Subscribe
The 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP17) concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, on October 31, with countries adopting a new roadmap to accelerate global action on biodiversity.
The conference's central challenge, however, remains unresolved, as countries have fallen behind on their commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, with only four years left to meet the targets.
The two-week conference adopted nearly 50 decisions, including the Yerevan Pathway, a negotiated response to the first global review of collective progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). The framework, adopted in 2022, set out 23 targets to be achieved by 2030, including conserving 30% of the world's land and seas, restoring degraded ecosystems, and mobilising resources for biodiversity protection.
The first global review of KMGBF, informed by the “State of Biodiversity Action” report released ahead of the conference, found that collective efforts are insufficient to achieve KMGBF’s targets within the stipulated timeframe.
The Yerevan Pathway was formulated amid growing concerns over the gap between international commitments and action on the ground. The Pathway identifies priorities for accelerating implementation of KMGBF until 2030. These include reforming subsidies and incentives that harm biodiversity, aligning national budgets and economic decisions with conservation objectives, increasing financial and technical support to developing countries, and strengthening monitoring, reporting, and review mechanisms.
"The next four years must bring acceleration and alignment with what we agreed when we adopted the KMGBF," said Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
"We know what needs to change. We cannot protect nature while continuing to finance its destruction. Resources must reach the countries and communities that need them. Biodiversity must become part of everyday economic decisions. Ultimately, the test is not what governments agreed in Yerevan, but what they change when they return home," she said.
Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity concerns the knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use.
One of the prime demands of indigenous communities across the globe was the setting up of a permanent body on Article 8(j). The permanent body, agreed upon at COP16, provides a formal space for indigenous peoples and local communities to contribute their views and advice directly to biodiversity negotiations.
COP17 adopted the operational rules that will guide the permanent body on Article 8(j). They were officially named the Sevan Guidelines.
The adoption of the operational rules marks a step towards putting Article8(j) into practice, and thereby strengthening the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in shaping global biodiversity policy and implementation.
COP17 also adopted decisions on protected areas and forest biodiversity, sustainable wildlife management, invasive alien species, synthetic biology and risk assessment of living modified organisms.
It agreed to establish an ad hoc technical expert group to further operationalise the biodiversity monitoring framework and support countries in preparing their next national reports. New optional indicators were also recognised to help countries assess progress towards the global targets.
Jennifer Tauli-Corpuz, policy advisor of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) and expert-member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said, “We believe that the modus operandi adopted today gives us the basis to use our own governance systems … With this decision, we strengthen the inclusivity of 8(j), which further enables rights-based implementation of the CBD.”
Biodiversity financing was among the most contentious subjects at COP17, with developed and developing countries divided over who should bear the responsibility for funding conservation.
Under the global biodiversity framework, countries had committed to mobilising at least USD 200 billion annually from all sources by 2030, including increasing international biodiversity finance from developed to developing countries to at least USD 30 billion annually by 2030.
However, the first global review found that developed countries had failed to meet their earlier commitment to mobilise at least USD 20 billion annually by 2025. The negotiations also took place against the backdrop of declining aid and a reported 27% reduction in environmental funding for the 2026–30 period.
Developed countries, particularly European nations, pushed for a broader contributor base, arguing that emerging economies whose economic circumstances have changed should also contribute to biodiversity financing. Countries including China, India, and Saudi Arabia were among those potentially discussed in this context.
Developing countries opposed making this a condition for securing greater financial support. They pointed to the historical responsibility of developed countries and their existing obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The eventual compromise did not expand the list of donor countries. Instead, countries not currently on the list of developed-country donors can voluntarily signal their interest in assuming these obligations through confidential consultations ahead of COP18.
The negotiations also agreed on criteria for a permanent financial mechanism to support biodiversity protection after 2030. However, the question of whether this would take the form of a new fund or use existing financial arrangements was deferred to COP18 in 2028.
The conference announced nearly USD 2 billion in new biodiversity funding and financial commitments. These include USD 560 million under the ninth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility and its Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, USD 500 million through the Species Recovery Alliance and more than USD 330 million through the Value Nature Fund, which aims to mobilise private capital for nature.
Other initiatives included a biodiversity bond and investment incubator launched by the Asian Development Bank and a presidency-led effort to reform harmful incentives.
The negotiations on digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources were another major focus of COP17.
DSI refers to digital genetic information, such as DNA and RNA sequences, derived from biological resources. It is used in research and commercial applications across industries, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, agriculture, and biotechnology.
At COP16 in Colombia in 2024, countries established the Cali Fund and a multilateral mechanism to ensure that companies benefiting from the commercial use of DSI contribute to benefit-sharing. A significant portion of the resources is intended to support indigenous peoples and local communities.
COP17 was expected to finalise important operational details, including which companies should contribute, how much they should pay, and how the money would be distributed. However, negotiations remained divided over these issues, with several decisions pushed to further discussions before COP18.
The scale of the funding challenge is evident from the contributions received so far. According to Carbon Brief's analysis of the negotiations, the Cali Fund had received pledges of just USD 10,565 by the end of COP17, with actual deposits amounting to less than USD 9,000. No large company from the sectors identified as major users of DSI had contributed to the fund.
The Yerevan Pathway is intended to guide national efforts until 2030, with progress assessed through changes in policies, the delivery of resources, and measurable improvements for nature and people.
COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan said the negotiations demonstrated that countries could bridge differences and turn commitments into decisions.
"With the adoption of the Yerevan Pathway, we demonstrate our collective determination to respond to one of the most urgent challenges of our time. It sets out priorities for collective action, from implementing national plans and mobilising financial resources to strengthening science, monitoring, and the participation of all sectors of society," he said.
UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen described the conference as an effort to accelerate the implementation of the global biodiversity framework.
"In Yerevan, we saw environmental multilateralism prevail once again. Countries came together, found the spirit of compromise, and allowed us to agree on important decisions that will support real progress for people and for the planet," she said.
But the challenge extends beyond reaching agreements at international summits. Governments will have to translate the decisions into national policies, allocate adequate resources, and ensure that conservation efforts produce tangible results for ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.
The next biodiversity conference, COP18, will be held in Ecuador in 2028.
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
