COP17 Yerevan: Nature Finance Falls Short; Global Review Marks Halfway Point

Delegates at COP17 in Yerevan closed two weeks of biodiversity negotiations on October 31 by completing the first global review of progress toward reversing nature loss by 2030, according to Carbon Brief. The global review—based largely on findings from the global report—found that unless action is rapidly accelerated, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet 23 targets by 2030 will not be achieved. The global report documented that developed countries failed to meet a pledge to raise at least $20 billion a year for nature finance by 2025, with delegates citing a 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period. Countries also agreed that Quito, Ecuador will host COP18 in 2028. The Yerevan talks themselves marked the halfway point of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework agreed in 2022.

Completion of the Global Review

According to Carbon Brief, the global review "notes with deep concern" that unless action is rapidly accelerated, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet 23 targets by 2030 will not be achieved. The text was signed off at the start of the final plenary with only one last-minute addition—a notably smoother outcome than COP16 in Cali, where the Colombian presidency lost quorum and talks had to resume in Rome months later.

The global review was based largely on the findings of the global report and other information provided by countries. The final text "welcomes" and also "notes with deep concern" the findings of the global report, then outlines various ways countries can increase their biodiversity action to get on track to meet the targets. The review "urges" parties to accelerate implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, "including by increased ambition," while recognising that developing countries need more support to "allow for higher ambition in their actions."

The global review also "notes with deep concern" that the 2050 nature goals "may be at risk" if 2030 targets are not achieved. A key section encouraged countries to "accelerate the implementation of target 18" on harmful subsidies reform, though softened to "in accordance with national circumstances." Throughout the final negotiations, Brazil blocked early movement of the text, citing linkages to progress on resource mobilisation and other outstanding issues. In the final plenary on October 30, countries supported the presidency's proposals to clear the remaining 28 brackets in the text, with Brazil making a last-minute request to mention people of African descent in paragraph 35.

Global Report Findings: Finance Shortfalls and Funding Gaps

The global report, released just before COP17, provided the empirical foundation for the global review. This report drew on countries' national biodiversity strategies and action plans, national targets, and national reports submitted to the UN. According to Carbon Brief, the global report found that developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise "at least $20bn a year by 2025" for nature. The report documented falling aid levels and pointed to a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.

These specific funding figures—the $20 billion shortfall and the 27% decline for 2026-30—emerged directly from the global report's analysis and formed a central concern throughout COP17 negotiations. The global report's findings underscored that without substantial increases in resources from all sources, the framework cannot meet its target of mobilising at least $200 billion annually by 2030, as set out in Target 19 of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

The global report assessed progress on 23 targets. A scorecard in the report used a colour-coding system to rank progress on these metrics, based on where progress on each metric ranked relative to the highest and lowest scores achieved in each instance. The report noted that the world is falling behind on 22 out of 23 of its nature targets for 2030, though it acknowledged that the Global Biodiversity Framework has led to "unprecedented" interest in tackling biodiversity loss.

Not all countries met the call to provide information for the global report. According to the UN, 45% of countries published National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans in time to be considered for the report, 83% had submitted at least one national target and 66% had produced their new national report. The first draft of the global report was published on June 29, 2026, subject to a peer-review process. The second draft, revised based on peer review, was published July 26, just ahead of COP17 preparatory talks in Nairobi. The final version—titled "The state of biodiversity action: The global report on collective progress"—was published on September 24.

Finance Negotiations and Donor List Expansion

Finance dominated the two weeks of talks in Yerevan, reflecting the structural challenge of mobilising capital for global biodiversity protection. A bloc of developed economies known as JUSCANZ pushed to broaden the list of countries expected to fund nature protection, potentially adding emerging economies such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India. This push had stalled at intersessional talks earlier in the year but resurfaced in Yerevan, where the number of proposed options for expanding the donor list grew from four to eight by October 21.

Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity states that developed countries "shall provide new and additional financial resources" to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature. The list of developed-country donors was last amended in 2006. Switzerland described the eventual compromise as a "super, mega-delicate" text, while Kenya said it produced "no major winner or loser."

Under the final decision reported by Carbon Brief, countries that want to join the list of developed-country donors can "signal interest" through confidential bilateral consultations before COP18 and at every alternate COP after that, rather than being formally added through a review process. No country will be added without its explicit consent. Developing countries can also contribute to the biodiversity framework's goals on a voluntary basis without that implying inclusion on the donor list. The text makes it clear that contributions from more parties would improve mobilisation of biodiversity finance, but steered away from issuing criteria to expand the list of donor countries.

