Many jurisdictions are legislating to protect nature and mitigate biodiversity loss. In-House Perspective takes stock of developments and the key takeaways for counsel.

Around the world, most new or proposed regulation designed to protect nature and mitigate biodiversity loss is grounded in the international treaties that laid the foundations for taking such action. In 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity set out objectives for conserving biodiversity and sharing its benefits. In 2014, the Nagoya Protocol entered into force, establishing international rules for biodiversity access and benefit sharing, which require companies that profit from natural resources and the traditional knowledge of how to use them to return some of that gain back to the local community.

In 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted during the COP15 conference. It sets out a pathway to reach ‘the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050.’ The Framework includes four goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030.

Signatories to the Framework have committed to setting national targets to implement its goals. Among these, Target 15 requires businesses to assess, disclose and reduce their biodiversity-related risks and negative impacts.

The emerging regulatory landscape

Australia

In Australia, a reform package pertaining to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), consisting of seven individual Acts, was passed in autumn 2025.

According to Ilona Millar, a partner at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, the new ministerial powers to create national environmental standards – which are contained in these reforms – are particularly noteworthy. She says the Australian government is currently consulting on a draft ‘matters of national environmental significance’ standard, which sets out the principles the Minister must apply when considering an action, which could be a project or development to carry out activities such as clearing vegetation, building dams or constructing infrastructure.

It’s also consulting on a draft environmental offsets standard, which can only be considered by the Minister when the impact to a protected matter is not unacceptable and can be compensated for under the EPBC Act. A protected matter is one of nine areas of the country or activities deemed to be of national environmental significance. This list includes world heritage areas, listed threatened species and ecological communities, as well as nuclear actions.

Millar also highlights the updated approvals test for projects and revised assessment pathways. These include a streamlined 30-day assessment and a requirement that all proponents of a ‘controlled action’ – those that may have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance – disclose estimates of its scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions.

She says that under the reforms it’s now possible to create bioregional plans in conjunction with state and territory governments. These plans will map ‘development zones’ in which certain registered ‘priority actions’ won’t have to be referred or approved, as well as ‘conservation zones’ where listed ‘restricted actions’ will be prohibited unless they have a Ministerial exemption.

The reforms also establish a National Environment Protection Agency, which will carry out compliance and enforcement activities. A Head of Environment Information Australia position has also been established. This independent leadership position will be responsible for making more environmental data and information available and improving access to it. 

Millar says Australia is also in the process of implementing a national, legislated biodiversity market through the Nature Repair Act 2023. She says this would be a voluntary environmental crediting scheme designed to deliver high-integrity biodiversity outcomes and increase investment in nature.

India

India first regulated to protect nature in 2002 via the Biological Diversity Act, which was followed by the Biological Diversity rules in 2004. According to Els Reynaers, Co-Chair of the IBA Environment, Health and Safety Law Committee, India’s legislation accurately mirrors principles set out by the Convention on Biological Diversity at the international level.

Reynaers, who’s also a partner at M V Kini in Mumbai, says India is keen to protect its traditional knowledge and has taken a leading position on biodiversity regulation. She adds that enforcement is also effective. Contracts need to be signed at the local level with communities, and these are scrutinised efficiently and in detail.

In December, the Supreme Court of India held in the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India that corporate social responsibility (CSR) includes corporate environmental responsibility and that the definition of ‘community’ in that obligation includes the natural world. As such the judgment linked protecting nature with the CSR obligations of Indian companies under the Companies Act 2013.

Under section 135 of the Companies Act, businesses with a net worth of INR 500 crore or more, a turnover of INR 1,000 crore or more, or a net profit of INR 5 crore or more are required to spend at least two per cent of their average net profits over the previous financial year on CSR activities.

Schedule 7 to the Companies Act outlines the kinds of activities that qualify under this obligation. The fourth bullet point of the Schedule outlines activities ‘ensuring environmental sustainability, ecological balance, protection of flora and fauna, animal welfare, agroforestry, conservation of natural resources and maintaining quality of soil, air and water’.

Reynaers says the Supreme Court judgment is the first time a case has linked a company’s obligation to protect nature with Schedule 7 to the Companies Act ‘in a very explicit manner’. She says a precedent like this is particularly useful as a reference point in a common law jurisdiction such as India. Reynaers adds that the judgment is a reminder that directors’ duties aren’t just about profit maximisation: they also have a broader fiduciary duty to protect the environment.

Chile

In Chile, Law No 21,600, which covers biodiversity and protected areas, was approved in 2023 but is still being implemented. In addition, 14 administrative regulations are currently being issued and are at different stages of development, as well as a fauna law covering capturing and hunting. A new biodiversity agency began operating earlier in 2026.

