EY helps clients create long-term value for all stakeholders. Enabled by data and technology, our services and solutions provide trust through assurance and help clients transform, grow and operate.
At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.
How nature, biodiversity and human rights impact global business
In this episode of the Sustainability Matters podcast, the speakers explore how aligning your business with nature can create sustainable growth and profitability.
With the upcoming 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference, also known as COP16, this episode of the Sustainability Matters podcast explores the critical link between nature, biodiversity and human wellbeing. EY leaders Alex Banks and Ana Luci Grizzi join host Bruno Sarda to discuss the challenges and the key decisions that should be taken for meaningful progress to be made.
The thought-provoking discussion emphasizes the need to integrate biodiversity conservation into our economic models and addresses the interconnected threats of climate change and biodiversity loss. Also highlighted is the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable communities who are most affected by these environmental challenges.
Key takeaways:
There is an inseparable relationship between climate change and biodiversity loss.
It is necessary to integrate biodiversity strategies into existing economic growth models.
Clients need to understand their nature-related risks, impacts and dependencies.
Sustainable solutions have to uphold human rights, cultural sensitivities and community impact considerations.
The transition to a nature-positive approach is both an imperative and an opportunity.
For your convenience, full text transcript of this podcast is also available.
Alex Banks
We really can't achieve net zero. We can't transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't tackle climate change globally, unless, we tackle this issue of nature and biodiversity loss, because they are so inextricably linked.
There's a lot of hope going into this COP [UN Conference of Parties]. There's a lot of issues that we really do need consensus around.
Ana-Luci Grizzi
We are talking about physical climate risks, but realize they are nature risks. But we are just learning how to do that right now.
We have to deal with both risks together, and nature risks, they really encompass climate risks.
Bruno Sarda
Hello, and welcome to the EY Sustainability Matters podcast, our regular look at ESG and sustainability topics, and how they impact businesses around the globe. I'm Bruno Sarda, EY Leader for Climate Change and Sustainability Services in the Americas, and your host for the series. And in this episode, we're exploring the intersection of nature, climate and human rights, with a special focus on the upcoming COP16 conference. While many are familiar with the UN Climate Change Conference, COP, there's also the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity — most commonly known as the Biodiversity COP. And this year’s biodiversity conference, COP16, will span two weeks starting on 21 October in Cali, Colombia, one of the most biodiverse nations in the world. And the slogan for COP16 is “Peace with Nature,” emphasizing the need to improve the relationship between humans and the environment, and rethink an economic model that does not prioritize the extraction over exploitation and pollution of nature. Global decision-makers, policymakers, indigenous communities and thought leaders from across the globe will gather with an aim to accelerate actions surrounding biodiversity and nature.
So, as we'll discuss in this episode, COP16 is seen as the first implementation COP and will focus on assessing progress on the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework. This was adopted at COP15 in 2022. This landmark framework was actually a historic achievement in the fight against biodiversity loss and it outlines an ambitious pathway to achieve a world living in harmony with nature by 2050, setting ambitious global targets and global goals for biodiversity conservation. And at COP16, nations will review how their national biodiversity strategies and action plans align with this framework, and discuss strategies to monitor and finance action toward the implementation of biodiversity targets. And the agenda for COP16 is not limited to the framework’s implementation; it also includes land restoration, capacity building and support, gender equality and land stewardship, and access and benefit sharing. And central to this discussion is the undeniable link between nature, climate risks, human health and the rights of people to land.
Human activities are altering our environment, leading to biodiversity loss and climate change, which in turn feed into each other. For instance, climate change worsens floods; stronger storms and coastal flooding exacerbate the situation. And as we confront these interconnected challenges, the potential for nature-based solutions is clear, yet there the option is lagging. So, what role can businesses play in addressing these issues? Why are conferences like COP16 important? Where do we stand today? And what decisive actions are needed to bridge the gaps in our efforts? Well, these are some of the pressing questions we'll discuss today with our esteemed guests. So, with that, I'm delighted to introduce Alex Banks, EY Climate Change and Sustainability Services Partner for EY in the Asia Pacific region, and notably EY Global Nature and Biodiversity Services Leader.
Alongside, Ana Luci Grizzi, EY Climate Change and Sustainability Services Deputy Leader for EY in Latin America. So, join us as we explore the synergies between business, biodiversity and climate change, and the critical outcomes we anticipate from COP16. So, Ana Lu, maybe we'll start with you. What challenges do we anticipate arising in this scheduled discussion at COP16? And what critical decisions do you think need to be made during these discussions in order to reach the desired outputs?
