Nature recovery is falling behind. Can COP17 get global action back on track?

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP17 CBD) is due to close later today (30 October) in Armenia after two weeks of heated debate. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT The 2026 summit has largely served as an evaluation of progress towards promises made in previous years, with a focus on implementation and long-term results. Delegates are trying to finalise the Yerevan Pathway, a package of decisions meant to speed up delivery of the world’s nature goals. “We need to see concrete priorities coming out of the negotiations. But unfortunately, this is not the case yet,” Irene Wabiwa from Greenpeace International told reporters on Thursday (29 October). A number of topics remain unresolved in the final hours of the summit, ranging from the role of science in the negotiations to how to fund conservation and tackle harmful subsidies. Indigenous peoples are also calling on governments to uphold their rights, respect traditional knowledge and guarantee meaningful participation in decisions about the lands and waters they protect. How far have countries come in the global effort to protect and restore nature? The first global assessment of progress on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) – known as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’ – was launched by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on 15 October. The report, ‘State of Biodiversity Action’, found that fewer than half of the assessed national targets are on track. The report covers all 23 global targets adopted by 196 parties in the landmark agreement during COP15 in 2022. Now at the halfway point towards the 2030 deadline, the report revealed progress is being made, but much too slowly. On the headline ‘30x30’ goal of protecting at least 30 per cent of the planet’s land and sea by the end of the decade, data from the Protected Planet database shows about 19 per cent of land and inland waters and 10 per cent of oceans are currently protected. World leaders adopted the ‘Yerevan Declaration: Taking Action for Nature’ at a leaders’ summit on 16 October – just ahead of COP17 – reaffirming the 2030 goal. A separate UNEP report published on 29 October, ‘Nature’s comeback’, looked at the related target of putting at least 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems under effective restoration by 2030. It found land restoration has reached nearly half of that goal, but progress in marine and coastal ecosystems has reached only 23 per cent of the global target and freshwater ecosystems – which are degrading the fastest – are at five per cent. However, the report cautions that gaps in monitoring and reporting likely mean this figure is underestimated. One of COP17’s major outcomes is meant to be the ‘global review’: a set of concrete recommendations for turning lagging pledges into action and speeding up progress to the 2030 deadline as part of the Yerevan Pathway. But this remains in limbo after days of deliberations. In a process where ambitious commitments are made but few mechanisms exist to ensure they are translated into action, the global review is meant to strengthen accountability by identifying gaps and tracking collective progress. There are also growing calls to reform the consensus-based COP process itself, with critics arguing that the requirement for unanimity allows a small number of countries to block progress. Financing for nature restoration falls short A lack of money is a major barrier to meeting the 2030 biodiversity goals and has been a key focus of the Yerevan summit, where governments are seeking ways to raise funding from public and private sources. Last year, delegates agreed a strategy to mobilise at least $200 billion (€180bn) annually by 2030 to close the global biodiversity finance gap. Currently, the annual shortfall in funding needed for nature is estimated at around $700 billion (€628bn). Yearly investment in ecosystem restoration alone must increase more than four-fold, according to the UNEP report, from $64 billion (€57.5bn) to $296 billion (€266bn) by 2030. It cites the challenge of paybacks – such as flood protection, cleaner water, carbon storage and healthier ecosystems – taking years to materialise as a barrier to mobilising immediate funds. Urging a shift from financing individual projects to building “restoration economies”, UNEP has called on governments and financial institutions to recognise the economic value of healthy ecosystems, attract private investment, and reduce incentives that encourage environmental degradation. More than $1.8 billion (€1.6bn) in new funding has been announced during the summit, according to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). But COP17 has seen flare-ups over who should fund global conservation. The EU has argued that wealthy emerging economies – such as the Gulf states and China – should join the group of around two dozen mostly Western nations formally expected to provide biodiversity finance for developing countries. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have reportedly opposed this and talks have drifted into stalemate. Efforts to boost the lacklustre Cali Fund – a UN mechanism for sharing profits from corporations that use genetic data from plants and other organisms – have also proved difficult. The fund set out to raise $1 billion (€893m) a year for conservation in developing countries when it launched in early 2025. So far, it has attracted around $10,000 (€8,900). Contributions are voluntary, which is at the heart of the dispute. Harmful subsidies are another sticking point. The framework’s Target 18 calls for cutting subsidies that damage nature by at least $500 billion (€447bn) a year by 2030. Countries remain divided over language on reducing or phasing out such incentives, including agricultural subsidies. On 27 October, the EU launched the Friends of Credits for Nature and Biodiversity, aiming to attract investment in nature restoration and protection by turning these efforts into something tangible and tradable. However, critics warn that nature credits are hard to verify and can encourage greenwashing by allowing companies to offset environmental damage rather than reducing their impact. Synergising climate and nature action The biennial biodiversity COP is often overshadowed by the larger annual climate COP, although the topics they address are inextricably linked – with biodiversity loss and climate change accelerating one another. In recognition of this, the COP17 agenda covers cooperation between the three Rio Conventions, on biodiversity, climate and desertification, including a call to enhance collaboration between national departments responsible for compliance. “Finding synergies between the Rio Conventions, and between climate and nature action plans more widely, has never been more essential – or a more obvious win,” says Catherine Weller, global policy director for conservation charity Fauna & Flora. “This really just makes a lot of sense. When the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, you risk making a mess.” But, speaking on condition of anonymity, a French government delegate at COP17 told news agency AFP that a small number of countries were frustrating progress. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Argentina and Brazil have reportedly pushed back against taking on board guidance from two landmark scientific assessments on the overlap between the nature and climate crises and the economic forces driving them. The dispute echoes a growing pattern in consensus-based global negotiations, where oil-producing countries are accused of frustrating efforts to tackle fossil fuels, plastic waste and other environmental harms. A push by countries including Saudi Arabia, India, Russia and China to delay publication of the IPCC’s next set of benchmark reports on global warming remains unresolved. The IPCC’s October meeting was suspended without agreement on a timetable, and talks are due to resume in December. This matters because the reports are meant to feed into the second Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement, a process that begins at COP31 in November and will see countries assess collective progress towards climate goals before concluding at COP33 in 2028. Tackling invasive species As the climate and oceans warm, the shift in which species survive and thrive is gathering pace. Invasive species are migrating into new environments, causing ecological and economic damage as they disrupt the delicate balance among native species. “In order to tackle this top-five driver of biodiversity loss, we need a collaborative, cross-sector approach,” says Weller. “Many of the pathways through which invasive alien species are spread are linked to trade, transport and supply chains, and so businesses have a significant role to play in both prevention and removal of invasives.” Acknowledging this, invasive species have been on the negotiating agenda at COP17. A decision on invasive alien species was one of four adopted in the opening week, alongside gender equality, environmental education and information sharing. It calls for stronger early detection of invasive species and rapid response systems, better sharing of scientific data, and improved access to funding and technology to help countries tackle the problem. Beyond the talks, Weller urges stronger prevention, biosecurity and better sharing of data on invasive species in the private sector, alongside closer collaboration with governments and conservation organisations. The COP17 summit is also expected to decide whether Panama or Ecuador will host the next biodiversity summit in 2028.