COP17: Yerevan pathway for nature leaves out the money and the detail

It was supposed to be a moment for course correction, a chance to agree on how to tackle the drivers of decline and disappearance of species, genetic diversity and ecosystems.

However, when the UN COP17 biodiversity conference closed on Saturday in Yerevan, Armenia, many delegates left disappointed that the urgency of the problem had not been matched by the response.

“It demonstrated that the multilateral system is still capable of speaking out but not of resolving issues,” Oscar Soria, CEO of the Common Initiative, told Dialogue Earth.

Four years ago, governments had agreed to a set of ambitious targets for 2030 via the the Global Biodiversity Framework. But 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. It sets up a response to those findings but, experts agreed, largely refers to previously agreed text and is imprecise on practical steps ahead.

“The obstructionist politics of the climate talks have entered the biodiversity negotiations,” said Alfred DeGemmis, director of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society, in a statement.

Observers said Russia repeatedly tried to weaken language on Indigenous rights, the high seas and harmful subsidies, with Saudi Arabia and India also resisting references to subsidy reform.

Negotiators dropped earlier language calling for a transformation of economic and financial systems and for reform of harmful practices. Instead, the text requires “increased action to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss.”

Developed countries and those “in a position to do so” are “strongly encouraged” to increase support to developing countries, but the text names no amounts.

There is an estimated USD 700 billion gap between what is needed to solve the biodiversity crisis and what has actually been raised.

“Sometimes the work we do is a drop of the ocean due to the size of biodiversity crisis,” said COP17 President Hambardzum Matevosyan at a press conference. “This wasn’t enough, but we have achieved more than we could have expected.”

An uphill task

Yerevan was smaller and quieter than the last summit, COP16, in Cali, Colombia. About 9,300 people registered, against more than 23,000 in Cali, and protests were limited and held indoors. The negotiations, though, were tense.

Cali had failed to officially close after it went into overtime, delegates started leaving, and it lost the quorum. The meeting had to reconvene months later in Rome. Yerevan went a bit more smoothly, finishing in the early hours of Saturday instead of the scheduled Friday evening, after a final plenary of nearly 12 hours.

Representatives hold small-group discussions during the closing plenary at COP17 (Image: Chen Junfeng / Xinhua / Alamy)

Countries had gone through two gruelling weeks of negotiations, with stark differences of opinion on how to address the gaps in biodiversity action.

“Those of us who keep forest standing cannot carry the burden while those with high emissions and consumption walk away,” Panama’s environment minister, Juan Carlos Navarro, said at a press conference.

While Ireland’s nature minister, Christopher O’Sullivan, said at another press conference that some countries still classed as developing “obviously need to play their part” in funding nature protection.

In the Global Biodiversity Framework, developed countries committed to raise at least USD 20 billion a year in public finance by 2025, rising to USD 30 billion by 2030. The Global Review said that goal had likely been missed. OECD data show funding reached about USD 19 billion in 2024, but averaged around USD 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.

Money working against nature

The debate over how much money is missing hides another problem: where the money already goes. Governments spend about USD 1.8 trillion a year on subsidies that harm nature, such as those that encourage deforestation.

Target 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework calls for cutting harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion a year by 2030. Progress here has been particularly limited. Earlier drafts of the Global Review urged stronger action. But the Yerevan Pathway final text only “encourages” countries to “accelerate” implementation of the target, based on their “national circumstances.”

A coalition co-chaired by Colombia and Finland, called the Friends of Target 18, also launched to help countries share solutions.

“The prevalence of the [harmful subsidies] theme in the negotiations is a positive sign,” An Lambrechts, Greenpeace biodiversity policy expert, told Dialogue Earth. “Industries that profit from destroying nature should also step up here.”

Genetic resources and Indigenous peoples

A similar logic is behind the Cali Fund, created at COP16 to make companies pay for genetic data, but nearly empty two years later.

Under the fund, companies are asked to voluntarily pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue, with the aim of raising USD 1 billion a year for conservation. Half of the money is earmarked for Indigenous peoples and local communities. However, only about USD 10,500 had been pledged by the end of the Yerevan COP.

Countries were supposed to finalise the details, such as which companies – small, medium or large – should contribute to the fund and how the money will be distributed. However, decisions were pushed to next year after countries failed to agree.

“Indigenous peoples and local communities cannot keep waiting while companies free ride off nature’s genetic information,” June Rubis, scholar and member of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, said in a statement.

They did see some progress on their specific track, however. Countries agreed on how a permanent body for Indigenous peoples and local communities, created at COP16, will work. It can make recommendations to COP, but decisions remain with governments.

“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,” Inara Waty Sateré-Mawé, vice-coordinator of COIAB, an indigenous organisation in Brazil, said at COP.

Science and the ocean

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, the UN science panel on biodiversity.

Speaking at the closing plenary, a representative from the European Union said they were “deeply concerned” by attempts to “undermine the science” and diminish the contribution of IPBES, calling it one of the “best compasses” available.

Negotiations on ocean biodiversity were also contentious. Russia opposed references to the agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, known as the High Seas Treaty, which entered into force in January and has been ratified by more than 100 countries.

Yerevan’s final text on marine biodiversity only took note of the treaty’s entry into force rather than welcoming it, though countries agreed to create an informal advisory group on the convention’s work in the high seas.

Brianna Fruean, a climate and ocean activist from Samoa, said this development was deeply disappointing. “The world is running out of time while political leaders argue over words and punctuation,” she said in a statement.

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”.

For Astrid Schomaker, head of the UN biodiversity convention, the real test is what governments change when they return home.

“We cannot protect nature while continuing to finance its destruction. Resources must reach the countries and communities that need them. And biodiversity must become part of everyday economic decisions,” she said in a statement.