BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Aug22/01)
18 August 2022
Third World Network


Dear friends and colleagues

Task force on nature related financial disclosure risks repeating past mistakes

The Task Force on Nature Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) aims to help the financial sector understand its biodiversity-related risk exposure. A business-led voluntary initiative, it is endorsed by various actors on the international stage and will likely serve as a blueprint from which governments will draw in writing future business regulations. The idea is that if the financial sector becomes aware of how much their investments are at risk from biodiversity loss, then it will work to reduce these risks.

While the TNFD directs much-needed attention to the role of the financial sector in perpetuating biodiversity loss, it relies firstly on voluntary disclosure and secondly on faith in the market to correct in line with said disclosure of risks. This risks repeating past mistakes where governments have largely avoided binding internationally harmonised regulations for finance and business. Most attempts to regulate corporations have been voluntary, and research shows that these efforts are completely inadequate (Item 1).

TNFD is currently developing a framework that outlines what information a company or financial institution should self-report regarding how its relationship with nature and biodiversity has, or will, impact its business. Civil society groups have raised concerns, among them that TNFD as a business reporting initiative does not discuss issues like how to hold businesses accountable for environmental harms or ensure redress for affected people (Item 2).

What we clearly need is for governments to establish internationally-harmonised business and financial sector regulation, to stop the trillions of dollars in financing that is driving, and profiting from, the destruction of nature and human rights abuses.

With best wishes,
Third World Network

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧・

Item 1

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/task-force-on-nature-related-financial-disclosure-risks-repeating-past-mistakes/

9 June 2022

Task-force on nature related financial disclosure risks repeating past mistakes

The Task Force on nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) emerged out of Davos in 2019 and aimed to help the financial sector understand its biodiversity-related risk exposure. But it relies on voluntary disclosure rules, which have proved ineffective until now, writes Ginger Cassidy.

Ginger Cassady is Executive Director of Rainforest Action Network

Government diplomats huddled around their computers for the virtual Stockholm +50 conference, commemorating the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and 50 years of global environmental action.

Negotiations focused on how to actually achieve the many targets made by governments over the past decades, and the conference closed with a renewed call for commitment.

It痴 an increasingly loaded task, given how little has come as a result. For example, 2020 marked the official failure of all 20 targets of the UN痴 Convention on Biological Diversity and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that we are in more dire climate straits than ever.

A half-century of so-called 殿ction・has resulted in a five-alarm fire of ecological breakdown.

In their stated quests to save the environment, governments have largely avoided binding internationally harmonised regulations for finance and business. Most attempts to regulate corporations have been voluntary, and research shows that these efforts are completely inadequate.

New proposals, such as the Task Force on Nature Related Financial Disclosures, risk repeating past mistakes. Instead, governments should heed the last thirty years of research and inaction and push for internationally-harmonised business and financial sector regulation. We have a unique opportunity to make this year a true turning point for the sake of our planet, should governments choose to actually govern.

The 1972 Stockholm conference marked the beginning of decades of international cooperation and built momentum for strong regulatory approaches to environmental problems, where wealthier countries would not shift environmentally harmful practices abroad.

But such bold cooperation threatened transnational corporations・dependence on impunity. Powerful companies responded by forming the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to lobby against binding regulation. Working with governments like the US and Japan, they won: in lieu of corporations being forced to internalise the social and environmental costs of operation, voluntary mechanisms took centre stage.

Programs such as the UN Principles for Responsible Investment and the Equator Principles are a result. Seeking to organise banks and other investors directly, these mechanisms ask them to commit to specific investment standards that would not continue harmful environmental practices.

These commitments rack up airtime and institutional 都upporters・but only marginally redirect financial flows or change business practices, even among their participants. For example, signatories to the Equator Principles continue to have the highest exposure to fossil fuel-related investments.

What痴 disappointing here is not individual businesses・inability to stick to their word but the lack of political will to make them.

Even with decades of evidence pointing to these limitations, voluntary measures remain on the table in lieu of government policy.

Take, for example, the Task Force on nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). Emerging out of Davos in 2019 from a collaboration between conservation giant World Wildlife Fund and insurance giant AXA, the TNFD wants to help the financial sector understand its biodiversity-related risk exposure and recently published its first draft framework.

They posit that if the financial sector becomes aware of how much their investments are at risk from biodiversity loss, then they will work to reduce these risks, say by engaging companies or even reducing their investments in these areas, perhaps moving towards 渡ature-positive investments.・/font>

The TNFD directs much-needed attention to the role of the financial sector in perpetuating biodiversity loss, but they rely firstly on voluntary disclosure and secondarily on faith in the market to correct in line with said disclosure of risks.

We can no longer let businesses dodge environmental policy by promising to regulate themselves (nor to let the magic of the market do it for them). Rather, we must heed the lessons of the past three decades: concrete, science-aligned policy from governments can drive investor behaviour. Abstract predictions of 途isk・to investor returns have not, especially in a timely manner, befit a growing crisis.

