Catch up on the main nature policy news from July

 
 
 

EU sustainability framework under pressure ahead of political negotiations

The foundations of EU sustainability reporting continue to be challenged. We’ve already covered recent developments on the Omnibus over the past few months, including in our April and May updates, but we are now gaining a clearer picture of how this legislation might unfold at the end of the year.

Negotiations over the European Union’s second part of the Omnibus Package have advanced, but both the European Parliament and Council are proposing changes that could further weaken the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

The Council has formally proposed raising the CSDDD’s threshold to only apply to companies with over 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, which effectively exempts most EU businesses. Meanwhile, the Parliament’s lead negotiator aims to reduce CSRD requirements to cover only companies with 3,000 or more employees, as well as eliminate the obligation for businesses to implement climate transition plans.

This potential deregulation creates uncertainty and penalizes forward-thinking companies that have already invested in sustainability. It also weakens the level playing field for businesses that are ready to take credible action for nature.

In response to these developments, nearly 200 businesses, investors and organizations have signed a statement urging EU legislators to uphold the core principles of the CSRD and CSDDD. They warn that deregulation undermines their competitiveness and jeopardizes investor certainty and long-term growth. The statement can be endorsed until 29 August.

Two pieces of legislation are at the center of these announcements:

1.    Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD):

 The European Commission adopted a so-called “quick-fix” act to allow the first wave of companies to omit certain data points from their reports for 2025, including biodiversity data such as land-use, invasive species and ecosystem rates.

Meanwhile, the standards for implementing the directive (the ESRS) are also being updated. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), who set these standards, proposed cutting the standards’ data points by 57%. The draft proposal is open for comments until 29 September 2025.

2.    Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)

This regulation is facing calls for adjustments from 18 EU countries who are demanding that countries with low deforestation risk be excluded from compliance. The European Commission seems to be planning a new “environmental omnibus” to simplify several laws, including the EUDR.

At Business for Nature, we believe that simplification should not come at the cost of integrity. Sustainability legislations are necessary to boost the EU’s competitiveness and resilience as well as enhancing nature-related opportunities for businesses. And we are not alone in this view - over 300 organizations, companies and financial institutions have warned that deregulation would undermine the EU’s competitiveness.

We urge business leaders and companies to send a clear message and endorse the joint statement on the Omnibus initiative which is open to signatures until 29 August. This statement is a timely and concrete way for leading companies to help ensure that the EU’s sustainability rules remain robust and practical throughout this simplification process.

A note on the EU roadmap towards nature credits:

In a parallel development, the EU launched its Roadmap towards Nature Credits, covering the EU Commission’s high-level plans to establish a nature credit system. These credits represent “nature-positive outcomes”, such as restoration, that can be valued and sold to investors, aiming to bridge the biodiversity financing gap.

While bridging the gap is important, nature credits shouldn’t be seen as a silver bullet. Many other urgent reforms are necessary, for example, reforming environmentally harmful subsidies towards positive incentives for nature would have a bigger impact in the short and long term.

Deep-sea mining talks stall as tensions rise at international level

Back in June, we were cautiously optimistic about marine biodiversity at the 2025 UN Ocean Conference (UNOC3), where governments made an array of pledges to protect the ocean. However, concrete protections for the deep-sea were a sticking point at UNOC - a trend that unfortunately continued during recent negotiations at the International Seabed Authority (ISA) Assembly in Jamaica.

The ISA talks failed to deliver concrete, ambitious rules to regulate deep-sea mining. In particular, negotiations of the Mining Code, which would set the conditions for deep-sea exploration and potential exploitation, remain unfinished. While some countries are pushing for its rapid adoption, 38 countries are warning that finalizing the rules without sufficient science risks irreversible damage to fragile marine ecosystems.

Much like the deep-sea itself, this is an uncharted, dynamic situation . Parallel to  the Assembly in Jamaica, deep sea mining business “The Metals Company USA” (TMC USA) announced its intention to apply under the United States Department of Commerce for deep-sea exploration licenses , outside the ISA framework. In response, the ISA Council launched a formal investigation into potential “non-compliance” and violations of international law.

Several groups stressed the need for the ISA Assembly to discuss other key issues, such as whether there is an actual demand for sourcing deep-sea minerals. 67 companies have committed to not sourcing materials from the deep seabed and 40 financial institutions representing 4.3 trillion USD have called for a moratorium and fully exploring alternatives to deep-sea mining.

Business for Nature is supporting the call for a global moratorium on deep seabed mining until the environmental, social and economic risks are comprehensively investigated, and scientific proof that such activities can be sustainably managed without harming the marine environment is available.

First business commitment to the Cali Fund announced

The Cali Fund was a real success story from COP16 in Cali, Colombia last year. Created to ensure fair benefit-sharing from digital genetic resources (Digital Sequence Information or DSI), the fund is now starting to gain momentum.

The UK government announced it has joined the Friends of the Cali Fund, a new coalition of governments and businesses supporting fair and equitable benefit-sharing. At the same time, US-based biotech company Ginkgo Bioworks became the first business to announce an upcoming contribution to the fund.

The Cali Fund provides a tool for companies to contribute to nature conservation and ensure equitable benefit-sharing, particularly with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has launched a guide covering key questions such as how the fund works, who it serves, how your organization can engage and how the funds will be disbursed.

ICJ issues landmark opinion on climate change responsibility

In a unanimous decision, judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that countries have an obligation under international law to take action on climate change.

 Judge Yuji Iwasaw said that: “States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets” and are also responsible for regulating the climate actions of companies under their jurisdiction.  

Although the advisory opinion is non-binding on states, it carries both legal and political weight as it is binding on UN bodies, opening the door for affected countries to seek climate-related compensation or reparations.

The decision also strengthens the legal basis for holding governments and companies accountable to international climate standards, increasing the pressure for credible transition plans and action.

Read Carbon Brief’s article for more on what the ICJ’s advisory opinion means for the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Brazilian “devastation bill” moves one step closer to law, but with key articles vetoed by President

Dubbed the “devastation bill”, the law introduces fast-tracked approvals for “strategic” projects, while leaving the term “strategic” open to interpretation. It also would have allowed a growing number of businesses “self-declare” the impact of their projects, effectively letting up to 80% of companies bypass comprehensive environmental reviews.

However, at the last moment in early August, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva vetoed the “self-declaration” provision, along with several other key articles. The full extent of the “Devastation Bill” is yet to be decided - it’s still possible for the Brazilian Congress to overturn the presidential vetoes, as has happened previously.

This bill could severely undermine the most biodiverse country in the world’s ability to protect ecosystems, enforce environmental laws and meet international climate and biodiversity commitments. All of which is especially concerning ahead of COP30, set to take place in the Brazilian Amazon.

Caught up on July? Go back to the June news update to catch up on previous nature policy stories from around the world.    

 
 
 
 
ArticlesBusiness for Naturepolicy, Policy update, EU Commission, Latin America