Grizzi
Well, Bruno, I will quote two challenges here and then discuss some critical decisions to reach the desired outputs. So, first of all, when we talk about national biodiversity strategies and action plans aligning with this framework to be discussed at COP16. So, we have countries and strategies and action plans in place, but although they are a tool of integrated management to preserve biodiversity and also ensure sustainable use of its components, as well as, of course, to ensure just an equitable benefit sharing of the use of biodiversity, they're still segregated from the growth drivers in the Latin American (Latam) countries.
So, we have the strategy, the action plan, but they do not talk, they are not integrated with our economic drivers for development here at Latam. And also, we should consider Brazil here. We have now the G20 presidency, and bioeconomy is a driver for sustainable development, grounded on three perspectives. We are talking about science, technology and innovation for a bioeconomy — so, relevance of knowledge from oral traditions to the most recent advancement on modern science, to bioeconomy, sustainable use of biodiversity for bioeconomy, so, practices that promote the development of the world’s bioeconomy and simultaneously contribute to the preservation of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, deriving from the economic use of generative resources. And also, the last point here that is on the table for the G20 presidency is the role of bioeconomy in promoting sustainable development.
So, this is very, very important, but also a challenge as we're discussing something that is not even integrated in our growth drivers. The second challenge I would raise regards the strategies to monitor and finance action toward the implementation of the biodiversity targets. And why is that? When it comes to monitoring, we have several technology challenges. we have inconsistencies within the systems that we are using. The software that we are using right now to map the biomes and to understand biodiversity. And we have a very good example — regarding the European Union deforestation role, we are trying to understand which maps should be used, and we have already raised some questions, at least from Brazil, on that regard. As for the finance, when it comes to preservation, we talk a lot about how to preserve, but then it is detached from the economic valuation.
It gets very, very hard for our developing countries to incorporate finance preservation, but also to value the natural capital that we have. From some perspective, I would say that preservation is still conflicting with our economic instruments unfortunately. And also, for the critical decisions here, I would say that we need an update in economic grounds to incorporate nature as a major driver to support growth. In terms of bioeconomy, so using renewable biological resources to produce goods, services and energy sustainably and efficiently, also in terms of circular economy shifting from the traditional linear economy based on fossil fuels and finite raw materials. And also, taking into consideration, for instance, that the food sector, the cosmetic sectors and the pharmaceutical sectors are ones really attached and dependent on nature, and that are really significant for Latam.
Sarda
Great. Thanks, Ana Lu. So, Alex, maybe to kind of widen the lens a little bit for us, so the global biodiversity framework contains four global goals and 23 targets to be achieved by 2030 or 2050, covering topics from things, like conservation, restoration, sustainable use, benefit sharing and implementation. And as mentioned earlier, COP16 will be the first COP since the adoption of the framework. So, what can we expect to see in terms of progress that has been made in the past two years, since the framework was established in 2022?
Banks
Yeah, thanks, Bruno. It's a really great question. And that, you know, the expectation on the international community to come and essentially show their cards about what they've been working on over the last two years will be really interesting. There's been a huge amount of focus on nature increasingly as we better understand the way that nature and climate change are inextricably linked. And now, our clients certainly are starting to increasingly understand this. And also, all of us appreciating much more holistically how we will really need to move the agenda toward nature-positive in the future if we want to achieve net zero. There is no net zero without restoring and regenerating nature. So, as you say, the governments are going to be required to come and report on their progress. And the thing that I keep thinking about is that the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is the latest in a series of frameworks and targets that have been set under the CBD [The Convention on Biological Diversity] since it was agreed in the early 90s. And we don't have a very good track record of those targets, to be honest.
The 2010 biodiversity targets, which were set in 2002, where the main goal was to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss. Those targets weren't met. The Aichi targets which were put in place to define a strategic plan from 2011 to 2020 and were established in 2010 — none of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets set for the decade were fully met. And six of the targets were partially achieved. So, we're not coming into this with a great track record in achieving these global biodiversity-related targets, which, I think, there's a level of nervousness about that now that we’ve just agreed on another global framework which makes everyone feel a little bit better. But we really need to achieve these, and many of the nature tipping points have already been reached now. But as you say, the four high-level goals and 23 targets are certainly ambitious. I'm really looking forward to hearing from governments. And although we mentioned a couple of the points that there has been a particularly acute focus on, and one is, certainly, around finance and benefit sharing.
