Interview: Gaby Allheilig
UNEP’s GEO-7 report compares the current trajectory of the global environment with “an alternative vision of the future”. The report calls explicitly for transformative, systemic change – what’s new about that?
GEO-7 represents a fundamental shift in approach compared to previous editions of the report. While the earlier GEO reports primarily documented environmental problems and their trends, GEO-7 places explicit focus on solutions. The report addresses the planetary crises – climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and desertification, and pollution and waste – and centres on the transformation of five key interconnected systems.
What are the five systems?
The economy, materials and waste, energy, food, and a resilient environment. GEO-7 stands out for its integrated approach. Previous environmental policies that tried to conserve or clean up the environment couldn’t keep pace with the rate of environmental degradation. GEO-7 recognizes that we must address the root causes of environmental degradation by transforming entire systems, rather than treating the symptoms.
The report translates scientific evidence into effective policy action and offers policymakers a practical framework on how to reshape social and economic systems to achieve environmental sustainability in an equitable way, applying whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.
___________________________________________________________________________
“This assessment should be seen as a stark and urgent reminder”
___________________________________________________________________________
GEO-7 reminds us that most of the internationally agreed environmental targets “are unlikely to be met with existing policies and practices”. Does this call into question former global conferences?
Global conferences remain essential forums for setting collective ambitions and mobilizing action. The problem isn’t the conferences themselves, but rather the gap between the commitments made and their implementation. In this sense, rather than calling global conferences into question, this assessment should be seen as a stark and urgent reminder that underscores the importance of such events. The finding that current policies cannot keep pace with environmental degradation validates the need for stronger international cooperation, not less.
___________________________________________________
“GEO looks at the environment as a whole”
___________________________________________________
What makes you think that GEO-7 will be different from other assessments and actually have an impact?
I’d say that it gets increasingly more difficult to have an impact because all the agendas are highly politicized. Even within these conferences – and we’ve seen that with the derailed Plastic Treaty – it’s getting more and more difficult to reach a consensus among Member States on action for an environmental cause. I’m not saying that GEO-7 will revolutionize the impact of these global conferences. But the GEO reports look at the environment as a whole, unlike other major reports like IPCC for climate change, or IPBES for biodiversity. And the GEO-7 provides solutions for deep and transformative change within those systems.
GEO-7 itself doesn’t include a “summary for policymakers” as such reports usually do, because some countries didn’t approve it. What does this mean for the relationship between science and policy?
The GEO-7 situation reveals an unprecedented and troubling vulnerability in science–policy interfaces: consensus-based approval processes allow a few delegations to block progress through procedural rather than evidential objections. Without government endorsement, scientific findings lose the political legitimacy needed to drive collective action, and hence carry less weight. This raises concerns for future global assessment negotiations, given that these assessments form the scientific foundation underpinning global environmental action. Scientific rigour should not be the subject of political negotiation.
The report identifies the transformation of economic and financial systems as a prerequisite for the transformation of all other systems. What does that mean?
It means repurposing environmentally harmful subsidies and ensuring that financial flows do not harm the environment but instead support it. Our current economic and financial systems are driving environmental destruction rather than preventing it.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Every year, nearly USD 7 trillion is invested in activities that have a negative impact on nature”
________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you have facts and figures to support this?
Yes, and they speak for themselves: Every year, nearly USD 7 trillion, or about 7% of global GDP, is invested worldwide in activities that have a direct negative impact on nature. At the same time, investment in nature-based solutions in 2022 totalled only about USD 200 billion, more than 30 times less.
Government spending on environmentally harmful subsidies alone is estimated at USD 1.7 trillion in 2022 in the areas of agriculture, fossil fuels, fisheries, and forestry. Fossil fuel subsidies for consumers have doubled from USD 563 billion in 2021 to USD 1.163 trillion in 2022. These financial flows actively undermine environmental goals.
And what about private investment?
Private financial flows that negatively impact nature amount to USD 5 trillion annually, while current annual investment in nature-based solutions totals only around USD 133–154 billion. In other words, harmful private flows are more than thirty times larger than investments in nature-based solutions. Until we address this massive imbalance, other transformations in food, energy, and materials systems will have to swim against an overwhelming tide of misaligned economic incentives.
______________________________________________________________________________
“Today’s economic model has already reached unsustainable levels”
______________________________________________________________________________
One of the proposed measures is that social and environmental externalities should be priced into goods and services. That’s been tried before – not least through the Pigouvian tax – without much success. What hope do we have of it working this time?
While it’s true that implementing pricing externalities has faced challenges, describing these measures as “unsuccessful” overlooks the significant progress that’s been made. Some countries that have introduced carbon pricing have achieved encouraging results with lower carbon emissions than would otherwise have been the case.
