As the global community prepares for the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has issued a definitive call for governments to transition from high-level rhetoric to the establishment of concrete, investable policy frameworks. While the private sector has begun to integrate biodiversity considerations into core governance and financial risk assessments, the ICC warns that the current pace of change is insufficient to meet the urgent demands of nature loss. The organization emphasizes that without clear policy certainty, robust financing mechanisms, and defined implementation pathways, businesses will remain unable to scale their efforts to the degree required by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
The shift toward nature-positive business models is no longer a matter of corporate social responsibility but a fundamental economic imperative. Recent data indicates that more than half of the world’s total Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—approximately $44 trillion—is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services. From the pollination required for global agriculture to the clean water essential for industrial manufacturing and the genetic materials used in pharmaceuticals, the degradation of natural ecosystems presents a material risk to global supply chains, infrastructure, and long-term investment value. COP17 represents a critical juncture where the international community must prove that the goals set in previous years can be translated into functional realities for the real economy.
The Evolution of Global Biodiversity Governance: A Critical Chronology
The road to COP17 has been marked by decades of evolving scientific understanding and shifting political will. The Convention on Biological Diversity was first opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, establishing a global commitment to the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. However, the subsequent decades saw significant challenges in meeting these goals.
In 2010, the international community adopted the Aichi Biodiversity Targets during COP10 in Japan. These 20 targets were intended to be met by 2020; however, a 2020 UN report revealed that none of the targets had been fully met, highlighting a catastrophic gap between policy intent and on-the-ground execution. This failure set the stage for the landmark COP15 in 2022, where the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted. Often described as the "Paris Agreement for Nature," the GBF established 23 targets to be achieved by 2030, including the protection of 30% of the world’s land and oceans.
COP17 serves as the first global review of collective progress under this framework. It is the moment when nations must submit their updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). These plans are intended to serve as the primary vehicles for national implementation, yet the ICC notes with concern that many remain delayed, under-resourced, or lacking the necessary integration with private sector realities. The chronology of these events demonstrates a clear pattern: the world has become proficient at setting targets, but remains hindered by a lack of operational clarity.
The Economic Reality: Quantifying the Biodiversity Finance Gap
The primary obstacle to achieving the 2030 targets remains a massive shortfall in funding. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that the finance gap for nature stands at approximately $700 billion per year. Other analyses, including those by Bloomberg, suggest the requirement could be as high as $942 billion annually to adequately halt and reverse nature loss. This gap cannot be bridged by public sector funding alone; it requires a massive mobilization of private capital.
Currently, global investments in nature-based solutions are dwarfed by the flow of capital toward activities that actively harm biodiversity. Estimates suggest that governments worldwide provide more than $500 billion annually in subsidies to industries—such as industrial agriculture and fossil fuels—that can have a detrimental impact on ecosystems. The ICC argues that for businesses to pivot toward nature-positive investments, governments must not only increase direct funding but also reform these "perverse subsidies" to create a more level playing field for sustainable innovation.
Furthermore, the lack of standardized metrics for measuring biodiversity impact remains a significant barrier for the financial sector. Unlike carbon emissions, which can be measured in CO2 equivalents, biodiversity is inherently local and complex. This makes it difficult for financial institutions to assess the nature-related risks in their portfolios. The ICC is advocating for the adoption of coherent disclosure standards, such as those being developed by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), to provide the data necessary for informed investment.
ICC Recommendations: From Frameworks to Investable Outcomes
The ICC’s stance at COP17 is built upon the premise that the private sector is a necessary partner in conservation, rather than merely a stakeholder to be regulated. To unlock business potential, the ICC has outlined several key recommendations for the parties involved in the negotiations.
First and foremost is the demand for policy coherence. Businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions face a fragmented landscape of environmental regulations. The ICC urges governments to align their national policies with the GBF to ensure that a company’s efforts in one region are recognized and supported in another. This includes the harmonization of reporting requirements to reduce the administrative burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which often lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory frameworks.
Secondly, the ICC is calling for the establishment of practical mechanisms for the sharing of benefits from Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources. This has become one of the most contentious issues in biodiversity negotiations. Many industries, particularly biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, rely on digital data derived from genetic resources. The ICC advocates for a system that is simple, efficient, and provides legal certainty, ensuring that while benefits are shared with provider countries, the process does not stifle the innovation necessary to develop new medicines and sustainable technologies.
Thirdly, the ICC emphasizes the need for "enabling conditions" that encourage innovation. This includes intellectual property protections that reward the development of nature-positive technologies and the creation of green procurement policies by governments to stimulate market demand for sustainable products.
Institutional Reactions and Stakeholder Perspectives
The ICC’s call for action resonates with various international bodies and civil society organizations, though perspectives on the methods vary. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a group of central banks and supervisors, has increasingly acknowledged that nature-related risks are a source of financial instability. Their recent reports suggest that central banks may soon begin integrating biodiversity loss into their stress-testing scenarios, aligning with the ICC’s push for better risk assessment.
Conversely, some environmental NGOs have expressed caution, arguing that "nature-positive" must be strictly defined to avoid greenwashing. Organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have called for mandatory rather than voluntary disclosures for corporations. They argue that while business participation is essential, it must be backed by legally binding enforcement mechanisms to ensure that corporate actions lead to genuine ecological recovery.
The Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) also play a vital role in this discourse. As the traditional stewards of much of the world’s remaining biodiversity, IPLCs are advocating for direct access to financing and a seat at the decision-making table. The ICC has acknowledged that successful business partnerships must include these communities, ensuring that economic development does not come at the cost of indigenous rights or traditional ecological knowledge.
Broader Implications: The Nexus of Climate, Nature, and Economic Resilience
The outcomes of COP17 will have implications far beyond the environmental sector, affecting the future of global economic resilience. There is a growing recognition of the "climate-nature nexus"—the fact that climate change and biodiversity loss are twin crises that must be addressed simultaneously. Healthy ecosystems, such as forests, peatlands, and mangroves, act as critical carbon sinks; their destruction not only releases stored carbon but also removes a vital tool for climate mitigation.
For the real economy, a failure to act at COP17 could lead to increased volatility in commodity prices, particularly in the food and beverage sectors. As soil health declines and water scarcity increases, the cost of production will inevitably rise, leading to inflationary pressures. By contrast, a successful transition to a nature-positive economy is estimated to create up to $10.1 trillion in annual business value and create 395 million jobs by 2030, according to the World Economic Forum.
The ICC’s message to COP17 is clear: the era of setting ambitious goals without a roadmap for execution must end. The business community is ready to invest, but it requires a stable and predictable policy environment to do so. The transition to a nature-positive world is an enormous undertaking, but it also represents one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century. As delegates convene for COP17, the focus must remain on delivering the practical, coherent, and investable outcomes that will allow the global economy to thrive in harmony with the natural world. Success will depend on the strength of the partnership between governments and the private sector, turning the high-level commitments of the Global Biodiversity Framework into a tangible reality for businesses and ecosystems alike.
About the Author
