Biodiversity Cop17 in Yerevan highlights finance gaps, indigenous rights, and governance challenges

The UN biodiversity summit Cop17, held in Yerevan, Armenia, wrapped up on October 31, underscoring slow progress since the CBD framework launched in 2022, and detailing the enormous financing gap needed to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The article highlights debates on who should pay and how funds are managed, the rise of digital sequence information, and the formalization of Indigenous peoples’ rights, along with calls for gender equity. Original publisher: Gabriella Santini.

• Financing biodiversity protection requires US$200 billion annually by 2030, including about US$30 billion per year from international finance, to help close a US$700 billion per year funding gap.
• Decisions on creating a new financial mechanism were pushed to Cop18; donors and countries debated how contributions should be managed and who counts as a user of biodiversity financing.
• A Cali Fund for digital sequence information (DSI) was proposed to channel funds to Indigenous peoples and local communities, but by the summit only US$10,565 had been pledged from five companies.
• Indigenous peoples’ rights are being strengthened with a new permanent advisory body, while gender equity is urged to be embedded into national biodiversity strategies. Protests over a controversial gold mine in Armenia also reflected tensions between biodiversity targets and extractive industries.

Overview

The United Nations biodiversity summit, Cop17, concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, on October 31. The gathering is the biennial mechanism for taking stock of progress on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) framework launched in 2022, which set an ambitious plan to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. A central pillar remains closing a substantial finance gap: the framework envisions US$200 billion per year from all sources by 2030, including about US$30 billion annually through international finance. The finance landscape is daunting: the CBD framework estimates a US$700 billion per year gap, underscoring how far policy commitments must translate into cash and action. The summit also clarified the intertwined nature of biodiversity with food security, water, health, livelihoods, and cultural traditions, highlighting how biodiversity and climate change influence each other as both a driver and a casualty of the other’s trajectories.

Progress and targets

A global review titled State of Biodiversity Action assessed the first framework inventory. It shows that almost 90 percent of countries have set biodiversity targets at the national level, but fewer than half are on track to meet them. The most lagging targets concern business impacts, unsustainable consumption, harmful subsidies, and finance. In short, the areas most in need of rapid, cross-ministerial action—the ones that require cooperation beyond environmental ministries and conservation agencies—remain the hardest to move forward.

Financing biodiversity protection

The CBD framework’s financing goals place a heavy emphasis on mobilizing funds from multiple sources, including private capital and international aid. The framework calls for US$200 billion per year by 2030, with a portion of this coming from international finance. Yet the scale of the needed investments far outstrips current commitments: the Yerevan summit presidency announced pledges totaling more than US$1.8 billion from governments, philanthropic organizations, and investors, which, while welcome, represent only a fraction of the required funding. Past development aid cuts further widen the gap and complicate the task of delivering money to the communities who implement biodiversity projects on the ground.

Funding governance and new mechanisms

Two major debates defined the summit: who should manage biodiversity funding and how donors should contribute. Lower-income countries argued for a new funding mechanism under CBD control, while many high-income countries favored using the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Critics of the GEF argue that it is bureaucratic and hard for local communities to access. Negotiators postponed decisions on establishing a new mechanism to the next summit Cop18, scheduled for 2028 in Ecuador. The second debate concerned whether developing countries should be extended a broader base of donors; some emerging economies resisted turning voluntary contributions into obligatory payments, yet signaled interest in contributing ahead of Cop18.

Digital sequence information and the Cali Fund

DSI, digital sequence information—genetic data gathered from organisms and stored in online databases—emerged as a contentious issue. The Cali Fund, conceived at the 2024 biodiversity summit in Colombia, aims to address benefit-sharing when companies use DSI. The fund proposed that large users contribute 1 percent of profits or 0.1 percent of revenue, with at least half of the funds directed to Indigenous peoples and local communities. By the end of Cop17, only a handful of commitments had materialized: five companies pledged just US$10,565 in total. The voluntary nature of these contributions complicates implementation, as negotiators wrestle with questions about who should be charged and how to avoid double-charging under national and international schemes. Several key decisions were postponed to Cop18.

Indigenous peoples, gender and governance

Indigenous peoples and local communities hold rights or management authority over a large share of the world’s biodiverse lands. In Yerevan, a permanent body was created to strengthen their role, though concerns persisted about who leads it and how representatives are chosen. The final plenary agreed on operational rules, but the advisory body’s influence will depend on governments’ willingness to listen. Gender equity was another focal point, with calls to embed women’s land rights and access in national biodiversity strategies and data collection. The global progress review found women’s land rights to be underrepresented in policy targets, underscoring the need for more inclusive governance.

Progress, halfway point, and next steps

While progress exists, the summit reflects a halfway point and a gap still to be closed. The Yerevan Pathway, an agreed roadmap, urges faster action on subsidies that harm biodiversity, financial and technical support for developing countries, and budget alignment with biodiversity goals. Yet the pathway relies heavily on commitments already stated and lacks the binding force some participants desire. Outside the negotiations, Indigenous groups and NGOs showcased successful protection and restoration efforts despite limited funding, and protests against a controversial gold mine in southeastern Armenia highlighted the friction between biodiversity targets and extractive industries. The overarching message is clear: money, governance, and meaningful Indigenous participation are essential for turning biodiversity commitments into real-world outcomes.

What happens next

Governments now face the challenge of turning commitments into money that reaches frontline communities, ending subsidies that incentivize biodiversity loss, and expanding Indigenous participation and decision-making power. The Cop18 summit in Ecuador in 2028 will likely be a critical inflection point for finalizing a new financial mechanism, expanding donor engagement, and delivering on the biodiversity framework’s 2030 objectives. The discussions in Yerevan underscore the interdependence of biodiversity, climate policy, and sustainable development, and the need for cross-sector collaboration to translate intent into on-the-ground impact.