The second, and hopefully final, round of negotiations for a strong Global Plastics Treaty will take place this August in Geneva. Investors must continue supporting a strong treaty, as it would reduce risks in the plastic value chain.

Analysis of 45 of the world’s largest food giants – worth USD 2.6 trillion1 – highlights inadequate environmental and financial risk disclosure related to fertiliser misuse.

Widespread misuse of synthetic fertilisers has led to a rise in fertiliser-related environmental risks. Analysis of 45 of the largest food system companies globally revealed that a third of companies are failing to acknowledge fertiliser risks at all.

As we look ahead for this year, the geo-political headwinds for international climate and nature policy are all too clear. We therefore look ahead to the key issues and themes likely to determine the prospects for success or failure this year, assessing where progress will be critical, where it will be important to hold the line, and areas where climate and nature policymaking can be beneficially joined-up.

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) aimed at developing an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, commonly called the Global Plastics Treaty, has concluded in Busan, South Korea. No agreement was reached although this was expected to be the final round. While some progress was made, unresolved disagreements on critical measures such as capping plastic production and addressing hazardous chemicals, prevented consensus. An additional round (INC-5.2) is expected to be held next year. Planet Tracker urges financial institutions, policymakers, and businesses to strengthen their efforts and stand firm in advocating for a treaty that addresses the root causes of plastic pollution.

The recent Biodiversity COP in Colombia agreed to establish a mechanism for funding the protection of global genetic resources. It proposes that sectors such pharma, biotech, and animal & plant breeding, which benefit from genetic material, should share those gains with developing countries and Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

While proponents of deep sea mining argue it is needed to meet future demand for energy transition minerals, questions are beginning to be asked about the economic risk deep sea mining could pose to countries that mine these metals on land. By analysing the 12 biggest countries mining copper, cobalt, nickel and manganese, Mining for Trouble aims to highlight the value at risk to these economies if deep sea mining was to be green lit.

As the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is currently debating whether to allow deep sea mining in international waters, Race to the Bottom analyses the taxes and royalties countries could receive, revealing insignificant economic returns. According to Planet Tracker, there is no financial justification for deep sea mining, yet the environmental impact is vast.

This paper provides an overview for financial institutions of the most pertinent issues identified by Planet Tracker from the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Colombia. Topics range from the availability of nature transition plans, to who has responsibility for nature in government structures – it’s looking complicated, to the availability of nature data – or rather its processing and analysing. The struggle to finance countries’ nature and ecosystem services remained unresolved.

There is a nature financing gap. The precise numbers vary but plans to close the gap partially rely on the reallocation of harmful subsidies to nature-based solutions. This paper briefly examines whether such a strategy is realistic. We observe that a range of countries have successfully eliminated subsidies – so it can be done – but others failed. We need to learn how the former delivered subsidy reform, and why others were unsuccessful.