COP17 in Yerevan: fourteen decisions adopted, but the money for nature is still missing

Halfway through COP17 on biodiversity, which is being held in Yerevan, Armenia, until 30 October, delegations have wrapped up a studious but cautious first week. The contentious issues remain, starting with money.

The facts: fourteen decisions, with the essentials still ahead

According to the Nigerian daily Premium Times, which reviews the first week this Saturday, delegates adopted fourteen decisions under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols. They cover, among other things, biosafety, invasive species, gender equality and the monitoring of commitments. The Convention's Executive Secretary, Astrid Schomaker, sees real progress, while warning that the hardest part is yet to come.

Some of the most complex issues are still ahead of us — Astrid Schomaker, quoted by Premium Times

These issues are well known. COP17 must carry out the first global review of the Kunming-Montreal framework, adopted at the end of 2022, which sets 23 targets for 2030, including the protection of 30% of land and sea. The verdict is harsh. According to the secretariat's synthesis reported by the outlet Vert, based on 129 national reports, only one target, the one aimed at limiting the effects of climate change on biodiversity, appears to be on track. As for protected areas, an NGO report cited by Vert estimates that current commitments, even if met, would lead to 27% of land and 12% of sea being protected in 2030.

The financing knot

In 2022, the international community committed to mobilising 200 billion dollars a year by 2030, including 30 billion in transfers from developed to developing countries. The interim milestone of 20 billion in 2025 has probably not been reached, according to the secretariat cited by Vert. The Cali Fund, created in 2024 so that companies exploiting genetic data derived from nature pay back a share, has reportedly received only a few thousand dollars in voluntary contributions, very far from the hoped-for billion a year, again according to Vert.

On the other side, the flows that damage nature remain massive. Subsidies considered harmful, including those for fossil fuels, are estimated at 2,600 billion dollars a year, according to figures reported by France 24, while the framework plans to cut them by at least 500 billion a year. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates, according to L'Économiste maghrébin, that around 30 dollars support ecosystem degradation for every dollar devoted to protecting them.

The positions at stake

Developed countries reject the creation of a new fund, which they say would risk fragmenting an already scattered global biodiversity finance system, Vert reports. They prefer, according to Carbon Brief, to keep the existing mechanism run by the Global Environment Facility. In a tight budgetary context, the efficiency argument is not absurd.

Russia, according to Premium Times, argues for separating environmental cooperation from geopolitics, defends voluntary sharing of the benefits drawn from genetic resources and opposes any new structure it considers redundant. It also reportedly refuses to add climate obligations to biodiversity decisions, according to Joseph Onoja, director of the Nigerian Conservation Foundation.

African countries, for their part, are calling for predictable funding and fair benefit-sharing. In their view, the biological wealth of their territories benefits distant industries without returning to the communities of origin. The debate also concerns the list of contributing countries, drawn up in 2006, which includes neither China, nor India, nor the Gulf states, as France 24 points out.

The analysis: France has a line, now it needs action

On paper, the French position is clear. The Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs calls for faster implementation, more funding involving the private sector and a wider number of contributing countries. It points out that the annual biodiversity funding gap is estimated at 700 billion dollars and that around 70% of crop species grown in France depend on animal pollination. Biodiversity is our agriculture and our food.

This line is right, and it belongs to a French tradition of multilateralism that it would be a mistake to abandon at a time when the United States, which has never ratified the Convention, remains outside the game. But a diplomacy's credibility is measured by its consistency. Asking the major emerging economies to contribute requires European countries to keep their own promises of solidarity. Arguing for an end to harmful subsidies means starting at home, without placing the burden on farmers alone, who need to be supported rather than singled out.

The Cali Fund illustrates the problem. A mechanism based solely on companies volunteering produces, at this stage, almost nothing. International law advances through common rules, not wishful thinking.

Conclusion: one week to seal the deal

The second week in Yerevan will show whether COP17 merely calls on countries to step up their efforts, which Juliette Landry of Iddri considered insufficient in Vert, or whether it sets priorities and means. France and the European Union could propose a compromise: make a minimum contribution mandatory for companies that use genetic resources, in exchange for a real widening of the donor base. Without that, one question will remain open: what is the point of 2030 targets that no one gives themselves the means to reach?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.