progress on the shared objectives of the GBF and Paris Agreement.

To be effective, such a joint work programme will need to develop a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) plan for addressing the financial, technical and capacity needs associated with the delivery of its work. Its outcome could, among other things, inform the critical and fast-developing realm of voluntary actions on biodiversity and climate, by, for example, facilitating harmonisation of the UNFCCC and CBD action agendas. Additionally, it could provide guidance to global funding entities to help countries meet their objectives under the two conventions.

Later this year, world leaders will convene for two global conventions to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss separately. In October, the CBD will meet in Cali, Colombia, for COP16. A week later, in November, the UNFCCC will meet in Baku, Azerbaijan, for COP29.

These upcoming conferences of the parties present an opportunity to establish a joint work programme to fill the current governance gap, address implementation issues and foster innovation and synergies in climate and biodiversity actions.

The window for action on climate and biodiversity is closing fast. This opportunity must not be missed.

Idil Boran is associate professor of political philosophy, York University, Canada. Nathalie Pettorelli  is professor of conservation biology, Zoological Society of London.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.

THECONVERSATION.COM