Climate change and nature – why do we have two COPs for one issue?

One Conference of the Parties (COP) for climate change and one COP for biodiversity, both, confusingly, with different numbers, has always seemed a bit bonkers to me, along with my feeling that the Climate Change COP is like a giant behemoth attracting vast numbers of delegates, huge media coverage, heads of state on red carpets - the full folderol - whilst a month later its less heralded biodiversity sister slinks into town barely meriting a headline.

The thing that irritates is that these two issues are completely and inextricably linked so why do you need two sprawling carbon-emitting conferences to deal with them? Why not deal with them together?

Climate change is caused (or at the very least, greatly exacerbated) by mainly manmade emissions flowing into the atmosphere. The earth is warming, the climate is unstable. It’s too hot, it’s too cold, it’s not cold enough, it rains too much, it doesn’t rain enough. Seasons no longer fade in and out reliably. This may make food production less stable on our intensively farmed land. And the negative effect of climate change on our flora and fauna, on which we rely, is starkly shown in stats showing the clear and ongoing steep decline in nature. So much, so obvious.

So why are the COPs separated? Perhaps it’s because climate change came on to the global agenda first. It’s easy to measure and climate change impacts people’s lives and people have more power to speak out and change things than their non-speaking counterparts in the animal kingdom. But, according to the Green Finance Institute’s recent report, Assessing the Materiality of Nature-Related Financial Risks for the UK by Helen Avery[i], nature degradation could cause a 12% loss in UK GDP, more than the financial crash of 2008 (5%) and the Covid pandemic (11%) - something very much worth thinking about.

Separate or not, both the climate change and biodiversity COPs are trying to help on a global scale which is positive. AND, more importantly, let’s not forget that the majority of carbon projects undertaken in the UK are nature-based solutions. When we plant broadleaf woodlands, increase cover vegetation, improve soil health, rewild a glen, reduce deer and rhodies to enable temperate rainforest to grow, regenerate a saltmarsh, rewet a peatland, farm in a nature-friendly way and create a seagrass haven WE HELP NATURE TOO. ‘If you build it, they will come’ is a fitting mantra.

At Nature Broking, we don’t see the COP separation between climate change and wildlife a loss. Instead we see the potential for private and public investment in carbon reduction and nature. We curate portfolios, all of which not only reduce or remove carbon but also help nature regeneration in the UK. We have recognised the interdependency of climate change and wildlife as have many of our partners. The UK Voluntary Carbon Market is an important way to save nature so let’s get on and work with it.

[i] https://www.greenfinanceinstitute.com/news-and-insights/assessing-the-materiality-of-nature-related-financial-risks-for-the-uk/