Defining 'science-based targets'

Science and technical priorities for private sector action to address biodiversity loss

Target 15 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework recognizes the importance of the private sector monitoring, assessing and disclosing biodiversity-related risks, dependencies and impacts. Many businesses and financial institutions are progressing with science-based assessments, targets and disclosures and integrating into strategy, risk management and capital allocation decisions. Developments will continue in response to investor expectations, emerging corporate sustainability reporting regulations in Europe, China and elsewhere and evolving global sustainability reporting standards. Voluntary action is also being encouraged by the disclosure recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures and the target-setting methods of the Science Based Targets Network. Based on experience supporting the private sector in practice, we identify four critical science and technical advances needed to enable business action at scale and to redirect finance globally to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. First, consensus on indicators and metrics for measuring changes in the state of nature and provision of ecosystem services. Second, access to global, regularly updated, location-specific and consistent nature data. Third, standardized and consistent accounting systems that structure data, support risk management and create accountability at corporate, ecosystem and national levels. Fourth, integrated risk assessment approaches to help corporates, financial institutions, central banks and supervisors to assess nature-related risks.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.

Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action1. One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems2, the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse3. Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

Can Science-Based Targets Make the Private Sector Paris-Aligned? A Review of the Emerging Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Companies increasingly set science-based targets (SBTs) for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We review literature on SBTs to understand their potential for aligning corporate emissions with the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

RECENT FINDINGS

SBT adoption by larger, more visible companies in high-income countries has accelerated. These companies tend to have a good prior reputation for managing climate impacts and most appear on track for meeting their scope 1 and 2 SBTs. More research is needed to distinguish between substantive and symbolic target-setting and understand how companies plan to achieve established SBTs. There is no consensus on whether current target-setting methods appropriately allocate emissions to individual companies or how much freedom companies should have in setting SBTs. Current emission accounting practices, target-setting methods, SBT governance, and insufficient transparency may allow companies to report some emission reductions that are not real and may result in insufficient collective emission reductions. Lower rates of SBT diffusion in low- and middle-income countries, in certain emission-intensive sectors, and by small- and medium-sized enterprises pose potential barriers for mainstreaming SBTs. While voluntary SBTs cannot substitute for more ambitious climate policy, it is unclear whether they delay or encourage policy needed for Paris alignment.

SUMMARY

We find evidence that SBT adoption corresponds to increased climate action. However, there is a need for further research from a diversity of approaches to better understand how SBTs may facilitate or hinder a just transition to low-carbon societies.

Measures of equity for multi-capital accounting

Inequity is one of the primary economic and societal risks posed by the global food system, yet measures of inequity are missing from prominent corporate tools that aim to account for the impact of the economic activities associated with food production, manufacturing and retail. Here we suggest new metrics to measure socio-economic, gender, racial, generational and risk divides between the bearers of natural, social and human capital costs and those of benefits.