COP17: Global Biodiversity Targets Fall Behind as Funding Disputes Grow

World leaders, diplomats and environmental experts are gathering in Armenia this week for a major United Nations biodiversity conference to assess global efforts to stop nature loss, with countries falling behind on nearly all agreed targets and disagreements over funding threatening progress.

The 17th Conference of the Parties, known as COP17, marks the first major review of progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, a landmark international agreement adopted in 2022. The framework aims to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and sea areas by 2030 while addressing the broader causes of biodiversity loss.

Despite commitments made by governments, progress remains uneven. A draft United Nations report indicates that countries are not on track to achieve 22 of the framework’s 23 goals, highlighting the growing gap between international promises and practical action.

The conference in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, will focus on how governments can accelerate conservation efforts, mobilise financial resources and reform policies that encourage activities harmful to ecosystems. Negotiations are expected to continue for two weeks, with financing likely to be one of the most contentious issues.

The biodiversity discussions come ahead of the climate-focused COP31 summit, which is scheduled to begin on November 9 in Antalya, Turkey. Together, the meetings highlight the growing international recognition that Climate Change and biodiversity loss are interconnected challenges affecting economies, communities and global food systems.

Global Biodiversity Targets Remain Far Behind Schedule

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established a series of targets designed to protect ecosystems, restore damaged habitats and reduce the pressures driving species decline. Its best-known commitment is the goal of conserving 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030.

Current projections suggest that the world could reach approximately 27.5% land protection by the end of the decade. However, scientists warn that progress on protected areas alone will not be enough to halt biodiversity loss.

Healthy ecosystems depend on more than the designation of conservation zones. Governments must also address pollution, unsustainable fishing, excessive pesticide use, habitat destruction and financial incentives that encourage environmentally damaging activities.

These pressures can weaken forests, rivers, wetlands, oceans and other natural systems that support human life. Ecosystem deterioration also threatens food production, water security and economic stability, making biodiversity protection an important issue for governments beyond environmental policy.

For example, damage to soil and pollinator populations can undermine agricultural productivity, while the destruction of forests and wetlands can reduce natural protection against floods and other environmental risks. Declining marine ecosystems can also threaten fisheries and the livelihoods of coastal communities.

The scale of the challenge is reflected in the draft UN assessment, which shows that countries are not on course to meet 22 of the 23 global biodiversity goals. The findings are expected to increase pressure on governments to strengthen national action plans and demonstrate measurable progress before 2030.

Funding Disputes Take Centre Stage at COP17

One of the most significant challenges facing the conference is how to finance biodiversity protection, particularly in developing countries that need additional resources to conserve ecosystems and implement national environmental strategies.

The United Nations says 144 countries, including Brazil and China, have developed biodiversity action plans. However, questions remain over how much public funding governments will provide and how the financial burden will be shared among countries.

The Kunming-Montreal framework includes a goal of mobilising at least $30 billion annually in international public finance for biodiversity by 2030. The broader target is to mobilise at least $200 billion per year from all sources by the same deadline.

Reaching these targets will require governments to clarify funding commitments, improve access to financial resources and establish mechanisms to ensure that money reaches conservation projects where it is needed most.

Developing nations often argue that they need greater financial support to protect forests, marine habitats and other ecosystems that provide benefits beyond their borders. Wealthier countries, meanwhile, face competing demands on public budgets, including defence spending, energy costs and domestic economic pressures.

These competing priorities could complicate negotiations in Yerevan. Without agreement on funding responsibilities, countries may struggle to translate biodiversity commitments into effective conservation programmes.

Financing will also be essential for restoring degraded habitats, strengthening protected areas, monitoring species populations and supporting Indigenous communities whose territories play a major role in conserving biodiversity.

Reforming Harmful Subsidies Could Help Protect Nature

Another major priority at COP17 is reforming approximately $500 billion a year in subsidies that encourage activities damaging to nature. Governments are being urged to establish a two-year timeline for identifying and redirecting the most harmful financial incentives.

Such subsidies can encourage practices that contribute to deforestation, soil degradation, water pollution and the overexploitation of natural resources. Examples include financial support that encourages farmers to clear rainforests, as well as discounts on synthetic fertilisers and chemical pesticides that can damage soil and water systems when improperly managed.

Reforming these incentives could help governments reduce environmental damage without relying entirely on additional public spending. Instead of funding activities that undermine ecosystems and later paying to repair the resulting damage, governments could redirect resources towards more sustainable economic practices.

The issue is particularly important at a time when countries are facing wars, energy crises and inflationary pressures. Governments are under pressure to manage limited budgets while maintaining economic growth and protecting households from rising costs.

Eva Zabey, chief executive of the nonprofit organisation Business for Nature, said biodiversity loss should be viewed as a wider economic and political issue rather than solely a conservation challenge.

