Submission by TRAFFIC to the UK’s International Climate Finance Call for Evidence

TRAFFIC is the leading global network working to ensure that trade in wild species is legal, sustainable, and traceable, for the benefit of people, nature, and the planet. Our work sits at the intersection of biodiversity conservation, sustainable livelihoods, governance, and climate resilience.

TRAFFIC is submitting evidence to this inquiry because the International Climate Finance (ICF) portfolio has been a critical enabler of integrated climate, nature, and development action in many of the contexts where we operate. Reductions to Official Development Assistance (ODA), and the resulting pressure on ICF commitments, risk undermining effective and cost-efficient interventions that simultaneously address climate change, biodiversity loss, and poverty. Given the strong links between climate resilience and sustainable wildlife trade, any weakening of ICF has direct implications for TRAFFIC’s work and for the communities and ecosystems that depend on it.

Effectiveness of the UK’s Current ICF Portfolio

The UK’s £11.6 billion ICF commitment for 2021–2026 has been a cornerstone of its international climate and development leadership. It supports mitigation, adaptation, and nature protection in countries that are least responsible for climate change yet most exposed to its impacts. Civil society organisations, including TRAFFIC, have consistently warned that cuts, delays, or accounting changes risk weakening both the scale and the integrity of this finance. Reclassifying existing aid as climate finance does not increase real support on the ground and risks eroding the UK’s credibility as a global climate leader at a time when ambition and trust are critically needed.

For TRAFFIC, reduced or weakened ICF commitments threaten funding for nature-positive climate solutions that protect ecosystems under pressure from climate change and unsustainable wildlife trade. Climate change and biodiversity loss are mutually reinforcing crises. Climate impacts accelerate habitat degradation, alter species distributions, and increase pressures on natural resources, while biodiversity loss weakens ecosystems’ capacity to regulate climate, store carbon, and protect communities from extreme weather events. The scientific consensus is clear: healthy ecosystems are fundamental to climate regulation, adaptation, and long-term resilience.

TRAFFIC’s work demonstrates these connections in practice. Illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade contributes directly to forest degradation, wetland loss, and marine ecosystem decline, undermining carbon storage, water regulation, and food security. Where climate finance supports ecosystem restoration, sustainable use, and community resilience, it reduces incentives for illegal trade and strengthens stewardship of natural resources. Conversely, weakening climate finance that underpins these approaches risks reversing progress on both climate and biodiversity objectives.

Integrating Climate, Biodiversity, and Development Goals

UK ICF has made a meaningful difference in strengthening communities’ ability to respond to climate change by supporting ecosystem protection, sustainable livelihoods, and governance reforms. In countries where TRAFFIC works, climate finance has helped maintain forests and wetlands that store carbon, regulate water flows, and underpin legal and sustainable wildlife trade. These investments have also supported alternative livelihoods, reduced pressure on wildlife, and improved local resilience to climate events. Integrated solutions that link climate finance with biodiversity protection and sustainable wildlife trade address root causes rather than symptoms, delivering more durable and equitable outcomes.

TRAFFIC’s experience suggests that the effectiveness of ICF could be further enhanced by deepening integration between climate, biodiversity, and livelihoods objectives; expanding support for long-term institutional and community capacity; and strengthening impact measurement beyond emissions reductions to include resilience, biodiversity, and governance outcomes. Where ICF has invested in nature-based solutions, such as forest protection, sustainable land management, and ecosystem restoration, it has delivered multiple, mutually reinforcing benefits. These approaches are cost-effective, scalable, and aligned with both climate and biodiversity goals.

The Cost of Inaction

At the 29th Meeting of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the international community recognised the scale of the challenge by committing to mobilise at least USD 300 billion per year in climate finance by 2035. Against this backdrop, the UK’s current ICF commitment represents responsible global leadership. Reducing it would undermine the UK’s standing, withdraw support from vulnerable communities already experiencing climate impacts, and risk reversing hard-won progress on deforestation and biodiversity loss.

The economic case for sustained investment is compelling. The estimated cost of reversing biodiversity decline by 2030, approximately USD 700 billion per year, is modest when compared to the economic damage already caused by crises such as COVID-19, which itself has been linked to biodiversity loss and unsustainable wildlife trade. More than half of global GDP, around USD 58 trillion, depends directly on healthy ecosystems, making nature loss a direct threat to economic stability, development, and security.

International Climate Finance Round 4

As the UK considers the next International Climate Finance round (ICF4), it is essential that the integrated climate/ nature/ development approach is not only maintained but strengthened. ICF4 should retain a dedicated sub-pledge for nature-based solutions, building on the success of ICF3, under which £3 billion of the £11.6 billion total commitment was allocated to nature. To deliver meaningful impact and value for money in tackling both climate change and biodiversity loss while supporting sustainable development, at least one third of ICF4 should be committed to nature-based solutions.

At least half of this nature allocation should again be earmarked for forests, reflecting the proven effectiveness of forest-focused investments across all three previous ICF rounds, including in addressing illegal and unsustainable timber trade. Nature programming should prioritise grant-based finance and the direct protection and restoration of ecosystems, including support for existing and expanded Protected Areas, where benefits for climate mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity conservation are most immediate and durable.

ICF4 must also be accompanied by a significant improvement in data transparency and accountability. Clear, accessible information on how much climate and nature finance is being spent, in which countries, and on which programmes is essential to rebuilding UK public support for aid, enabling genuine partnerships with countries in the Global South, and strengthening accountability for results.

Conclusion

TRAFFIC's strong support for the UK's International Climate Finance demonstrates a commitment to meaningful, effective global climate and nature action. By maintaining and strengthening ICF commitments, embedding integrated climate-nature strategies, ensuring transparency and accountability, and leveraging complementary finance, the UK has a powerful opportunity to continue driving systemic change at the scale required to address the interconnected challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable wildlife trade.