Biodiversity COP advances fall short of halting nature loss

X Facebook WhatsApp

The COP17 on biodiversity, which wrapped up in the early hours of October 30 in Armenia, produced little in the way of meaningful progress. That outcome makes the 2030 protection targets for life on Earth effectively out of reach.

The closing of a UN Conference of the Parties (COP) usually leaves a mixed impression: praise for the overall momentum alongside disappointment over the limited resources committed. The biodiversity COP17, held in Yerevan from October 19 to 30, followed that familiar pattern.

Right from the start, delegates from the 196 countries and the European Union were reminded of their obligations. For the first time, parties assessed how far they had come on the pledges made in 2022. The target set then was bold: conserve at least 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. States applauded that the commitments on the table were approaching the 30% mark, but the review also revealed that more than half of those pledges are unattainable because the necessary resources are not in place.

Why a Simple Mistake in Your Online Pension Application Could Cost You Your Retirement Benefits

The ultimate trick to banish mold from your bathroom grout in just 7 minutes—no vinegar or baking soda needed

“Everyone agrees we will not meet the targets,” said Laurent Durieux, a research engineer who was part of the delegation from the French Research Institute for Development (IRD). In the final hours — just before the COP closed — parties agreed to carry out a “global review” of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal biodiversity framework (the biodiversity equivalent of the Paris Agreement). The review will aim to “broaden the scope and coverage” of the agreement. The more concrete ambition of raising the treaty’s overall “ambition” evaporated during negotiations.

Finance was where talks bogged down. A UN report released during the COP stressed that finance for biodiversity protection needs to be multiplied by four by 2030. One sticking point was whether to widen the circle of contributors to include major emerging economies such as China and Brazil and some Gulf states. Delegates did agree to expand the roster of countries that might contribute to biodiversity finance — but that expansion will be voluntary.

“This COP in Yerevan will not go down in the annals,” lamented France’s Minister for Ecological Transition, Monique Barbut, at the close of the meeting. The modest positive development came from the host, Armenia, which pushed an initiative to put harmful subsidies on the agenda. The aim is to cut such subsidies by at least $500 billion per year (about €446 billion), although the overall total of harmful subsidies has not yet been precisely quantified. This goal — referred to as “target 18” — appears in the COP outcome text, which soberly calls for accelerating its implementation.

An initial estimate from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) places investments that directly harm nature at $7.3 trillion for 2023 (roughly €6.5 trillion). The IPBES — the scientific body for biodiversity akin to the IPCC for climate — came under fire in Yerevan. “I was struck by the opposition of certain countries — including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and even Brazil — to having the IPBES mentioned in the final report,” noted Arnaud Schwartz, part of the EU delegation for France Nature Environnement.

“This was an attack on science led by Russia,” added Laurent Durieux, who observed a push to isolate biodiversity from other international issues, even though recent IPBES assessments explicitly linked biodiversity with climate, health and economic concerns.

Another worry raised at the conference concerned synthetic biology. The watchdog group Pollinis warned that debates around synthetic biology could lead to looser regulation of biotechnologies. Pollinis noted the strong presence at Yerevan of representatives from biotech and agrochemical industries who portray biotechnologies as solutions for protecting nature and press for bypassing risk-assessment procedures.

There was a small step forward on the so-called “Cali fund” issue. Launched in 2024 in the Colombian city of Cali, the fund was intended to raise $1 billion from pharmaceutical, cosmetics and seed companies that exploit plant and animal genomes. The idea was to compensate those who conserve genetic heritage — in particular Indigenous peoples and local communities that protect biodiversity.

In the dawn hours of October 31, a text was adopted that paves the way for companies to receive certificates if they contribute to the fund at a rate of 0.1% of turnover or 1% of profits. The fund, however, remains voluntary and has so far collected only about $10,000 (roughly €8,900).

“Biodiversity COPs have far less visibility and far less money than climate COPs, and monitoring biodiversity is much more complex than measuring carbon,” Laurent Durieux reminded delegates. Pulling biodiversity out of the marginal space it occupies in international negotiations will be difficult. The next biodiversity COP is scheduled for Quito, Ecuador, in 2028.