Nature Policy Bulletin - COP & EU roundup November 2025
Catch up on nature policy news from COP30 and the EU
COP30 delivers big promises but falls short on a clear plan
COP30 in Belém, the first-ever Amazon COP, was billed as the moment nature would finally take center stage in the climate agenda. Hosted on the edge of the world’s largest rainforest, expectations were sky-high that the summit would cement the message that climate and nature action are inseparable.
While the summit delivered some positive outcomes, including nearly $7 billion mobilized for tropical forests and a commitment to triple the amount of finance for adaptation by 2035, the final outcome text (the so-called Mutirão decision) ultimately fell short. Nature protection still appears more symbolic than systemic, as governments failed to translate past pledges into the concrete delivery plans urgently needed.
Forests: historic financing, but no roadmap
One of the strongest positive signals at COP30 came early, with the launch and first financial pledges for the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), a large-scale, long-term mechanism to reward tropical forest countries for keeping their forests standing. It will benefit over 70 forest-rich developing countries, including by allocating 20% of its funds directly to Indigenous Peoples.
Forests provide up to $150 trillion in ecosystem services. Conserving them through mechanisms like the TFFF is key to long-term economic, social, and ecological stability.
By the end of the summit, the TFFF had secured nearly $7 billion from Brazil, Indonesia, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands, an unprecedented level of forest finance at any climate COP. These pledges significantly close the gap toward the TFFF’s $10 billion end-2025 target.
While this financial boost was historic, governments failed to secure what many considered the necessary win for forests: a global roadmap to halt deforestation by 2030, which had been backed by over 90 countries throughout the summit. The roadmap was dropped from the final text, with Brazil pledging to advance the work through a Presidency-led voluntary process instead.
For companies increasingly experiencing the materiality of deforestation-related risks, a global roadmap would provide a clear, enforceable pathway for governments to deliver deforestation commitments.
Synergies gain traction, but practical implementation still lags behind
Many countries had hoped COP30 would deliver a formal decision to strengthen so-called “synergies” – the connections between the three UN conventions on climate, biodiversity and land - reflecting the reality that progress on one is impossible without the others.
For businesses, a more integrated global policy framework is essential to drive more efficient, ambitious and cost-effective action and long-term investment in climate, land-use and nature goals.
Despite broad support, the final text merely reaffirmed the importance of synergies, without any concrete operational steps. Countries will pick this back up next year, but the outcome does not reflect the ambition most governments seek.
Adaptation finance advances as fossil fuel action stalls
Countries secured one of COP30’s clearer outcomes on adaptation by agreeing to triple adaptation finance, but with notable limitations. The deadline was extended five years, from 2030 to 2035, weakening near-term ambition.
Governments also approved the initial set of global adaptation indicators, which are a good starting point for tracking progress. It’s especially positive to see that the indicators incorporate ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), but work remains before they become operational.
This focus is critical because EbA is a strategic type of Nature-based Solution (NbS) to climate change, which are among the most cost-effective, “no regrets” climate strategies. Crucially, these are already being implemented and scaled by farmers, producers, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
The progress on adaptation contrasts sharply with the disappointing outcome on fossil fuels. All references to phasing out fossil fuels and ending fossil fuel subsidies, which appeared in earlier drafts, were removed from the final Mutirão text following pushback from a small group of oil-producing countries.
Fossil fuel subsidies continue to dwarf adaptation finance and ultimately undermine the effectiveness of any adaptation gains made in Belém. This means that reforming environmentally harmful subsidies is essential to create fairer markets, increase innovation and accelerate the transition toward a nature-positive economy.
The 2025 Finance trends dashboard created by The Nature Conservancy and UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shows that finance is increasingly flowing to nature, but not yet at the pace and scale needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss this decade.
