After two weeks of tense negotiations in Yerevan, nearly 200 countries agreed early Saturday to accelerate implementation of the global biodiversity framework, but left unresolved a dispute over who should foot the bill for conservation efforts, exposing a growing rift between wealthy countries and newly rich states.
The agreement, reached hours after talks were due to finish, was described in a draft text cited by Politico Europe as including a call to “accelerate the implementation” of the Global Biodiversity Framework “including by increased ambition in addressing the gaps, challenges and barriers related to implementation.” The final version was not immediately available. Armenian Environment Minister Hambardzum Matevosyan, who presided, said negotiators had “achieved more than we could have expected.”
The Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed in 2022, contained 24 targets including protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030. Under the framework, countries have pledged to mobilise $200 billion annually by 2030. The UN says the world is on track to meet just one of those targets, and a million species are at risk of extinction. Countries acknowledged they were falling behind.
Money was the central fault line. Under the framework, nations agreed to put $30 billion towards nature recovery by the end of the decade and mobilise a further $170 billion from private sources, but pledges have not been at the rate required to reach those targets, according to the UN. Politico Europe reported that Germany, Iceland, Uzbekistan and Spain made fresh commitments totalling $1.8 billion to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund and Global Environment Facility. The BBC reported that more than $1 billion was pledged at the meeting, with half coming from philanthropists including Leonardo DiCaprio's Re:wild organisation.
The core deadlock remained: wealthy nations including EU members, Canada, Australia, Japan, the UK, Switzerland and Norway want other high-income countries to contribute. Non-donor countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Argentina resisted income-based criteria for deciding who should pay. In the end, the draft text says countries agreed that “contributions from more Parties would improve the mobilization of biodiversity finance” and invited others to contribute voluntarily.
“Are you telling me that rich petro-states who are in many cases wealthier than some of the original list of donors and responsible for a ton of emissions and harmful practices that directly affect biodiversity shouldn't contribute to the fund?” asked Juan Carlos Navarro, Panama's environment minister, during negotiations. A Swiss delegate said just before the text was adopted: “If we're mutually unhappy that's probably the closest we can get to on these very delicate compromises.”
Beyond finance, countries agreed to strengthen the role of cities and local governments in implementing biodiversity goals and improve how funding reaches them. They also adopted decisions to support capacity-building and scientific cooperation, and recognized the need to reduce subsidies for activities that harm nature. Anna Ducros of the International Institute for Environment and Development said there had been progress on commitments to reduce subsidies for harmful industries, citing large-scale fishing such as trawling. She added that governments were “paying twice.”
A small group of countries, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, were reported to have frustrated the approval of scientific reports. French Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut was reported by AFP as saying the attacks on science had bothered her. Next month, countries are due to gather for climate COP31. Its science body, the IPCC, has faced similar challenges in the past month over passing reports and securing funding.
Environmental groups welcomed the agreement but criticized its lack of ambition. “Political promises made in Yerevan set good intentions, but won't remove major roadblocks to implementation such as insufficient finance, fiscal and debt constraints, the nearly empty coffers of the Cali Fund and urgent reform of harmful subsidies,” said An Lambrechts of Greenpeace International. Catherine Weller of Fauna & Flora called agreement “good news” but added: “We cannot just plod on to 2030 without a course correction; nature is critical to all life on Earth.”
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The finance dispute threatens to stall nature protection at a time when species extinction rates are accelerating and the UN says the world is on track to meet only one of 24 targets.
- The failure to broaden the donor base means the $200 billion annual goal remains out of reach, leaving conservation projects underfunded and countries unable to meet 2030 commitments.
- The deal's voluntary funding language risks repeating the pattern of unmet pledges, weakening the credibility of the global biodiversity framework.
Background
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity operates on the principle that historically wealthy countries should pay more for nature damage. The Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted at COP15 in 2022, set ambitious targets for protecting land and seas and increasing finance. COP17 in Yerevan was the first major stocktake since then, and countries acknowledged they were not on track.
Key Perspectives
Wealthy nations (including EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, Switzerland, Norway): argue that other high-income countries with growing economies should also contribute to biodiversity finance, not rely solely on historical donors.
