The short version
- COP17 concluded in Yerevan with governments failing to meet the majority of biodiversity targets set four years ago.
- Diplomats and activists are calling for structural reforms to replace the consensus-based decision-making model that allows single nations to block progress.
- Key financial mechanisms, including a fund for digital biodiversity resources, were postponed, leaving significant gaps in conservation funding.
The seventeenth Conference of the Parties on biodiversity concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, with a stark acknowledgment that global efforts to protect nature are failing. After two weeks of negotiations, participating nations agreed to redouble their commitments but fell short of delivering concrete mechanisms to halt ecosystem destruction. The outcome underscores a persistent pattern within the United Nations framework, where governments have historically missed environmental targets over the convention’s thirty-four-year history.
The summit focused on implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was adopted by nearly every government four years ago. These agreements aimed to transform humanity’s relationship with the natural world by protecting thirty percent of the planet, restoring degraded ecosystems, and reforming half a trillion dollars in environmentally damaging subsidies. Despite these ambitious goals, current trajectories indicate that countries are significantly off track on almost all metrics. For instance, the United Kingdom is projected to meet only three of its twenty-three specific targets.
Frustration with the diplomatic process has reached a boiling point among some delegates. Juan Carlos Navarro, Panama’s environment minister and a veteran conservationist, criticized the current system as fundamentally flawed. He argued that the requirement for unanimous consensus allows a single dissenting nation to stall meaningful progress, effectively designing the summits for failure. Navarro suggested that the UN should consolidate its environmental meetings into a single annual event to address climate, biodiversity, and plastics simultaneously, rather than managing fragmented agendas.
The final agreement from Yerevan reflects significant compromises driven by geopolitical interests. Nations including Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and Russia successfully watered down language regarding environmental ambition in the closing document. Meanwhile, wealthier governments remained divided on financial contributions, with European nations pushing to expand the list of donor states. This debate centers on whether countries like China and several Gulf states, which have experienced rapid economic development, should still be classified as developing nations exempt from higher financial obligations. The final text left this contentious issue unresolved.
Financial mechanisms intended to support conservation efforts also faced setbacks. A proposed fund designed to mobilize resources from companies profiting from digital forms of biodiversity, such as pharmaceutical firms, was postponed until the next summit in Ecuador. This delay is particularly damaging given the fund’s potential to generate substantial revenue for nature conservation, with a significant portion earmarked for Indigenous communities. To date, the initiative has raised only a negligible amount compared to its projected annual goal of one billion pounds.
The calls for reform echo concerns raised by policy experts during previous climate negotiations. Critics argue that the current summit structure is no longer fit for purpose and needs to shift focus from negotiation to implementation. Ruth Davis, the UK nature envoy, acknowledged the frustration surrounding these meetings but emphasized that significant implementation work is occurring globally. She stressed the need to make the system deliver tangible outcomes to maintain public confidence and support among citizens facing the direct impacts of biodiversity loss.
Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, noted that while current systems are delivering some results, they are moving too slowly. She highlighted the cluttered nature of the environmental agenda, which includes multiple conventions addressing overlapping issues such as wildlife trade, migratory species, and wetlands. Andersen suggested that streamlining these efforts by reducing programmatic overlap could improve efficiency and energy allocation within the international community.
As the next summit approaches in two years, the pressure remains on governments to translate rhetoric into action. The failure to meet existing targets and the postponement of key financial decisions highlight the urgent need for structural changes. Without reforms to the decision-making process and a clearer path for funding, the global community risks continuing its record of unfulfilled promises regarding the protection of the natural world.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US↗‘Bunch of baloney’: calls grow for Cop summit reforms as latest event on track to fail targets