Governments, though, can change how finance moves and to what end. To start, the legal profit-motive that drives investors to stay in destructive industries can be re-written. Climate researchers say that fiduciary law, especially for investors that work on behalf of the public, such as pensions and universities, should include a mandate to support ・a href="https://wp.twnnews.net/sendpress/eyJpZCI6IjU3MzQwIiwicmVwb3J0IjoiNTMwMiIsInZpZXciOiJ0cmFja2VyIiwidXJsIjoiaHR0cHM6XC9cL3d3dy5jb3Jwb3JhdGVtYXBwaW5nLmNhXC9mb3NzaWwtZnV0dXJlc1wvIn0/">long-term climatic security.・/font>

To this, we would add long-term ecosystem security. There are many options for this mandate to be extended to other institutions: upper limits on carbon-intensive industries for private banks, green credit policies for central banks, and liability regimes with teeth. When it comes to disclosure, there is potential for mandatory reporting systems that could, in turn, lead to binding targets, but only if governments step up to the plate and start regulating.

The time for voluntary programs is over. The powerful institutions backing the TNFD ・yet another iteration of the wolf guarding the henhouse ・should focus on pushing governments to discipline those making climate- and nature-degrading investments.

Instead of hanging up our hats in the face of 30 years of voluntary failure, we must take it as our wake-up call that another strategy must be implemented altogether. All else will keep us wishing and waiting for market and investor behaviour to do the work that our political leaders should be doing in the face of crisis: governing.

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧-

Item 2

https://globalforestcoalition.org/tnfdblog/

15 August 2022

You致e probably never heard about TNFD: But it threatens to be the new frontier in corporate greenwashing

By Shona Hawkes

Anyone who cares about protecting nature, biodiversity and those who defend it ultimately has a stake in stopping the trillions of dollars that are driving nature destruction and human rights abuses. However, too often, it is assumed that rights holders on the frontlines of the nature crisis do not deserve an equal seat at the table in initiatives that claim to fix the problem. Below we answer five key questions about the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and outline why you should be concerned.

Why is TNFD important? 

TNFD is a voluntary initiative but it will likely serve as a blueprint from which governments will draw in writing future business regulations. Like has happened with its sister initiative on climate, the Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. If TNFD enables greenwashing, this will detract from the real solutions needed to curb the trillions of dollars in financing that are driving the nature and biodiversity crisis, and the human rights abuses that often underpin it.

What is the TNFD? 

Launched in 2021, TNFD is headed by a taskforce of 34 senior staff from global companies. The TNFD is led by business but endorsed by various actors on the international stage. TNFD is developing a framework that outlines what information a company or financial institution should self-report regarding how its relationship with nature and biodiversity has, or will, impact its business. This may include how it is preparing for changes in the short, medium, or long term. TNFD launched the first draft of its framework in March 2022 and the second in June 2022. Two more drafts will come out in November 2022 and February 2023, before the final version in September 2023.

What are key concerns with its proposed framework? 

In May 2022, a Joint NGO Letter to the TNFD by 28 NGOs and networks outlined major concerns with its first draft. None of these have been addressed.

There are many concerns with TNFD痴 proposed framework. Key issues include:

  • TNFD doesn稚 require companies or financial institutions to report their known harms and adverse impacts on nature or people. TNFD only requires a business to report on significant financial risks or opportunities ・in this case those that may arise from its relationship with nature. While an ethical firm may see all harms to nature as bad for business, a company profiting off environmental abuse is less likely to. If a business is knowingly linked to environmental abuse but doesn稚 think this is financially detrimental it doesn稚 get reported. This is a major red flag for greenwashing.
  • TNFD ignores human rights including the rights of women, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, peasants, and the very people who are standing up to companies, often at great risk, in order to safeguard nature. There is no human rights reporting requirement under TNFD. Despite TNFD receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the UN Development Programme (UNDP) ・TNFD is normalizing the idea that we can fix the nature crisis while ignoring the human rights abuses that often underpin it.
  • TNFD doesn稚 require a business to publish grievance lists or take similar steps to disclose where communities, NGOs or media investigations have made allegations that it is linked to harms against nature and people. Complaints and grievances are one of the most important tools to understand if a business・claims don稚 stack up in practice.
  • TNFD plans to rush out a series of guidances. These guidances will outline recommendations for sectors, financial actors and potentially other areas. In its broader work TNFD has often cherry picked from approaches that set a very low bar, rather than reflect expectations set through more sound multi-stakeholder processes. Poor guidances are highly likely to set a lower bar than many existing national and international environmental and human rights standards. In doing so, TNFD will undermine the headway made, and lessons learned, over many years.

TNFD is a business reporting initiative, so it doesn稚 discuss issues like how to hold businesses accountable for environmental harms or ensure redress for affected people.

What are its broader impacts?

A key concern is that TNFD is hijacking the broader conversation about how to stop the trillions of dollars in financing that is driving, and profiting from, the destruction of nature and human rights abuses. It is far removed from the solutions that the victims of corporate abuses and nature harms are calling for

What role does the UN play?

While the taskforce itself is made up only of business voices, the concept of TNFD was conceived and co-founded by WWF, Global Canopy, UNDP and the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI). UNEP-FI is a partnership between UNEP and global financial sector actors.

That UN agencies are backing and funding TNFD is extremely alarming. There is no mention of human rights in its framework, no gender analysis, no equal seat at the table for those on the front lines of the nature crisis and no discussion of accountability or that we cannot shift the market so long as businesses are allowed to keep the money they make off the back of environmental abuse.

Shona Hawkes ia a senior advisor with the Rainforest Action Network, and can be reached at shona@ran.org

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER