Consultation outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 30 March 2023

Introduction

The 2030 Strategic Framework for International Climate and Nature Action sets out the UK’s role in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss globally to 2030 while also building resilience to adapt to changes already underway.

On 21 March 2022 a call for views was published on GOV.UK and closed for submissions on 24 April 2022. The public were asked to contribute answers to a range of questions on the most impactful international interventions the UK can undertake to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We thank all those who took the time to respond.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (Defra) the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ formally Department for Business, Energy
& Industrial Strategy (BEIS)), and the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) analysed and reflected the views obtained from this call. The contributions were used to inform the development of the Framework.

Key statistics

We received a total of 119 submissions: 107 through Citizen Space and 12 by email.

Of these responses, 43 came from individuals and 76 from organisations. 82 respondents were based within the UK and 37 were based overseas.

A wide range of individuals and organisations submitted responses, including from industry, academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), charities and religious organisations. All submissions were catalogued and analysed.

Response by question

Question 1: ‘Relative to other nations or international organisations, what do you consider are the most impactful and strategic interventions that the UK Government can take for climate change mitigation internationally?’

Financial support and investments were considered the most impactful and strategic interventions (49% of responses) both as direct financial support and indirect, for example promoting third party financial investments in developing countries to invest in green technologies.

This was followed by the UK taking a leadership role in bi- and multi-lateral agreements and cooperation and providing a positive example by demonstrating best practice through the implementation of domestic climate mitigation policy.

Other interventions mentioned include the importance of promoting, sharing and exporting expertise in science, technology, and research, and of promoting education, skills and increasing public awareness around climate change mitigation.

One in five respondents (20%) identified addressing deforestation as an impactful intervention. This included condemning activities that contribute to deforestation and advocating for legislation that promote sustainable use of forest resources.

Less than one in five respondents mentioned improving legislation, regulation, enforcement, and planning (19%), land management, nature-based solutions, and land restoration (18%), and renewable energy (18%).

Question 2: ‘Relative to other nations or international organisations, what do you consider are the most impactful and strategic interventions that the UK Government can take to support international climate change adaptation action?’

Again, financial support and investments were considered the most impactful and strategic interventions (55% of responses). Around half of the responses emphasised that funds should be directed mostly to developing nations, coastal and small island states, and areas vulnerable to climate change, stressing the importance of supporting local efforts.

Where respondents provided views on specific actions, they suggested that the UK Government should financially support one or more of the following climate change adaptation interventions: development of resilient infrastructure; climate-smart regenerative agriculture; renewable energy; advanced climate warning systems; fighting poverty; preventing overpopulation / unsustainable growth.

Around 41% of responses considered bi- and multi-lateral engagement, agreements, and cooperation (41%) as important interventions to support adaptation.

Around a third (29%) of respondents mentioned the role of science, technology, research, and knowledge transfer. Several responses highlighted the quality of UK research, technology, and science and some responses suggested the UK provide technical support to countries engaged in climate change adaptation.

Around a quarter of responses (23%) emphasised the importance of land management, nature-based solutions, and land restoration.

Other responses touched on:

• promoting education, skills and increasing public awareness around climate change adaptation (18%)
• strengthening legislation, regulation and enforcement to limit harmful practices and unsustainable products (17%)
• focusing on sustainable agriculture and food issues (17%)
• supporting locally led adaptation actions with a focus on supporting indigenous peoples and local communities
• demonstrating leadership (15%) including leading by example by accelerating UK climate change adaption and preventing unsustainable population growth (13%)
• supporting enhanced weather forecasting and early warning (12%)
• engaging with international organisations to ensure most countries have an adaptation framework (10%)
• considering climate change adaptation in trade agreements and supply chain reforms (11%)

Question 3: ‘Relative to other nations or international organisations, what do you consider are the most impactful and strategic interventions the UK Government can take to halt biodiversity loss internationally?’

Again, financial support and investments were considered the most impactful and strategic interventions (40%) to address biodiversity issues. These included investment and resourcing to address wildlife and nature protection, conservation and restoration. Around one in seven (14%) recommended that financial assistance should be directed specifically at disadvantaged areas or countries or those that are at highest risk of biodiversity loss, as well as indigenous peoples and local communities.

