Reflections from COP16

As we reflect on COP16 in Cali, Colombia, one thing is clear: our relationship with nature is at a critical turning point. The commitments established during last year’s Montreal Summit – including the ambitious target of securing $200 billion per year by 2030 to protect biodiversity – underscored the urgency to make real strides.

Businesses are also waking up to the fact that more than half of the world’s GDP is ‘highly’ or ‘moderately’ dependent upon nature. This 50% of GDP provides the key goods and services on which we all depend – and without which the other 50% cannot function. Water shortages, large-scale deforestation and soil degradation are having a negative impact on the bottom line. Nature risks are business risks.

However, COP16 revealed gaps in concrete financial commitment from the private sector, as well as a lack of unified frameworks for tracking and measuring progress in regenerative agriculture and biodiversity enhancements.

Through discussions with industry leaders, government representatives, and field experts, COP16 demonstrated a strong desire for immediate action, even as companies wait for clear, standardised frameworks to support their long-term investments in nature. 

The role of the private sector

PUR was on the ground in Cali, and one of the main messages we took away from COP16 was the critical need for a unified approach to setting targets and tracking impact. As companies like Nestlé, Danone, PepsiCo, Heineken and Microsoft discussed at various points during the two-week conference, the fragmented reporting frameworks for biodiversity and regenerative impact is a barrier to scaling meaningful investment. 

Currently, there are more than 25 frameworks for reporting on nature-related metrics, including those outlined by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, the International Financial Reporting Standards, and the Science Based Targets Network. But this diversity can be overwhelming for businesses trying to navigate their sustainability journey, with the variety of reporting frameworks creating a disconnect. Companies are asking for fewer, better-aligned frameworks that help them measure what matters, without getting bogged down by inconsistent standards. 

A need for alignment was echoed across COP16, with the private sector urging the world’s standard setting organisations to prioritise streamlined reporting standards that enable large-scale, credible investments in regenerative practices.

Productivity relies on nature

Another critical insight shared during the UN meeting was an increasing recognition that productivity and positive environmental impact can – and must – go hand in hand. During a workshop organised by Nestlé and CGIAR, testimonies from farmers highlighted that regenerative practices not only improve soil health but can also boost yields, proving that agricultural productivity is intricately linked with the health of the natural ecosystem.

Regenerative agriculture is more than a sustainability trend; it’s becoming a necessity for resilient food systems. The commitment made by companies like Nestlé to invest in regenerative practices signals a shift towards a holistic approach where improving biodiversity is seen as beneficial for both productivity and carbon reduction.

These pioneering companies are forging ahead with regenerative initiatives even in the absence of perfect frameworks. They are setting an example of turning “faith-based investments” in nature into scientifically-proven impact. And they are proving that embracing regenerative practices can yield tangible results, building the case for larger investments in nature-positive agriculture.

High-integrity biodiversity credits

One of the notable developments at COP16 was the launch of the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB)’s framework for high-integrity biodiversity credits. It is an initiative that aims to bring transparency and accountability to what could become a biodiversity credit market in the future, similar to the carbon credit market. This would help companies invest in credits that are verified and deliver real outcomes for nature, while drawing on lessons learned from the carbon market. The framework includes principles to ensure rigorous measurement, equity for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), and sound governance practices – all of which echo the principles of PUR’s range of nature based solutions and projects.

The link between the health of natural ecosystems and the rights of Indigenous communities is fundamental. COP16 reinforced the importance of integrating IPLCs not just as stakeholders but as active decision-makers in sustainability initiatives. Our approach at PUR places farming communities at the heart of every project, ensuring they are engaged in the design and implementation of regenerative solutions. By involving local communities from the outset, PUR can build projects that are culturally relevant, economically viable, and socially equitable. This approach also reduces risks for companies by fostering stable, resilient supply chains that are less vulnerable to environmental shocks.

While the biodiversity credits market is still being formed, frameworks like this are crucial for setting standards and avoiding the pitfalls we’ve seen in carbon markets. These credits must serve as tools for genuine impact, and not corporate greenwashing.

Bridging the gap: PUR’s commitment to action

At PUR, we recognise that while frameworks evolve, action must continue. 

This is why we’re committed to piloting and testing solutions that can drive immediate impact, while also participating in the development of standards that will shape the future. For example, since September 2023, PUR has been part of the Verra Nature Crediting Framework piloting process. Our goal is to ensure that the metrics we use are practical, feasible, and promote real change on the ground. As part of our involvement, we have been actively participating in public consultations to shape a robust set of metrics for tracking the state of nature.

In line with this commitment, we’re aligned with the Nature Positive Initiative which has implemented a three-tiered approach to metrics: Entry level (basic metrics that provide an accessible starting point for any project, with a time-bound plan to progress); Standard level (more robust, field-tested metrics suitable for widespread application); and Advanced level (ambitious, comprehensive metrics for organisations with resources to undertake in-depth analysis and reporting).

By choosing to use metrics that are science-based and scalable, PUR ensures that projects don’t just meet reporting requirements, but actually foster landscape-level transformations. To that end, PUR is advancing a partnership pilot with Cornell and Nespresso, developing citizen-science-based measures that can be scaled across landscapes. Together, we are taking action on biodiversity at both the programme design phase (using the Smithsonian bird-friendly species catalogue to help inform our agroforestry programme, for example) and in how we measure the impact we are having. It is a project which highlights how companies can make data-informed investments in regenerative practices, using concrete, comparable results to attract larger, more consistent funding.

For investments in nature to be effective, they must be informed by rigorous, field-appropriate metrics. This balance of rigour and practicality allows for scaled impact that genuinely benefits ecosystems and communities.

Nature and climate are two sides of the same coin

The central and recurring message from the conference rooms throughout COP16 was the urgency of acting now. The private sector has focused heavily on carbon action, both operationally and along the value chain. But it is now time for investment to also flow into nature and biodiversity – resources that will benefit climate activity at the same time.

Many companies shared the sentiment that there’s no time to wait for the ‘perfect’ framework for nature. Action must begin with what is feasible, informed by current knowledge and the principles of integrity and transparency. The private sector is ready to invest, but large-scale plans need clear indicators to ensure those investments deliver impact.

The COP16 discussions made it clear that nature and climate are inseparable challenges that demand unified solutions. For companies and governments alike, the time to invest in biodiversity is now. As we work toward a resilient future, the private sector and policymakers must both adopt frameworks that not only track impact but drive action.

For PUR, this means continuing to lead through collaboration, rigorous fieldwork, and an unwavering commitment to practical solutions. By supporting farmers, engaging IPLCs, and developing transparent metrics, we believe that regenerative agricultural practices, such as agroforestry, can be a cornerstone in the fight against both climate change and biodiversity loss.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres put it, “For humanity to thrive, nature must flourish.” At PUR, we are determined to turn these words into action, advocating for a world where productivity and nature can coexist harmoniously, creating a lasting legacy for future generations.