The UN’s COP17 biodiversity conference in Armenia concluded without meaningful progress on combating the forces behind species decline, as divisions revealed a stark disconnect between goals and real-world action. Attendees had hoped the event would serve as a turning point for reversing the loss of wildlife, genetic variation, and natural habitats, but little was achieved.
Attendees expressed frustration that the severity of the crisis did not translate into stronger commitments. Oscar Soria, CEO of the Common Initiative, remarked that while the global system can still voice concerns, it remains unable to resolve them effectively.
Global Biodiversity Framework
Four years ago, governments agreed to a set of ambitious targets for 2030 via the Global Biodiversity Framework. However, none are on a fully positive trajectory based on the Global Review presented earlier this year. At COP17, governments adopted the Yerevan Pathway to address this gap, but experts agreed it largely refers to previously agreed text and is imprecise on practical steps ahead.
Alfred DeGemmis from the Wildlife Conservation Society criticized how climate negotiation tactics had seeped into biodiversity discussions. Meanwhile, Astrid Schomaker, head of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, stressed that funding must reach vulnerable regions and that nature must be integrated into economic planning.
Russia led efforts to dilute references to Indigenous rights, ocean conservation, and harmful financial incentives, with Saudi Arabia and India also opposing stronger language on subsidies. Earlier proposals for systemic economic and financial reforms were removed from the final text.
Wealthy nations and those able to contribute were urged to boost aid for developing countries, but the agreement did not specify funding levels. Experts estimate a shortfall of $700 billion between current financial commitments and what’s needed to address the biodiversity emergency.
Read Also: Southeast Asia farms turn to regenerative methods
Yerevan Pathway Details
This wasn’t enough, but we have achieved more than we could have expected.” The negotiations were tense, with countries having gone through two grueling weeks of discussions, and stark differences of opinion on how to address the gaps in biodiversity action.
Panama’s environment minister, Juan Carlos Navarro, accused high-consumption nations of avoiding responsibility while countries preserving forests shoulder the burden. In contrast, Ireland’s nature minister, Christopher O’Sullivan, argued that some developing nations must also contribute to conservation financing.
The Global Biodiversity Framework committed developed countries to raise at least US$20 billion a year in public finance by 2025, rising to US$30 billion by 2030. However, the Global Review said that goal had likely been missed, with OECD data showing funding reached about US$19 billion in 2024, but averaged around US$16 billion a year over 2023-25.
A coalition of developed countries, JUSCANZ, asked to “broaden the contribution base” to get emerging economies such as China and India on the list of countries that pay for nature protection. In the end, nations wanting to join the donor list were invited to signal their interest, while others can contribute voluntarily without being added to it.
Beyond the funding shortfall lies another issue: how existing money is allocated. Governments annually spend roughly $1.8 trillion on subsidies that damage ecosystems, such as those promoting deforestation. The framework’s Target 18 aims to cut these harmful incentives by at least $500 billion yearly by 2030.
Countries agreed on how a permanent body for Indigenous peoples and local communities will work. It can make recommendations to COP, but decisions remain with governments.
Read Also: Indonesian community halts coal plant
Inara Waty Sateré-Mawé, vice-coordinator of COIAB, an indigenous organisation in Brazil, said, “Yes, we are present here, but it’s the colonial state who is sitting at the negotiation table. We don’t have the conditions to do that.”
Next Steps
The next chance to close these gaps will be COP18 in Quito, Ecuador, in 2028, two years before the 2030 deadline. An Ecuadorian environment ministry official told the plenary the country would work “in a transparent and constructive way”.
Countries also adopted a text on biodiversity and climate change that invites governments to consider new voluntary guidelines for scaling up nature-based solutions. But, after objections, it dropped references to last year’s International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on climate change and to an assessment by IPBES.
Negotiations on ocean biodiversity were contentious, with Russia opposing references to the High Seas Treaty. The final text on marine biodiversity only took note of the treaty’s entry into force rather than welcoming it.
Brianna Fruean, a climate and ocean activist from Samoa, said this development was deeply disappointing, stating, “The world is running out of time while political leaders argue over words and punctuation.”