Four in ten (39%) respondents highlighted the importance of bi- and multi-lateral engagement, agreements, and cooperation. Collaborations between governments, international organisations and NGOs, and between government and the private sector were suggested as valuable examples.

One in three (33%) respondents cited the most impactful interventions would be in the agriculture or food related sectors. Suggestions included a call to regulate or reduce the use of products that are believed to have significant negative impact on biodiversity and promoting sustainable international food supply chains.

Around 29% of respondents mentioned support, promotion and investment in land management. For example, the development and expansion of conservation areas, rewilding and improving the connectivity of natural ecosystems, and nature restoration projects.

About 27% respondents suggested that biodiversity loss can be effectively tackled through how products are traded, including agricultural and food products, timber (to address deforestation), peat products, and mined products.

Other interventions identified included:

• introducing tighter legislations or stronger enforcement against harmful practices (15%)
• leveraging and sharing UK’s scientific expertise on globally important topics, such as environmental economics, marine ecosystems, and nature-based solutions
• supporting the development of new technology
• promoting education, skills and increasing public awareness empowering and supporting indigenous people and local communities

Other themes mentioned by a small minority of respondents included supporting the sustainable production of non-food items (11%), reducing pollution and tackling plastic waste and recycling issues (8%).

Question 4: ‘What are the most important interventions the UK Government can take to deliver co-benefits for climate, nature and people? And which are the trade-offs to consider?’

Nearly four in ten (37%) identified financial support or investments as the most effective intervention, including defunding fossil fuels, subsiding green infrastructure and renewable energy, investing in green jobs and nature-based solutions.

Other suggested interventions included:

• the UK’s role in bi- and multi-lateral engagement and agreements (24%)
• land management and restoration, and nature-based solutions (24%)
• improving education, skills, and public awareness (23%)
• interventions in agriculture and food issues (21%)
• science, technology, and knowledge transfer (19%)
• investing in renewable energy and low carbon alternatives (18%)
• introducing legislation, regulation and enforcement that protect climate and nature (18%)

One in five respondents (19%) stated that climate, nature and people should all be considered together rather than separately in decision-making. This includes taking a system-based approach or considering the co-benefits for climate, biodiversity and social outcomes, for example by introducing funding requirements that ensure that initiatives deliver outcomes for nature, climate, and people, rather than funding in silos.

Most responses (58%) did not explicitly mention trade-offs. Where trade-offs were mentioned, the most common theme was the need to balance the short-term costs with the long-term environmental or social benefits (13%). However, long-term benefits were seen to outweigh the short-term risks.

Nearly one in ten (8%) respondents highlighted the trade-off between the benefits experienced by countries and communities from both new and continuing development (for example, infrastructure, urban development) and the negative environmental impacts. About 6% of respondents referred to the tension between positive measures to address climate change and nature and the negative impact this could have on loss of local livelihoods, jobs, or some local economies.

A further 6% suggested that there are no trade-offs.

Question 5: ‘Do you have any evidence regarding particular regions or countries we should be focusing on, both in the immediate and long term, given expected trends?’

The most cited region that respondents believe should be focussed on is Africa; 45% either mentioned Africa as a continent or referred to a country or sub-region within Africa, followed by Asia (26%) and South America (24%).

There were relatively few mentions of European (6%) or North American (4%) countries.

Around one in ten (11%) thought that Small Island Developing Nations (SIDs) should be prioritised because they are more vulnerable to the impact of climate change and have limited resources.

Around a quarter (23%) of respondents listed attributes or characteristics that should be prioritised rather than naming specific countries. Examples of attributes or characteristics included:

• countries with the greatest biodiversity loss or richest biodiversity
• areas or marginalised communities most vulnerable to the impact of climate change
• marine environments and particularly high latitude marine environments
• key ecosystems - for example, mangroves, corals, Amazon biome
• areas that supply key commodities to the UK to enforce environmental standards can have greatest impact
• countries that have identified nature-based solutions under the Paris Agreement

How we integrated the responses

The responses obtained from the call for views were considered by the teams in developing the 2030 Strategic Framework on International Climate and Nature Action. This feedback, alongside other external stakeholder consultation exercises, has informed the development of the framework and the areas of UK focus across 6 global challenges:

• the adoption of clean technologies and sustainable practices
• building resilience to climate change
• protection, conservation and restoration of nature
• international agreements on climate and nature
• financial flows for climate and nature
• sustainable trade and investments