According to Lorna Püschel, a director at VGC Abogados in Santiago, the creation of the new law was motivated by the need for a united view on protected areas, a single strategy across the board and effective enforcement. In her view, having an agency under the Ministry of Environment that’s focused on conserving biodiversity should lead to a more unified approach.

Brazil

Fernanda Stefanelo, an officer of the IBA Environment, Health and Safety Law Committee, says Brazilian regulation follows the international approach. The legislative process began in 2001 with Provisional Act No 2186-16, which established the rules for access to Brazilian biodiversity and for benefit sharing.

In 2015, Federal Law No 13.123 was enacted. According to Brazil’s Ministry of Environment, this legislation ‘regulates the access to, and use of, genetic heritage, as well as the protection and access to its associated traditional knowledge, and benefit sharing for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity’. According to Stefanelo, who’s also a partner at Demarest in São Paulo, ‘this legislation reformulates completely the rules of access to Brazilian biodiversity and benefit sharing’.

Stefanelo says that some of the requirements of the legislation aren’t very clear. For example, when a raw material is from Brazil but the end product is developed abroad, it’s hard to know which legislation applies. This can be problematic in the context of global supply chains. She adds there are some exceptions to the regulations that can make the concept of genetic heritage more difficult to define and understand. Overall, however, Stefanelo says that ‘in terms of regulating the matter, we have a very good [legislative] scenario’.

The EU and the UK

In the UK, Schedule 14 to the Environment Act 2021 inserted Schedule 7A – covering biodiversity net gain requirements – into an earlier piece of legislation. These requirements became mandatory in 2024 and apply to both large and small developments, requiring a project to have a positive impact on biodiversity compared to what was there before.

The EU’s Revised Environmental Crime Directive came into force in 2024. Its coverage includes ‘wildlife crimes and deterioration of habitats, illegal shipment or dumping of waste, pollution crimes and illegal trading in hazardous substances’. It also introduced new ‘qualified offences’ – those that cause serious damage to, or destruction of, the environment and carry more severe penalties.

The EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation also entered force in 2024. It sets binding targets for restoring nature and degraded ecosystems. These targets cover pollinating insects, river connectivity and forest, urban, agricultural and marine ecosystems. The European Commission expects EU Member States to submit national restoration plans, showing how they will meet the Regulation’s targets, by September 2026.

Claudia Harper, an associate at Linklaters in London, says that because the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and European Sustainability Reporting Standards – which are currently being revised – require companies to assess the materiality of nature‑related issues in comparison to other sustainability subjects, they’re also pushing nature up the corporate agenda.

The Standards ask whether companies have a public biodiversity and ecosystems transition plan that covers how they’ll become compatible with global biodiversity goals, such as those outlined in the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. ‘Nature transition planning is still at a very early stage, but it will be interesting to see whether the Standards prompt more companies to adopt formal plans,’ Harper says.

Canada

Lisa DeMarco, Senior Partner and CEO of Resilient in Toronto, says that while there isn’t a specific law covering biodiversity loss in Canada, there’s case law looking at cumulative risk and impact. For example, while one impact on nature might not be material, the case law suggests that cumulative impacts over time may be.

Standard setting on nature

In November 2025 the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), part of the IFRS Foundation, announced it would ‘undertake standard-setting to introduce incremental disclosure requirements on nature-related risks and opportunities’ that aren’t covered by its existing work. It said its approach could be ‘a mix of application guidance or amendments to existing ISSB standards, industry-based guidance, additional sources of guidance or a new standard’.

The ISSB also said it would draw on the work of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), highlighting the benefits of the latter’s non-siloed approach to nature and its metrics and guidance, including the ‘Locate, Evaluate, Assess and Prepare’ approach. Earlier in 2025, the IFRS Foundation and the Taskforce announced a formal collaboration to enable nature-related financial disclosures for use by capital markets.

Richard Barker, a member of the ISSB, says that following a research phase on nature-related disclosures, standard setting is ‘the natural next step’. In relation to working with the TNFD, he adds that his organisation has ‘always taken a view of building on existing standards and frameworks and consolidating those as much as we can’.

Harper says standards and guidance ‘play a key role in shaping how companies are engaging with biodiversity [issues],’ for example in terms of how they measure and evaluate their risks and opportunities. She says the TNFD provides companies with a very clear framework to do this, which allows them to establish governance, risk and resilience systems to manage those risks and opportunities.

She adds that standards such as the TNFD also help companies publish and produce information for investors and the market that’s useful when making decisions. More companies are disclosing information about nature-related risks, and more investors are concerned about them. ‘We’re seeing this translate into investors expecting companies to make nature disclosures and to engage more with the standards,’ says Harper. She adds that investors are also starting to use this information to bring shareholder resolutions on biodiversity and nature issues.