Non-donor countries (China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Argentina): resist income-based criteria for donor status, citing historical responsibilities and the convention's framework.
Environmental groups (Greenpeace, Fauna & Flora, The Wildlife Trusts): welcome the deal but say it lacks binding finance commitments and fails to address key barriers such as harmful subsidies and empty conservation funds.
What to Watch
- Whether countries increase voluntary contributions before the next COP in Ecuador in 2028.
- Implementation of the Cali Fund for private-sector contributions from companies using genetic resources, which had only $10,000 in pledges as the meeting opened.
- The outcome of climate COP31 next month and its handling of similar science and funding disputes, which may signal broader multilateral trends.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 2 sources: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedCOP17 ended with an agreement while the financing deadlock remained unresolved.Politico Europe: “The United Nations COP17 on biodiversity ended on Saturday with a renewed promise from countries to speed up global efforts to protect nature and restore depleted ecosystems by 2030. But behind that grand gesture, governments are still struggling to unlock the hundreds of billions needed”
- SupportedThe summary says wealthy nations want more high-income countries to contribute, while non-donor countries resist income-based criteria.Politico Europe: “Now, those countries want other high-income nations to chip in more. ... non-donor countries — which include China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Argentina — pushed back against any kind of income-related criteria to determine who should or shouldn’t be paying.”
- SupportedNearly 200 countries agreed early Saturday, hours after talks were due to finish, to accelerate implementation of the biodiversity framework.BBC News: “Early on Saturday morning, hours after talks were due to finish, they finally agreed the key parts of a new action plan.”
- SupportedThe agreement left unresolved who should fund conservation, exposing a divide between historically wealthy and newly rich states.Politico Europe: “The summit exposed a growing chasm between nations over who should be held financially responsible for funding conservation measures worldwide: historically wealthy countries whose economies have caused immense damage to the environment, or newly rich states”
- SupportedCountries agreed to put $30 billion toward nature recovery by the end of the decade and mobilise a further $170 billion from private sources.BBC News: “In 2022, they agreed they would put $30bn (£22.4bn) towards nature recovery efforts by the end of the decade, and mobilise a further $170bn from private sources.”
- SupportedThe draft text calls to “accelerate the implementation” of the framework, “including by increased ambition in addressing the gaps, challenges and barriers related to implementation.”Politico Europe: “secured a hard-fought agreement to “accelerate the implementation” of the global biodiversity framework “including by increased ambition in addressing the gaps, challenges and barriers related to implementation,” according to a draft of the text”
- SupportedHambardzum Matevosyan said negotiators had “achieved more than we could have expected.”Politico Europe: “Armenian Environment Minister Hambardzum Matevosyan, who presided over the summit, said negotiators had “achieved more than we could have expected.””
- SupportedJuan Carlos Navarro asked whether wealthy petro-states should contribute to the fund, using the quoted wording in the story.Politico Europe: ““Are you telling me that rich petro-states who are in many cases wealthier than some of the original list of donors and responsible for a ton of emissions and harmful practices that directly affect biodiversity shouldn’t contribute to the fund?” said Juan Carlos Navarro”
- SupportedA Swiss delegate said, “If we're mutually unhappy that's probably the closest we can get to on these very delicate compromises.”Politico Europe: ““If we’re mutually unhappy that’s probably the closest we can get to on these very delicate compromises,” said a member of the Swiss delegation just before the text was adopted.”
- SupportedAnna Ducros said governments were “paying twice.”BBC News: “Ducros, who was in attendance at the talks, added: “Right now, we have the situation where governments are paying twice.””
- SupportedMonique Barbut said the attacks on science had bothered her, according to AFP.BBC News: ““The attacks on science have bothered me a lot,” French Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut was reported as saying by the AFP news agency.”
- SupportedAn Lambrechts said political promises made in Yerevan would not remove major roadblocks to implementation, including insufficient finance and harmful subsidies.Politico Europe: ““Political promises made in Yerevan set good intentions, but won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation such as insufficient finance, fiscal and debt constraints, the nearly empty coffers of the Cali Fund and urgent reform of harmful subsidies,” said An Lambrechts”
