Mission: Transition | WWF

Effectively tackling major challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss requires breaking down systemic change into manageable steps. Transition planning allows governments, financial institutions, corporates, financial supervisors and central banks to do this by defining strategies, action plans and accountability mechanisms, tracked against a timeline, that respond to environmental dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities.

While efforts on corporate climate transition planning are far from perfect, they are significantly ahead of those addressing nature transition planning, which need to be fast-tracked. Tackling climate change is impossible without protecting and restoring nature. And with $2.7tn economic value at risk from nature loss, delivering a resilient nature-positive future, as envisioned by the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), is essential in avoiding extensive nature-related risks.

The GBF, which was signed last year by almost 200 countries, necessitated a transformative transition across all sectors and companies, requiring a reassessment of processes and practices. For instance, the GBF’s target 16 aims to significantly reduce the global environmental footprint of consumption by 2030, a huge challenge for corporates and investors, given the upward trend in global footprint driven by sectors like agriculture, infrastructure, mining, and industry. Corporates and financial institutions seeking to avoid risks, build resilience, and contribute to a nature-positive future, must begin their planning to align with a nature-positive future now.

Momentum for corporate nature transition planning is building with various frameworks and regulations laying the foundations. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) covers transition planning in its recommendations (see Strategy B), and has established a dedicated working group to transition planning. Similarly, biodiversity or nature transition planning is referenced by the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS E4-1), and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 101-2-a-v), and the Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) in the UK recommends companies disclose information about nature safeguards and opportunities in climate transition plans.

However, unlike the comprehensive guidance and frameworks now available for climate transition, guidance for nature transition planning is still evolving. Also, unlike greenhouse gas emissions that have a global effect, impacts and dependencies on nature are location-specific, requiring more tailored responses to different contexts. A few efforts aim to address some of the gaps, such as WWFs Nature in Transition Planning guide, and guidance from the Science Based Targets Network, in particular on the importance of deploying an extended mitigation hierarchy in designing action plans.

Attaining global nature goals requires a multi-level perspective. First, governments set global objectives and targets, such as those in the GBF, which offer a broad context for corporate transitions (some efforts, such as those by UNEP-FI, already translate these for financial institutions). Second, these global targets and objectives must be operationalized at the national level through National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Such national plans should delineate how countries contribute to GBF targets, complete with national strategies, action plans, accountability mechanisms, and monitoring mechanisms. For example, to achieve target 7—halving global pollution— different national sources of emissions may offer different challenges and opportunities for mitigation, based on their unique contexts in each country. Such national mitigation strategies have implications for corporate transitions plans in those countries. Therefore, companies and financial institutions must engage with governments to design collaborative strategies and develop ambitious NBSAPs that support robust nature transition planning for their national operations, while also proactively pioneering market-led approaches that make up for any shortcomings in them.

Financial institutions and corporations must also consider a third level of transition: in landscapes. Since a variety of different stakeholders are likely to source from or operate in an ecosystem, efforts  to manage nature-related impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities in that ecosystem will be more effective if they are well- coordinated between stakeholders at land- sea- or riverscape level. Numerous corporations have already recognized the potential of such approaches for managing nature-related impacts and risks. And transition plans that neglect landscape-level strategies risk being ineffective, or even counterproductive where trade-offs between objectives or stakeholder efforts exist. For instance, transition plans that aim to improve water efficiency of operations in river basins where overall water use is unsustainable may not reduce basin-level water stress or associated risks. A landscape level view is particularly relevant to universal owners, such as pension funds, that may have exposure to various operations or sourcing activities in one landscape, where one investee’s or client’s nature impacts might be the nature dependencies of a second investee or client.

 

 

A good example of a landscape approach is WWF’s Living Landscapes Programme in Sabah, East Malaysia. The programme brings together various stakeholders to integrate conservation and sustainable development by protecting forests, wildlife, and rivers, alongside RSPO-certified production of oil palm, and restoration of ecological corridors and riparian reserves. It exemplifies how multi-stakeholder collaboration at landscape-level, including between government, private sector, and communities, has considerable potential to meet both social and environmental objectives while curbing nature loss and associated risk.

Meeting global climate and nature goals is complex and demands a concerted effort from investors and the corporations in which they invest. While clear government policy and guidance are essential, interactions between markets and regulation are also critical, where market-led efforts can either expedite positive outcomes or hinder them.

Comprehensive corporate transition planning that delivers on both climate and nature goals, and is informed by global objectives, national plans, and landscape-level approaches, is in its infancy but imperative. By engaging in ambitious, science-based transition planning, companies can contribute to—and benefit from—a future where economic resilience and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive, ensuring a living planet for generations to come. At WWF, we are working to provide guidance, and are ready to engage with companies and initiatives to secure a resilient and prosperous future.Photo credit © Leonie Linotte

 

Nicolas is a Green Finance Specialist at WWF. He has a background working on diverse topics ranging from Bankable Nature Solutions to engaging the financial sector on the integration of nature into financial decision making and regulation. Through this experience, he collaborated with and led projects with Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO), the Taskforce on Nature related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), The Global Impact Investing Network, Rabobank and others. Since 2023, Nicolas has been managing WWFs Nature Positive Finance Workstream. Prior to joining WWF, Nicolas was a Research and Engagement Advisor for Follow This, a movement of activist shareholders in the oil and gas industry. Nicolas has a background in business and sustainability