Thinking seriously about risk

Barker says the progress businesses have made on thinking seriously about their nature-related risks and opportunities is between ten and 20 years behind the progress they’ve made on climate-related risks.

Legal opinions in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have highlighted potential director liability for nature-related risks. The most recent legal opinion on nature-related risks – published in summer 2025 – warns that Canadian directors risk lawsuits over climate and nature inaction. DeMarco, who wrote the opinion, says ‘nature-related risks are a fundamental financial risk and potentially very material’. She says it’s not possible to be diligent in a board or senior executive management position and ignore this class of risk.

DeMarco says the legal opinion provides specific examples of both upstream and downstream risks that go beyond the parameters of the day-to-day thinking of directors. They look, for example, at impact-related risks, logistics, fundamental supply chain issues and reputational risk. DeMarco argues that the majority of directors aren’t thinking about how nature-related risks will affect these aspects of their business.

The IBA has developed a toolkit intended to help in-house lawyers and other advisers to brief their clients on director liability. ‘The focus should be on the impact of your activities on biodiversity more generally, not just classic water, air and effluence,’ says Reynaers.

According to Barker, business leaders are reluctant to think deeply about nature risks in their value chain. However, he argues, ‘transition risks occur in the value chain’. When it comes to nature, the most significant risks will probably be several steps away from the entity along its supply chain.

In-house knowledge

Fundamentally, in-house lawyers should identify the regulations that apply to their company and consider which voluntary frameworks they can use to pinpoint and assess the organisation’s nature-related risks and opportunities.

If their company operates in Brazil, Stefanelo says in-house lawyers should evaluate whether its products are fully compliant with the country’s legislation. For example, she says some requirements were put in place between the implementation of Provisional Act No 2186-16 in 2001 and Federal Law No 13.123 in 2015 and these need to be taken into account.  

The latter piece of legislation covers activities that have already taken place. As such, Stefanelo says in-house lawyers need to check past projects to ensure they’re fully compliant. They should also consider how challenging it’ll be in the future to develop new projects that meet all of the relevant legal requirements.

If their company operates in Chile, Püschel says in-house lawyers should familiarise themselves with the new regulation there, because not many companies are aware of it. They should begin drafting scenarios and become involved as early as possible in the regulatory process, for example by responding to consultations.

Püschel adds that in-house teams shouldn’t forget the opportunities nature presents. There are many relevant economic instruments, for example, that could be explored and that could be of interest to companies, she says.

Harper believes it could help in-house lawyers to think about the governance structures and decision-making frameworks on sustainability issues, including nature, that the company already has in place. They could consider, for example, how nature is or could be managed through key performance indicators and how it fits into company policies, processes and incentives.

She adds that in-house lawyers could also think about how nature considerations are integrated into day-to-day operations. For example, sourcing requirements in procurement contracts could be strengthened to reduce negative impacts on nature. The business might require suppliers to set nature goals and targets or it could create obligations for suppliers to improve the recyclability of raw materials. The organisation could also enter into long-term contracts to support nature-positive practices.

Millar says that in Australia, keeping up to date with regulatory changes at the federal and state level will enable in-house counsel to offer better advice on environmental approval processes.

She adds that while nature-related financial disclosures aren’t mandatory, this is an evolving space. In-house lawyers should track the ISSB’s work and monitor how governments are engaging with standards to ensure their company is ready for new disclosure topics. Millar suggests in-house lawyers should work with business teams to trial TNFD risk assessments in order to understand the company’s nature-related risks and opportunities.

Barker says in relation to ISSB reporting, ‘it’s all about the investor, it’s all about business risk’. Companies should be thinking about scenario analysis, risk evaluation, strategy and business opportunity. ‘It’s a business way of thinking’, he says, ‘or it should be.’

According to DeMarco, in-house lawyers ‘should understand the potential magnitude of the risk’ and be aware of the possible materiality of both the nature-dependent aspects of the business and its impacts on nature. ‘Those are two critical elements,’ she says.

DeMarco adds that her legal opinion provides questions directors should ask on nature-related risks and makes pragmatic recommendations. She says these are intended as a tool that general counsel can use to champion the issue with board directors and other business leaders.

Reynaers says training is also important. For example, she says there could be niche aspects of nature that require a permit for business use that in-house lawyers would be unaware of without specialist training.

The Nature-Intelligent Legal Services series In February IBA committees launched the Nature-Intelligent Legal Services series, a guide for lawyers and law firms to understand nature-related risks and add client value through embedding nature into legal services. For more information, please visit www.ibanet.org/IBA-Nature-Intelligent-Legal-Services-Series