- Fossil fuels drive biodiversity loss through climate change, extraction in protected areas and pollution from plastics and pesticides.
- The Global Biodiversity Framework already gives countries a basis for addressing fossil fuels through its targets on climate, protected areas, pollution, subsidies and finance.
- COP17 should call for fair national phase-out plans with clear end dates, protection for sensitive areas, subsidy reform, an end to financing fossil fuel expansion and a nature-inclusive shift to renewable energy.
This summer, the disastrous effects of climate change became once again painfully tangible. For example, in Belgium’s High Fens, more than 3,000 hectares of peatland burned in what WWF Belgium called the country’s worst fire in a century. Ecologists expect recovery to take decades or even centuries. The fire may also have caused at least one local extinction by wiping out Belgium’s last black grouse population.
Climate disaster events like this fire are also happening in many other ecosystems. Climate change is one of the five main drivers of biodiversity loss. Some scientists expect it to overtake land-use change as the larger driver this century. It is already causing more frequent and severe heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and storms. It also redraws habitats by shifting species' ranges and seasonal rhythms, which can cause local extinctions and weaken ecosystems. One study forecasts that a third of animal and plant species could become extinct under high-emission scenarios.
Coal, oil and gas account for around 73% of global greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Mitigating climate change by phasing out their supply is therefore also a condition for meeting the biodiversity targets. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework recognises the link between climate change and nature protection explicitly. Target 8 asks countries to minimise the impact of climate change on biodiversity through mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Beyond climate change, the sector harms nature in two more direct ways.
Drilling in protected areas
Last year, an international group of investigative journalists found that more than 3000 oil and gas permits overlap with protected areas globally. While many of these operations may be legal, they do bring significant risks of damaging nature. Roads and pipelines fragment habitats, operations bring air, water, noise and light pollution, and there are risks of spills that leave damage that can last for decades.
This collides with GBF Target 3, which commits countries to effectively conserve at least 30% of land, inland waters and seas by 2030, with any use of those areas fully consistent with conservation outcomes. Expansion of oil and gas extraction in protected areas is hard to reconcile with that condition.
The petrochemical footprint
Another way in which fossil fuels harm nature comes through the petrochemical industry. Many synthetic pesticides and nearly all plastics are made from oil, coal and gas. Pesticides such as neonicotinoids affect species well beyond their intended targets, harming bees, birds and aquatic animals.
In addition, an estimated 19 to 23 million tonnes of plastic waste enters rivers, lakes and seas each year, roughly 2.5 to 3 kg for every person on Earth. It harms animals through ingestion, entanglement and toxic additives, and it carries pathogens with it.
GBF Target 7 commits countries to cut pollution to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity by 2030. That includes halving the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals and working towards eliminating plastic pollution. A growing petrochemical industry pushes us in the opposite direction.
From Santa Marta to Yerevan
Some argue that fossil fuel policy belongs in climate negotiations rather than biodiversity talks. Yet fossil fuels are already covered indirectly by the Global Biodiversity Framework through its targets on protected areas, pollution, climate action and harmful subsidies.
As the official UN Global Review on progress on biodiversity targets recognises: “planning for climate and biodiversity often proceeds without formal coordination”. Yerevan is an opportunity to renew the call for a planned fossil fuel phase-out in a coordinated manner for climate and nature together.
Momentum for fossil phase-out is growing. In April, 57 countries met in Santa Marta for the first international conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels. France, Germany and the Netherlands have since taken steps towards national phase-out plans, although their targets vary in scope and ambition.
Every country should develop such a plan in line with the Paris Agreement, with the pace reflecting its contribution to climate change, current emissions, financial capacity and development needs. Countries with the greatest historical responsibility and resources should move fastest and provide finance and technology to support a fair transition in developing countries.
Yerevan provides an opportunity for renewed attention to the ‘twin’ climate and biodiversity challenge. What ingredients should a fossil phase-out plan that integrates nature have?
1. Put end dates on fossil fuel use and production in national biodiversity plans. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) should link to a fossil-fuel phase-out plan, linking Target 8 to binding end dates for coal, oil and gas, covering extraction and use.
2. Close protected and environmentally significant areas to oil and gas exploration. No new licences in protected areas, and a timetable to retire existing ones in areas that countries count towards the 30% target.
3. Reform and phase out fossil fuel subsidies. GBF Target 18 requires countries to cut incentives harmful to biodiversity by at least USD 500 billion a year by 2030. Fossil fuel subsidies belong at the top of that list.
4. Introduce a ban on financing fossil expansion. The largest banks keep the fossil fuel industry running. In 2025 they provided USD 906 billion to fossil fuel companies, 8% more than the year before, and USD 508 billion went to companies expanding coal, oil and gas. Governments should prohibit new financing for fossil fuel expansion and require banks and investors to align their portfolios to a phase-out pathway.
5. Scale up renewable energy within ecological limits and reduce demand. Renewable energy is essential, but mining, material use and poorly located infrastructure can damage habitats and biodiversity. Governments should therefore require responsible sourcing, careful spatial planning and strong nature safeguards, while reducing energy demand to limit pressure on land and natural resources.
Climate and biodiversity cannot be treated as separate crises. Fossil phase-out and nature policies should reinforce each other, reducing the pressures that drive biodiversity loss and creating conditions for ecosystems to recover. COP17 should make clear that protecting nature requires a planned phase-out of fossil fuels.