Post-2030 Financial Mechanism: Deferred to COP18

Negotiators agreed on criteria to shape a new permanent financial mechanism for nature funding after 2030, a longstanding demand from biodiverse developing countries. However, the decision deferred the mechanism's actual institutional structure, including whether it will be a new dedicated fund or based on existing arrangements, until COP18 in Quito. Oscar Soria of the Common Initiative told Carbon Brief the decision leaves the question "very open," with no movement toward a new fund and no upgrades to existing funding arrangements.

Resource mobilisation discussions at the Global Biodiversity Framework's halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the "biodiversity finance gap" and to "increase resources from all sources" to "at least" $200 billion per year by 2030, as set out in Target 19. The text references debt-biodiversity links eight times without committing to further action, a gap Soria noted given that debt studies called for at COP16 do not appear to have shaped the outcome. The decision establishes a financial mechanism for nature funding after 2030 under the governance of the COP, a key ask from developing countries, but defers decisions on what form this mechanism would take until COP18.

Why These Finance Gaps Matter

The COP17 outcome demonstrates a familiar pattern in multilateral biodiversity diplomacy: nations can agree on measurement and process—the global review, criteria for a future mechanism—while deferring the hardest financial commitments to the next summit. The 27% decline in environmental funding for 2026-30 is a concrete signal that nature finance is losing ground even as multilateral negotiations proceed. Delegates acknowledged throughout COP17 that current funding trajectories place the 2030 nature-loss reversal goal at serious risk.

The disconnect between pledged commitments and actual funding disbursements highlighted structural challenges in mobilising the scale of capital required for global biodiversity protection. Developed countries' failure to meet the $20 billion annual target by 2025 set the tone for COP17 negotiations on resource mobilisation. The 27% decline projection for 2026-30 suggests that without major policy shifts, the $200 billion annual target for 2030 under Target 19 faces significant implementation risk.

At a press conference on October 28, Christopher O'Sullivan, Ireland's nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief: "Our position isn't that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it's been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected." The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see added to the donor list.

Harmful Subsidies and Target 18

Nature-harming subsidies formed a central point of discussion throughout COP17. Governments spend as much as $1.8 trillion each year on subsidies and incentives that could be "harmful" to biodiversity across a range of sectors, particularly fossil fuels and agriculture. Target 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework sets out the aim to identify—by 2025—and then "eliminate, phase out or reform" these harmful incentives, with subsidies to be reduced by at least $500 billion each year by 2030.

Carbon Brief analysis published in July found that 84% of countries missed the 2025 identification deadline. Countries have shown "insufficient" progress on Target 18 according to the global report. Earlier versions of subsidy-related language in the global review "urged" stronger action on Target 18. In a non-paper released October 25, this was softened to "encourage" countries to scale up identification, elimination, phase-out or reform of harmful incentives, "in accordance with national circumstances." Carbon Brief understands that Colombia, the UK, Norway, EU nations and many others favoured including a paragraph on harmful subsidy reform in the global review, while Saudi Arabia and Russia opposed it. Near the end of negotiations, India also proposed removing this paragraph.

The final global review text agreed at COP17 "encourages" countries to "accelerate the implementation of target 18," though framed "in accordance with national circumstances." On October 26, the COP17 presidency launched the "Yerevan call" on positive biodiversity incentives—a political declaration to increase action and reaffirm commitments to Target 18. A new group called the "friends of target 18" was also announced, to be co-chaired by Colombia and Finland, with Armenia officially involved and France, Malawi and Guinea indicating they will join.

Digital Sequence Information and the Cali Fund

Digital sequence information—the genetic data derived from nature—was one of the most closely watched negotiation strands at COP17. At COP16, countries agreed to the first-ever global fund, the Cali Fund, to which companies using this data "should contribute." However, following two weeks of deep divisions and delays at COP17, most detailed work on the fund's implementation was deferred to intersessional negotiations leading up to COP18.

The Cali Fund had collected only $6,000 by the start of COP17. By the end, pledges totalled $10,565 with less than $9,000 in actual deposits. To date, not a single large company among the sectors identified as reliant on digital sequence information has contributed to the fund. At approximately 5 a.m. on October 31, the COP president proposed a draft decision clarifying that only contributions by companies amounting to "1% of their profit or 0.1% of their revenue" will be entitled to a Cali Fund certificate for the year. The text was adopted without objections, with the decision setting out an allocation methodology on how funds from the Cali Fund will be disbursed after COP18, while "allowing" the steering committee to make payments "on an exceptional basis" if contributions to the Cali Fund reach $150 million.