A really big focus of the GBF [Global Biodiversity Framework] is on how do we actually start to direct finance into the restoration and regeneration of nature and away from the degradation, or the loss, or erosion of nature. And that is a really, really critical point. And there's a number of targets that relate to that. Another one, I guess, that got a lot of attention and interest at the last conference of the parties in Montreal was around the 30 by 30 target, which was essentially to require that 30% of land and water is under effective conservation by 2030. I can certainly talk a little bit to Australia's progress against that target. We have a significant area of marine, landscape under conservation. But our terrestrial land is not at that target yet. And that's a really big focus in a country. We've got a lot of land, but 30% of a large continent is a lot of land as well. There's a lot of conversation from that. One that we are really interested in, and we've been following along and working quite closely with our clients, is around target 15, which is essentially the target related to supporting and enabling corporates and financial institutions to understand nature-related risks and opportunities and to disclose those nature-related risks and opportunities. This was the target that some people may recall there was a campaign around at COP15, “the #makeitmandatory” campaign, where a number of financial institutions and corporates, and also NGOs and scientific actors were coming in and saying we really need this corporate accountability target to be mandatory. It shouldn't just be a voluntary target. It didn't end up being mandatory. it is to encourage and enable, as opposed to mandate, but it will be really interesting to see in that space some of the developments that have happened over the last two years under the ISSB [International Sustainability Standards Board].
We now have a bit more certainty about what's coming down the pipe in terms of their plans relating to biodiversity and ecosystem services. The TNFD [Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures] has obviously been released in that time, since the global biodiversity framework was agreed. And a very large number of corporates, in the hundreds globally, are already indicating that their planning to report in line with the TFND, which is, essentially, a voluntary version of target 15. So, the interesting point there is what will the governments be saying about their plans to enable and encourage corporates to be doing this reporting on nature-related risks and opportunities, and the plans to move beyond climate-related disclosure into other facets of nature and human rights and elsewhere? So, it’s really exciting to hear what they're going to be saying about what they've been doing, and I'm really looking forward to getting the updates.
Sarda
Great. No, fantastic summary. And maybe if I could stay with you for a minute, Alex, to kind of make this a little bit more real. You mentioned target three and the 30 by 30, right? So, protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030, which, you know, is not that far away. And as you mentioned, that's a lot of acreage. And so, how does this target demonstrate, in fact, that interconnectedness of nature, biodiversity, climate change, in some ways, you know — how does that connect, maybe, to some of the greatest risks presented by our societal and economic dependencies on nature that are often invisible in our financial accounting? And to some extent, even other types of accounting systems?
Banks
It's a great question. And I think that the really interesting thing around the relationship between climate and nature from my perspective is that climate change is both a contributor to or a driver of nature loss, and also an outcome of nature and biodiversity loss. So, it's this kind of vicious cycle where as we exacerbate climate change, we're going to see increasing adverse impacts on nature. And as the state of nature declines, the ability of the planet to recover or respond to climate change decreases as well. Which is why I made the point earlier around, we really can't achieve net zero. We can't transition the economy away from fossil fuels. We can't tackle climate change globally, unless we tackle this issue of nature and biodiversity loss because they are so inextricably linked. The other point, and something that has come up a number of times recently in discussions with clients around nature and climate, is that, for many organizations, their most immediate and most salient — particularly transitionary risks related to climate change, related to nature — are climate risks. So, we have a bit of a tendency, I think, in the sustainability universe to try to compartmentalize the issues, so that we can tackle them one at a time, which makes sense, because these are really big and complex problems that we're trying to deal with. But the reality is climate is one of the facets of nature.
You know, the atmosphere is one of the realms of nature. Climate change is one of the drivers of nature loss. Climate is part of nature. And I think that is increasingly understood. And so, in the most immediate term, most organizations who are contemplating nature-related risks and opportunities are going to be tackling the climate-related nature risks and opportunities first, because that's where we have a, I guess, good level of momentum globally around regulation, where we have really good scientific information, where we have good momentum from corporates and financial institutions. So, there's a level of certainty and knowledge. But at the same time, we have invested very heavily as a global community in trying to understand climate changes and issues for corporates and financial institutions. And we haven't yet done that same amount of work on nature. So, it is a bit of a gap in knowledge that, I think, needs to be addressed. I do also think, Bruno, it's worth mentioning here that you can't really talk about climate change and nature without also talking about people and about human rights. And I think of this as this triumvirate of topics that are so inextricably linked — nature loss, climate, and inequality and other human rights impacts. We really can't address one without addressing all — poverty and human rights abuses really exacerbate exploitation of nature. They exacerbate the impacts of climate change.
The most vulnerable people in the world are those that are going to be most impacted by the decline in the state of nature and by climate change. So, when I think about that future, about 2050 or beyond, the idea of a net-zero economy or a nature-positive economy that is not also an economy that protects and upholds the rights of people, particularly vulnerable people, is not a future that I think anyone is striving for. And we really need to be thinking about these issues collectively much more often. And that, I think, is something that the global biodiversity framework has done really well, is to put these three topics on the agenda together, and to say you cannot be thinking about one without thinking about the others. And that is quite fundamental, I think.
Sarda
Great. Well, thanks for helping us better understand that. And in fact, Ana Lu, maybe if I can come back to you. So, the world of climate change negotiations usually comes together every year. The last one was the 28th UN Climate Change Framework Conference of the parties, known as COP28, that was held in Dubai and the Emirates in 2023, brought a lot of people together and focused on climate action, but also featured a lot of discussions and focus on food, on forests, on land and on nature. And then, some of the key outcomes included a global stocktake, right? So, how are we doing, but also, voluntary pledges related to agriculture and increase the recognition of biodiversity impacts as it relates to climate change? Whereas, in contrast, COP16 is very specifically targeted on biodiversity conservation. So, how do you think these two events highlight the need for better alignment, maybe, between climate and biodiversity action? You know, connected to what Alex was just saying is that it, in fact, they are so inextricably linked that does the process itself of negotiating on one versus the other get in the way a little bit?
Grizzi
Well, sure. I would say that it's absolutely impossible to detach climate from nature topics, right. So, honestly, I could never even understand why we were clustering the themes within these sections. But I understand that we had to do that, as Alex just mentioned, because it would be easier to deal with each of them separately. There is even a funny fact here, because for Brazil, for instance, the environmental class actions are turning into climate class actions due to the relevance of the climate as a unique topic. But we have been learning a lot and at COP28, as you just mentioned, Bruno, we had several discussions connected to nature. And also, if we bring some examples, very recent ones from Brazil during 2024, we had a severe drought in the Amazonian region, which simply stopped all the economy in the region, because we didn't have rivers. And without rivers, we don't have logistics there. Also, we had a very severe flood in the South of Brazil. And we stopped several cities for more than two weeks.
So, how to detach? It's impossible. We are talking about physical climate risks, but realize they are nature risks. That's how we connect both COPs. But we are just learning how to do that right now. So, nature risks are a part, they encompass climate risks. We had two papers that were published very recently in 2024 — the first one from the Network for Greening the Financial System is called the Nature-Related Financial Risks, which brings a conceptual framework to guide actions from central banks and supervisors. And it states very clearly that we have to deal with both risks together. And nature risks, they really encompass climate risks. And the other paper was just published by the Financial Stability Board, and it's called the Stock Take on Nature-Related Risks It goes for supervisory and regulatory approaches and perspectives on financial risks. So, these are very interesting papers that tell us how to connect COP28 with COP16. Brazil is mentioned in both papers because we already have regulations to deal with nature risks. So, again, we are just learning, but the matters are interconnected, inter- dependant. They have to be on the table for us to go through.
Sarda
Well, speaking of Brazil — not this year in 2024, but in 2025, COP30, the next climate COP, will be in Brazil, right? And then hosted by Brazil in the Amazon region. Do you anticipate that biodiversity will be a top agenda item? And is that going to be an opportunity for those topics to come even closer together as part of that agenda?
Grizzi
For sure, it will be. Even taking into account that our biodiversity driver in the G20 right now that I mentioned, so COP28 and COP29, we could quote them as the energy or fossil fuel COPs. Right now, when we think about COP30, we're going to have a forest COP — and really in the middle of the Amazon forest. So, this is a topic that is on the table of our federal administration.
