Would you like another COP? After the land degradation conference in August, and ahead of the climate summit planned in November in Turkey, the 17th meeting of the parties on biodiversity opens on October 19 in Armenia. Delegates from 196 countries plus the European Union will gather until October 30 with a single overarching goal: to slow down the collapse of life on Earth.
A gathering of diplomats and experts in a relatively unknown host country is hardly headline-grabbing. Yet, as Sébastien Treyer, director of the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (Iddri), points out, these multilateral meetings matter—especially at a time when international cooperation is under strain. Tackling the ecological crisis will not happen if every nation acts in isolation. So here’s a guide to what’s at stake in this COP17.
The legal framework dates back to 1992, when 196 states signed the Convention on Biological Diversity under United Nations auspices. By ratifying that treaty, countries agreed to preserve biodiversity. The situation today remains dire: current species extinction rates are far higher than baseline natural rates—ten to a hundred times higher for some groups—and in some respects rival past mass extinctions, such as the one 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs.
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
Parties to the convention meet periodically to review progress and reinforce commitments. At COP15 in 2022, governments adopted an ambitious package—the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Among its headline targets are protecting 30% of land and oceans by 2030, restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030, and moving toward a global phase-out of harmful pesticides.
COP17 is intended as a midterm checkpoint. “Countries set goals in 2022 for 2030,” explains Juliette Landry, a researcher at Iddri. “We are now roughly halfway there: this is the moment to assess what has been achieved and, crucially, to discuss how to meet the targets.” As a new element this year, every party was supposed to submit a progress report showing how far they’ve come since Kunming–Montreal—an exercise that has exposed wide gaps.
There are stark disparities between nations, says Jean-Christophe Avarre, head of ecology and biodiversity at the French Research Institute for Development (IRD). Some richer countries can draw on satellite imagery, environmental DNA studies and well-established citizen science networks to quantify change. For poorer or less-equipped states, compiling an accurate national inventory is far more difficult. Still, despite the hurdles more than a hundred countries did deliver reports—and the overall picture is worrying.
Independent coalitions such as Campaign for Nature and Together for the Ocean estimate that roughly 20% of the planet’s land and inland waters and about 10% of marine and coastal areas are currently designated as protected or conserved. That represents only small progress from 2022, when those figures were 17% for land and 8% for oceans. In short, global action is lagging.
One of the biggest barriers is money. Creating protected areas, restoring rivers, reforesting landscapes—all of this requires substantial funding. At the Montreal discussions, parties agreed on a target of roughly $200 billion per year to implement the framework. “Today the financial flows committed are still at the level of millions rather than billions,” notes Avarre. “We are a very long way from what was promised.”
How to close that gulf is a contentious debate. One option would be to update the list of countries expected to contribute public funds—an overdue change, observers say, since the roster of wealthy contributors was last adjusted in 2006. That could bring in new donors, possibly even oil-rich monarchies that have so far resisted talks about financing. Another route is to harness private finance, for example through biodiversity credits: payments by companies that damage ecosystems (mining firms, industrial livestock operations) to finance conservation or restoration elsewhere. Critics, including Greenpeace campaigner Clément Hélary, argue that such offsetting is a flawed approach and that a clearer polluter‑pays mechanism would be more appropriate—though that is far less politically palatable.
Recognition and rights for Indigenous peoples and local communities are another flashpoint. These groups play a major role in protecting biodiversity on the ground, yet they are often excluded from formal conservation policies or even forced off their lands when protected areas are created. COP16 had taken steps forward under Colombia’s leadership by giving these communities a distinct role and voice in international biodiversity governance. Now the task is to translate that recognition into concrete measures. Hélary and other activists urge that indigenous and traditional territories be formally recognized as a special category of protected area, with dedicated funding streams.
A closely related and technically complex issue concerns genetic sequences. Seed companies, pharmaceutical firms and cosmetic manufacturers routinely rely on genes found in plants and other organisms to develop new products. Those genetic resources survive today precisely because countries—many in the Global South—have conserved the original species and ecosystems. There is growing insistence that profits made from these genetic sequences should be shared fairly with the countries and communities that maintained them. “There is still a legal vacuum on this question,” says Avarre. A voluntary benefit‑sharing fund was set up in Cali in 2024 to collect payments from companies, but so far it has received a paltry $6,000—hardly a serious contribution.
With a packed agenda—some 236 pages of draft decisions plus volatile issues like finance and benefit-sharing—optimism among observers is limited. Treyer allows that there is a “small but reasonable” chance of reaching a unified political signal: an agreement along the lines of “we have made some progress, it’s insufficient, and we will speed up.” If such a message can be produced, it might help mobilize other sectors.
That cross-sector engagement is seen as essential. Biodiversity is too often treated as the concern of environmental ministries alone; without the involvement of agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure and finance ministries, tackling pollution, deforestation and ecosystem loss will remain very difficult. Experts hope for incremental wins on practical matters such as cutting subsidies that harm biodiversity.
France will be represented in Yerevan by Barbara Pompili, appointed as a special envoy for the environment. Monique Barbut, referred to in the article as minister of the ecological transition, is also expected to attend toward the end of the negotiations.
International watchdogs note that France has recorded substantial increases in reported marine and coastal protected areas since 2020—both as a percentage change (about 43%) and in absolute terms (an additional roughly 4.5 million square kilometers). But many of those zones are criticized as “paper parks,” where industrial fishing, tourism and pollution continue largely unchecked, according to Hélary. In practice, despite governmental announcements, biodiversity indicators in France show little improvement. The national strategy is faltering, the agroecological transition is stalled, and of the 40 targets France set under the Kunming–Montreal framework, only 19 are on track to be met by 2030.
In the overseas territories, concerns persist about Indigenous rights. “France still has not ratified ILO Convention 169, which recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples,” Hélary points out. His message is blunt: before preaching to others, countries should follow through on their own commitments at home.
All told, COP17’s task is to move from grand promises toward concrete implementation. Observers hope it will produce enough political momentum and practical decisions to accelerate action, widen participation beyond environment ministries, and direct the necessary financing where it is most needed. Whether governments can bridge political differences, unlock funds and make the framework operational in the years left before 2030 remains the central question of the Armenian meeting.
Similar Posts
- One in Five Wetlands Could Vanish by 2050: Global Environmental Crisis Looms
- Scientists Expose Corporate Role in Biodiversity Destruction: Urgent Call for Accountability!
- Beijing Grabs Disputed South China Sea Territory: Tensions Spike with Philippines
- France outlines ambitious nature plan but offers no concrete proposals
- Chad Ends African Parks’ Management of National Reserves: A Shift in Conservation Strategy
Hi, I’m Ashley from the Decatur Metro team. I share essential information for a sustainable and responsible lifestyle.