Implementation is well underway
Despite political blockages inside the negotiating hall, one message was clear: away from the formal talks, pressure for policy implementation is already growing. Brazil joined Colombia and nearly 90 countries in backing a global fossil fuel phase-out roadmap beyond the negotiations, with businesses and subnational governments reiterating calls for clear phase-out pathways.
Alongside the roadmap for deforestation, these efforts could offer much-needed direction for climate-nature action in the year ahead. More progress will be needed in 2026 to turn this momentum into tangible implementation.
Our advocacy toolkit, created with the We Mean Business Coalition, highlights key priority areas to promote implementation and drive widespread supportive business actions beyond COP30.
For more reflections on COP, check out these roundups and reactions:
EU continues process towards environmental deregulation
Council and Parliament decide to weaken and delay key anti-deforestation law
Over the last few weeks, both European Institutions, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, adopted their respective positions on the EU Deforestation Regulation, agreeing to:
further delay its implementation by another year (having already been delayed in 2024),
weaken its scope through reduced obligations for some companies and industries,
and calling for another revision for further “simplification” by April 2026.
The EUDR is the EU’s landmark anti-deforestation legislation to ensure that products sold in or exported to the EU do not come from land that was deforested or degraded after 31 Dec 2020.
The decision comes despite calls from a growing number of companies that recognized the economic risks of deforestation, invested to prepare for implementation, and urged EU institutions to uphold the cornerstone law.
Business for Nature deplores these decisions. Our CEO, Eva Zabey, called the decision “A profound failure of political courage”. “It’s a blow to the European economy and its long-term resilience and competitiveness,” she added. “And it’s a blow to the world’s forests at a time when every year of delay makes action more costly and difficult.”
EU policymakers seem to be driven by politics rather than economic and business logic, as these decisions create immediate legal uncertainty, undermine the significant investments made by companies prepared for compliance and distort competition by favoring those who have chosen not to act.
A legal note by ClientEarth warned that a delay and changes to the legislation could be inconsistent with EU law on legitimate business expectation and therefore in breach of legal requirements under the EU treaties.
Regardless of this EU vote, deforestation remains a business-critical issue. Many businesses, including those not covered by the EUDR, will continue to act on deforestation and to treat it as a material risk to their business.
Further “simplification” turned deregulation planned for EU sustainability reporting rules
In what is shaping up to be a double blow of deregulation, the European Parliament also voted on 13 November on the “Omnibus 1”, which aims to “simplify” the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The Parliament decision went a step further in supporting deregulation than what was initially adopted by its legal committee.
Proposed changes which seek to water down the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) include major reduction in the scope of the Directives:
Reducing the number of companies covered by the CSRD by more than 90% - to apply only to businesses with more than 1,750 employees and €450mn in global turnover
Watering down the CSDDD to only apply to the largest of companies, with a threshold of 5,000 employees and revenues of over €1.5 billion
Eliminating the obligation for companies to prepare climate transition plans under the CSDDD.
Sustainability reporting must not be seen as an administrative burden. It is an investment in resilience: enabling businesses and investors to understand risks, manage dependencies, and take meaningful actions to address their impacts. Without this knowledge, governments and companies alike face blind spots that threaten long-term stability.
Both the Omnibus I and the EU Deforestation Regulation will now be negotiated between the Council and the Parliament in the coming weeks with final changes to be agreed by the end of 2025.
The fact that EU proposals initially presented as “simplification” are ultimately leading to major deregulation is a reality that all leaders should be aware of, with more attempts at deregulation looming.
CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive): Mandates comprehensive public reporting on sustainability impacts.
CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive): Legally requires companies to address and prevent environmental and human rights harm in their value chains.
Together, these directives create a cohesive EU framework combining mandatory transparency (reporting) and accountability (due diligence) for corporate sustainability, though their ability to do so is severely undermined by the proposals. Like the EUDR, weakening the rules for political rather than economic reasons undermines investment and poses a real risk to business and the environment.
Caught up on November? Go back to the October Bulletin to catch up on previous nature policy stories from around the world.