They are focusing on biodiversity. And they are focusing on two very directed questions. The first one, for instance, they have just announced a multibillion-dollar global fund, which is called the Tropical Forest Finance Facility to financially reward countries for the conservation of tropical forests — reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases at the same time as halting biodiversity loss. And the other one was just recently published, a consultation for a first [inaudible] on concession of restoration activities at a piece of the Amazon forest. So, it was just a market sounding board from our federal forest department, but it's a very first step and a very concrete one directed to bioeconomy in Brazil. Not to mention our voluntary carbon market that is here, is alive and is really driving our efforts regarding our protection of forests and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.
Sarda
Great, thanks Ana Lu. Alex, if I can come back to you, so you are the Nature and Biodiversity Services Leader globally for EY. Can you discuss how EY Nature and Biodiversity Service offering helps clients understand their nature-related impacts, risks and opportunities?
Banks
For sure. Before I do that, Bruno, I just got goosebumps hearing Ana talk about the next climate COP being the forest COP. I've been working in and around deforestation my entire career, and the idea that an entire conference of the party to the climate convention is going to be focused on forests and their importance, is just so exciting. And as Ana said, it's the COP that's going to be in the forest itself. It's in one of the most important biomes globally. I don't think we can underestimate how important that conversation is going to be next year, both for climate and nature. And we've been thinking about the COP16 or the biodiversity COP this year as the stepping stone into COP next year in Brazil. And the fact that both of them are in Latam, I think, is also a really important signal globally, about the importance of the nature in that part of the world and about the critical role that Latam is going to play in tackling climate change, and that so much of that is going to be focused on that Amazon biome.
So, I'm just so excited to hear that Ana Lu, it's awesome. So, in relation to what we are doing in supporting and hearing from our clients, and this is a really exciting area for the firm and it's really important to call out early and often, Bruno, that for a really long time, for too long, corporates and financial institutions have really failed to listen to nature to understand the role that nature plays in their businesses and in their value-creation stories, and to essentially turn a blind eye to the potential adverse impact that their businesses might be having. But it's not necessarily just a negative story, of course. It's also about that failure to understand, truly, the relationship with nature that, our entire economy has meant that we are not really taking up effectively opportunities related to nature either. So, while there is this big risk, and a significant amount of risk, embedded into the economy because of our failure to protect nature and effectively manage nature, we're also leaving so much on the table from an opportunity perspective. And that's something that we, at the EY organization, are really, really passionate about and are trying to support our clients to better move toward. So, we're now at this stage where we all must start to understand those impacts and dependencies and to support nature restoration and generation. And we really believe that's possible. We're really committed to it at the EY organization — to joining those scientists and indigenous people and environmental stewards who have been campaigning for this for so long and working so hard to try to rebalance some of that relationship with nature.
And I’ll just mention very briefly the, kind of way that we tend to structure that. And we talk about that in terms of a journey toward nature-positive. And nature-positive is a term not without controversy globally; it's something that we're all seeking to explore and understand, because it's the equivalent of net zero, but for nature. And we do need that light on to heal or what is it that we're trying to work toward? Where are we trying to get? And for me, nature-positive, while it's kind of a nice buzz word, it's actually quite a clear and defined concept. It's not a buzz word. What we are talking about is reversing and halting nature loss — so, getting to a stage where we are not seeing a decline in the state of nature, and transitioning toward a restorative and regenerative relationship with nature. So, we need to get to that point. We really need to get that point quite quickly. And what we know is that things, like nature-based solutions and nature restoration and regeneration, are going to be some of the most critical ways that we're going to tackle climate change. A big area of focus for us with our clients at the moment is on building the case for change. So, how are they understanding risks and opportunities related to nature? How do they understand their interface and relationship with nature from a business model perspective? Do they understand the drivers of responding to nature loss? Is it a regulatory driver? Is it a stakeholder-led driver? Is it a financial-led driver? So, just helping our clients to really understand this next big issue that we've got our heads around climate or get our heads around climate.
It's now time to understand this next issue. And the great thing, I think, about initiatives like the TNFD and others, is that they have managed to really piggyback on the architecture or structure that the climate concept has given us through things like the TCFD of this concept of physical and transitionary risks, and physical and transitionary opportunities. And we really see that language and that structure coming through in relation to nature as well. One of the big differences though that we see in the nature space is this concept of impact and dependency. And what we are really encouraging clients to do now is to understand that they not only can have an impact on nature in their value chain, so that might be through land clearing or land-use change. It might be deforestation, it might be pollution, it might be, you know, water use and others. So, they're changing the state of nature or impacting upon the state of nature. But at the same time, there're also significant dependencies on nature. So, how are you dependent on nature? And all that it is, and all that it gives us as part of your business? And this is a really long and complex rabbit hole we could go into, Bruno, which I won't now, but that is a big part of our work — helping to understand why and how nature is contributing to the value creation story of a company.