“This isn’t primarily a story about conservation,” Zabey said during a media briefing. “It’s an economic, fiscal, political and competitiveness story, which is grounded in resilience and resource security.”

Her comments underline how nature-related risks can affect businesses, public finances and national economic security. Companies depend on reliable supplies of water, agricultural products, minerals and other natural resources, making ecosystem degradation a potential threat to long-term commercial performance.

Businesses Call for Clearer Government Policies

More than 130 businesses, including fashion retailer H&M and consumer goods company Nestlé, issued an open letter ahead of the conference urging governments to establish clearer policies and a plan to reform harmful incentives within the next 12 months.

The companies argue that predictable government policies could make it more attractive for businesses to invest in nature-positive activities and sustainable supply chains.

Clearer rules could also help companies assess environmental risks, plan long-term investments and reduce uncertainty surrounding future regulations. Businesses operating across agriculture, manufacturing, retail and consumer goods are particularly exposed to changes in the availability and quality of natural resources.

Conservation International estimates that subsidies ultimately cost governments between $11 trillion and $24.7 trillion annually when broader economic effects are considered. Governments may effectively pay twice: first by financing harmful activities and later by addressing their consequences through pollution cleanup, healthcare costs and infrastructure repairs.

Reforming damaging subsidies could therefore offer both environmental and economic benefits. However, governments will need to manage the transition carefully to avoid placing disproportionate pressure on farmers, workers and communities that depend on existing support programmes.

Private Sector Expected to Play a Bigger Role in Biodiversity Finance

With public budgets under pressure, policymakers and conservation groups are increasingly looking to private companies to contribute more towards protecting nature. One initiative attracting attention is the Cali Fund, established in 2025 to encourage businesses that benefit from digital databases of genetic resources to help finance biodiversity conservation.

These resources include digital information derived from biological samples that can support research and product development. Pharmaceutical companies, cosmetics manufacturers and businesses involved in commercial agriculture may use such information to develop medicines, consumer products and improved agricultural technologies.

The Cali Fund aims to channel contributions from companies that benefit from these resources towards biodiversity protection. The approach reflects a broader effort to ensure that the economic value generated from nature also supports the conservation of the ecosystems and biological resources on which future innovation depends.

However, several important questions remain unresolved. Negotiators must determine how money should be distributed between countries and Indigenous communities, as well as how corporate contributions should be calculated.

One challenge is deciding whether companies should contribute based on their total revenue when only a portion of their operations relies on genetic resources. The final arrangements will influence how widely the fund is adopted and how much financing it can generate.

Ensuring that Indigenous communities receive an appropriate share of the benefits will also be important. Many Indigenous peoples have longstanding relationships with biodiverse territories and play a significant role in protecting ecosystems and preserving traditional knowledge.

Effective funding mechanisms could help support conservation programmes, strengthen local stewardship and provide resources for communities facing increasing pressure from habitat destruction and climate-related changes.

Conservation Leaders Urge Action to Prevent Species Extinction

Beyond financial commitments, the conference is expected to provide an opportunity for governments to strengthen measures aimed at preventing species extinction and restoring damaged ecosystems.

Cristián Samper, managing director and leader of Nature Solutions at the Bezos Earth Fund, said governments should use the negotiations to provide greater support to conservation teams working to protect endangered species and restore habitats.

“We know recovery is possible. The decisions we make in Armenia should give more conservation teams the backing to make it happen,” Samper said.

His comments reflect the view that biodiversity recovery is achievable when conservation programmes receive sustained funding, effective policies and long-term political support. However, successful outcomes depend on implementing commitments rather than simply announcing new targets.

Governments will need to improve cooperation, strengthen national biodiversity strategies and address economic incentives that contribute to environmental destruction. Monitoring and reporting systems will also be important for determining whether countries are making measurable progress.

What COP17 Means for the Global Environmental Agenda

The biodiversity conference in Armenia represents a critical test of whether governments can turn international commitments into practical action. With most global targets off track, negotiations will focus on closing the gap between ambition and implementation before the 2030 deadline.

Agreement on biodiversity finance, harmful subsidy reform and private-sector contributions could help unlock resources for conservation and ecosystem restoration. However, disagreements over funding responsibilities and the distribution of financial benefits could slow progress.

The outcome will also have implications for businesses, farmers, Indigenous communities and countries whose economies depend heavily on natural resources. Protecting biodiversity is increasingly linked to economic resilience, food security, reliable water supplies and the long-term stability of supply chains.

As governments prepare for the next major climate summit, COP17 offers an opportunity to reinforce the connection between protecting nature and building resilient economies. Whether the meeting delivers meaningful progress will depend on the willingness of countries to agree on financing, reform damaging policies and implement stronger conservation measures.

With only a few years remaining before the 2030 targets expire, the central challenge is no longer simply recognising the importance of biodiversity. It is ensuring that governments, businesses and communities have the resources and policies needed to protect the natural systems on which the global economy depends.