GEO-7 recognizes that externality pricing has had mixed success. At the same time, the report makes clear that pricing externalities remain a necessary measure to value environmental costs and steer markets onto sustainable pathways. In practice, instruments such as pollution taxes, charges, and tradable permits have contributed to lower emissions and resource use in many sectors.
For example?
For example, industrial air pollution has fallen in the European Union by about one third over the past decade, partly due to environmental policies that put a cost on industrial pollution. GEO-7 also stresses that revenues from such instruments can be recycled to support green investments and protect vulnerable households, making externality pricing a cornerstone of a fair and effective transition – rather than an “old” idea that has failed.
And we need to act urgently, because today’s economic model has already reached unsustainable levels.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“GEO-7 has fully integrated the concerns and knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities”
__________________________________________________________________________________
You mentioned the carbon market. Today, this market is largely dominated by offset projects. The recently published Land Matrix Analytical Report showed that 8.8 million hectares of land have already been acquired for carbon offsetting, solely through large-scale land acquisitions. And these projects often take place in regions that are home to Indigenous peoples and local communities. Does GEO-7 intend to continue in this direction?
Of course not. GEO-7 has deliberately moved away from top-down “one size fits all” approaches. The report is characterized by an unprecedented inclusivity: For the first time in the GEO process, Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge-holders from around the world have helped to actively shape the report through a series of consultations and dialogues. We also had an Indigenous and local knowledge taskforce guide the process across all of the chapters, making sure that every chapter contained the concerns and knowledge contributed by Indigenous peoples and local communities.
We are fully aware of the risk of green grabbing and false solutions through land acquisitions, and the damage carbon offsetting can cause when badly managed. We are definitely not thinking about carbon offsetting in terms of maximizing the uptake of CO2 sequestration in order to market it and generate as much profit as possible.
But?
But the carbon market has evolved and there are many other models for carbon offsetting that address these issues. For example, policy instruments can be combined and the income generated from carbon offsetting can be invested back to support local livelihoods and communities.
________________________________________________________________________________
“The money exists, it’s a matter of redirecting it in the right direction”
________________________________________________________________________________
The report states that it’s possible to obtain the necessary funding for climate and biodiversity goals – together amounting to some 7 to 8 trillion US dollars. Where is this money meant to come from?
The key insight from GEO-7 and related UNEP reports is that we don’t necessarily need “new money”, but we need to redirect the large sums – the approximately USD 7 trillion I mentioned earlier – that are already flowing annually into nature-negative activities. The money exists, but it’s a matter of redirecting it in the right direction, knowing that the costs of inaction are far higher. At the same time, there is growing interest from businesses and financial institutions in redirecting capital towards nature-positive and resource-efficient investments, which can reduce energy use and operating costs, and open new market opportunities.
Ultimately, GEO-7 reminds us that our economies are fundamentally dependent on nature’s contributions: Nature is, in effect, our primary supplier and service provider, and the choice is whether we continue undermining that foundation or decide to safeguard it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“A just transition must embed equity, inclusiveness, and respect for human rights”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
GEO-7 modelling shows that by 2050, almost 200 million people could be lifted out of undernourishment and over 100 million out of extreme poverty. What does the report mean by “compensatory mechanisms” for the poorest and most vulnerable populations?
Compensatory mechanisms are policies and programmes designed to ensure that the transition to environmental sustainability does not disproportionately burden vulnerable populations. A just transition must involve not only targeted compensatory measures, but also a process of embedding equity, inclusiveness, and respect for human rights in sectoral and cross-cutting policy areas.
Can you give some examples of this?
Examples of compensatory mechanisms include the redistribution of carbon tax revenue or just transition funds, such as those in the EU that allocate subsidies for exiting coal extraction. Another example is subsidy reform protection, such as Morocco maintaining butane subsidies specifically for lower-income households who depend on this fuel for cooking.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“Seeing how science is relevant to global governance is a very satisfactory feeling”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Regarding the process of developing GEO-7: Did all the participants involved agree on everything, or were there any points of contention?
The negotiation process took place among the UN Member States. But almost 300 scientists including Indigenous peoples were involved in writing the GEO-7. Of course, there are opposing views here and there but from my personal experience, this was very marginal.
You have served as one of the coordinating lead authors of GEO-7 for the last three years. What’s your personal takeaway of the whole process?
These gatherings of scientists are challenging, yet also very exciting, intellectual experiences. As a scientist, it’s a unique moment in your career. It's much more powerful than scientific conferences. At these huge conferences you attend your session, present your paper, and everything is timed. So, you end up staying with the scientists you already know. At GEO-7 meetings, however, you develop friendships with the other scientists because you see them regularly. The atmosphere is extremely friendly and open. And seeing how science is relevant to global governance is a very satisfactory feeling.