How the loss of nature because of those impacts and dependencies might create risk and opportunity in supporting them, of course, then to define a strategy to manage nature risks and opportunities, to start to transition their business toward a nature-positive model. And then, ultimately, a lot of work at the moment is increasingly focusing on nature compliance and reporting. We're seeing a huge amount of regulations starting to be discussed and introduced at the European level and at the international level around, essentially mandating what I've just described, which is companies to better understand impacts and dependencies and to disclose those through various mechanisms. So, we really are doing everything right from the start of the first conversation about why nature matters to a company. Supporting clients to understand their value chains, implement supply chain management or nature-based solutions — the list goes on. And then all the way through to disclosure and transparency, but it's a really exciting space, Bruno, and something that we have an amazing network of really, really passionate and competent people in the EY organization. I feel so lucky to have the network of nature and biodiversity professionals that we have. I don't think it's by accident that the two people that you're talking to today come from the global south. Some of our most precious nature is in the global south.
A lot of the work that needs to be done over the next few decades is to protect and restore nature in the global south. And that's something that the EY organization is really passionate about, as well as bringing indigenous voices or first nations voices into this conversation, because they really are the stewards of some of the most intact and precious nature. They have the experience and understanding of how to have a regenerative relationship with nature. And we have a huge amount to learn from them. And that's also something that we're really centering in our response as a firm.
Sarda
And now, it's your turn to give me goosebumps. So, that was powerful. Thank you. And thank you, Alex, and that exemplifies how we're really leaning in to take the best of what we know how to do, and put it to work in these important domains. Ana Lu, maybe just to pile on this topic, so we talked about Latam being at the epicenter in many ways of the focus for COP16, for COP30. Obviously, a huge biological hot spot in the world. What are you seeing in terms of clients in the Latam region approaching, for example, nature-based solutions? And what are they looking forward to coming up to COP16 in Columbia?
Grizzi
Sure. So, I could quote here several parts of Alex's response to you as well. When it comes to nature-based solutions, we are talking about a part of clients sustainability strategies in Latam. From the voluntary carbon market to more elaborated discussions, such as how to value natural capital. And as we are in the global south, here we still have a natural capital to be valued. But we don't have a methodology yet to do that. So, discussions are on the table. The first scenario, I would say, that clients are working with derived from mitigation and adaption climate plans. When it comes to the adaption plans, we are able to start discussions about the impacts on physical structures, on infrastructure. And then it comes nature, and we connect to nature, dependencies and impacts. And then we start talking about a potential framework for reporting — for disclosure, so, using the TNFD. This is much more best practice right now than a compliance trigger or even in market or investors trigger. It's much more connected to climate and how it is impacting the plans ongoing or being drafted and being implemented.
For those market leaders that we have that are already working on a business intelligence for the sustainability, then we could add, for instance, talking about restoration projects. And then, trying to understand, Bruno, if we have more bees in a restored area, how much they will support pollination and the crops that are near to their place. So, how much production will be enhanced? How much will we be gaining with foreign trade? And especially, thinking that the Brazilian GDP relies a lot on commodities. So, this is all linked, but all very new. First step, climate. Second step, nature dependencies and impacts. And of course, that these concrete events that we have been having in climate materialized, especially in Brazil, are helping us with lessons learned to guide clients to start discussing about nature-based solutions and connecting them to their strategy.
Sarda
Great, thanks Ana Lu. Alex, maybe if I can come back to you to close this out today? So, we started talking about, in the context of COP16, some of these critical outcomes. And we know there're the wide-range pivotal issues on the agenda, plenty to cover and in not so long amount of time. Could you maybe share what areas we're hoping to see some consensus or resolution around from this COP?