Broader Negotiation Context and Outcomes

Countries managed to sign off on all major negotiation texts at COP17, marking a contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost "quorum," forcing talks to resume in Rome months later. The 12-hour final plenary session on October 30-31 saw countries vote for Quito, Ecuador to host COP18 in 2028.

On marine and coastal biodiversity, parties agreed to establish an informal advisory group on work conducted under the CBD in relation to marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. The decision "takes note of" the agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (the "High Seas Treaty"), which entered into force in January 2026 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. However, references to the treaty were removed from several sections of the text following Russian opposition.

On planning, monitoring, reporting and review, the decision "welcomes with appreciation" parties' efforts to provide information in a timely manner, but also "notes with concern" the "institutional, technical, capacity and resource challenges" that made this difficult. The decision "requests" that the Global Environment Facility ensure "timely, adequate and accessible resources" are available for parties as they prepare their eighth national reports.

On Article 8(j) implementation—the permanent body for Indigenous peoples agreed at COP16—countries agreed at the end of October 30 on the "modus operandi" after two weeks of tense negotiations. This outcome was widely celebrated, following divisions on composition between Indigenous peoples and local communities and geographical rotation of co-chair nominations.

On biodiversity and climate change, countries agreed to new voluntary guidance for scaling up nature-based solutions but excluded references to a landmark International Court of Justice opinion on climate change. Russia insisted on deletion of this reference, stating: "We are just not willing to move on that, particularly at this time of night." Russia also requested deletion of passages referencing IPBES assessments on how to achieve "transformative change" for nature, though the UK suggested a compromise of deleting the transformative change reference but keeping the nexus assessment.

Conditional MachineHours Analysis: Nature Finance Mobilisation Trajectory

Analysis Methodology: This assessment of nature finance mobilisation pathways assumes COP17 funding commitments remain on current trajectories and that the 27% decline in environmental funding for 2026-30 reflects consistent structural underinvestment rather than cyclical variation. The analysis is conditional on three assumptions: (1) that no major additional donor commitments emerge between COP17 and COP18 in 2028; (2) that the voluntary "signal of interest" mechanism produces minimal formal additions to the donor list; and (3) that existing multilateral biodiversity finance mechanisms do not expand beyond current allocation frameworks.

Funding Gap Projection: If environmental funding declines 27% during 2026-30 from current levels, and developed countries continue to fall short of the $20 billion annual target, the cumulative finance gap through 2030 could exceed $40 billion assuming a baseline of $20 billion annually. Target 19's goal of $200 billion per year by 2030 would require a 10-fold increase from current developed-country contributions alone. At a 27% decline rate, mobilising even half this target by 2030 would require emergency policy intervention.

Mechanism Implementation Timeline: Deferral of the post-2030 permanent financial mechanism's institutional structure to COP18 in 2028 creates a two-year gap in which no new dedicated fund is likely operational. If COP18 negotiations follow the pattern of extended bilateral consultations seen in Yerevan's donor-list discussions, the mechanism could remain under interim arrangements through 2030, delaying full mobilisation capacity until post-2030 implementation.

Risk Factors: The conditional analysis identifies three major risk factors: (1) structural reliance on voluntary contributions and bilateral consultations rather than binding commitments; (2) absence of enforcement mechanisms for meeting the $20 billion pledge, evidenced by the 2025 miss; and (3) competing capital demands, including energy transition and infrastructure investment, which may crowd out nature finance unless policy frameworks explicitly prioritise biodiversity protection as a sovereign funding obligation rather than a discretionary contribution.

What to Watch Toward COP18

The next concrete test comes at COP18 in Quito in 2028, where countries must decide the institutional structure of the post-2030 financial mechanism, a question Yerevan negotiators explicitly deferred. Watch whether any emerging economies formally "signal interest" in joining the donor list before then, since the mechanism created in Yerevan relies on voluntary, confidential consultations rather than a binding review. Also worth tracking is whether the debt-biodiversity link, mentioned eight times in the Yerevan text without firm commitments, gets more substantive treatment, and whether the $200 billion annual target set for 2030 under Target 19 of the biodiversity framework shows any sign of being met given the current funding trajectory of 27% decline for 2026-30.