Banks
Yeah, it was really hard for me to come up with this short list, Bruno. But I've done my best. And I'm sure, when I say these, a lot of people will be like, what about this one? And you forgot this thing. So, first and foremost, there is a lot. There's a lot of hope going into this COP. There's a lot of issues that we really do need consensus around and a better discussion around. But just to call out a few, I think that the first point is the one that Ana Lu just made, which is around this climate and nature nexus. And better understanding and articulating and enabling nature-based solutions to climate change. We need to clarify that and really accelerate that in the market.
So, any government action, any corporate action, any financial institutions and others that are focused on climate change need to also be focusing on nature. And we need to bring those together in a much more, tangible way. The next point is around measurement. And I feel like we couldn't have a conversation and we wouldn't be the EY organization, if we didn't talk a little bit about measurement and disclosure, because we love those things so much. But this point around measuring progress is, really, really, important and one that many people, many stakeholders are very focused on. There is a big conversation going on at the moment around how do we measure the state of nature itself, as opposed to the drivers of nature loss or contributors of nature loss, or contributors to nature restoration. And really, what is the state of nature itself? And how do we ensure that that is going in the right direction and not the wrong direction? And there's going to be quite a lot of conversations about that point at COP.
Because the real reason for that, Bruno, is that both governments and corporates and financial institutions are going to start to increasingly make claims or statements about this transition to nature-positive. They will want to be making aspirational statements to say that they are doing that. That they are working toward nature-positive that they're on track and so on. In the same way that we see in the climate space organization setting, net-zero targets and saying that they're on track for that. We need the same architecture around measurement of progress toward nature-positive or nature restoration and regeneration. And so, that the conversation around measurement is going to be a really critical one. Another topic that, again, we've touched on today, but I think is going to be really critical and come up a lot is around financing nature restoration and regeneration. And I think the really important point here, and what I'm hoping for and I guess what I'm going to try to be advocating for myself at COP, is around conversations not just about directing finance into nature restoration and regeneration, which is absolutely critical.
We know there is a huge amount of finance needed in that space. But we need to equally be having the conversation around not continuing to finance the destruction of nature. And Ana Lu made that point right at the beginning of this call around balancing this point around tackling the drivers and the underlying exploitive economic model. Until we have that conversation about saying, yes, you can be directing finance into nature-positive and nature restoration, but when are you going to have the conversation about not financing the destruction of nature? And I think we need to bring those two points together. And I'm looking forward to that happening at COP. We've also touched a little bit on the global bioeconomy, and this, to me, is the point around opportunity and better articulating the opportunities represented by the transition. And I’m really looking forward to some more tangible ideas and tangible opportunities in that space coming out of COP. And probably, the last point of consensus that, I think, is really critical is around this point of indigenous peoples' rights, or first nations people and the broader human rights topics. We're really seeing, in a way, that we haven't before the centering of indigenous people or First Nations people in conversations around nature. And I think, again, the TNFD has done this quite effectively of, actually, embedding consideration of human rights community impact First Nations people in a corporate or a financial institutions response. And we're just going to start to see that thread woven even more clearly. And that is not an issue without complexity; it is not going to be without challenge to do that in an effective and right- centric and culturally sensitive way.
I don't want to underestimate that, but I think that conversation is an absolutely critical one. And I'm really looking forward to hearing some of what comes out of COP in that sense. I think that's probably it from me, Bruno. I could go on all day, but they're the ones that, if I've got my checklist for the COP. They're the ones that I'm going to be really trying to tick off. And hope that we actually do move the needle on, because I think they are the really critical ones, particularly going into the climate COP next year in Brazil.
Sarda
Yeah, for sure. And I think prioritization is, in fact, important. So, that we make progress on some of the key things. Well, Alex and Ana Lu, thanks so much for joining me today to discuss such an important complex topic, to providing your amazing expertise and perspectives. It's daunting and complicated, but also so important and inspiring. So, as you both emphasized, this is also fundamental to not just nature, but to the equity, prosperity of people everywhere. So, I'm grateful to have both of you here today. But even more so, for the work you do every day, when you're not on a podcast. And as I said at the beginning of this episode, this is the Sustainability Matters podcast. You can find all of our past episodes of the show on ey.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this episode of Sustainability Matters, we'd love for you to subscribe. Ratings, reviews and comments are also very welcome. So, please visit ey.com, where you'll also find a wide range of related and interesting articles that will help put these bigger topics in the context of your business priorities. I look forward to welcoming you on the next episode of Sustainability Matters. My name is Bruno Sarda. You can find me on LinkedIn and feel free to connect with me there. Thanks so much for listening.