Funding deadlock derails global effort to save nature
YEREVAN, Armenia — Scorching wildfires, disastrous floods and the looming mass extinction of species weren’t enough to convince wealthy nations to unlock crucial funds needed to halt biodiversity loss at a global nature summit this week.
As countries around the world race against the clock to protect what’s left of the Earth’s collapsing ecosystems, global talks aimed at speeding up nature protection efforts yielded underwhelming results.
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 to meet global biodiversity protection targets. The reason? A profound and unresolved disagreement over where that money should come from.
“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.
After two weeks of negotiations over how to speed up efforts to protect ecosystems, nearly 200 countries 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, the final version of which was not immediately available.
Armenian Environment Minister Hambardzum Matevosyan, who presided over the summit, said negotiators had “achieved more than we could have expected.”
But in the end, governments could not agree on how to increase the number of countries currently contributing to biodiversity finance, instead only stating the obvious: that more funds would be better.
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 whose economies have grown exponentially in the last three decades.
“This COP was always going to be difficult,” said Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister for Canada, adding that “COP17’s real legacy will be decided far beyond these walls, when words need to translate to action.”
Negotiators are leaving Yerevan with many issues left to resolve between now and the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador, including on how to attract more companies that benefit from nature to fund conservation projects via the Cali Fund, a landmark vehicle aimed at mobilizing private finance into nature established in 2024.
Governments know they are running out of time. At COP17, scientific experts reiterated that a million species are at risk of extinction, and the U.N. has identified an annual biodiversity financing gap of $700 billion.

“We’re not on track to stop and reverse the biodiversity loss by 2030,” said Monique Barbut, France’s environment minister, during a COP17 plenary session on Wednesday. The world needs to “mobilize all international funding sources” to make it happen, she insisted.
The talks also ran long due to disagreements over language related to the involvement of Indigenous peoples in a key decision-making body of the Convention.
The dispute
The U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity relies on the consensus that rich countries should pay more to protect nature because of the pressure their societies and economies exert on global ecosystems.
Since its ratification in the 1990s, a group of wealthy countries including Canada, Australia, Japan, the U.K., Switzerland, Norway and some EU members have been funding efforts to implement the Convention.
Now, those countries want other high-income nations to chip in more. “We all know that we need more resources to ensure the effective implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework,” said Jessika Roswall, the EU’s environment commissioner.
But during the negotiations, 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.
The deadlock angered some nations set to benefit from a larger donor base. “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, Environment Minister for Panama on Wednesday, as negotiations were ongoing.
The countries “don’t want to have the same obligations as developed countries on this issue [and] bring up the argument of ecological responsibilities,” said Juliette Landry, a senior research fellow at the think tank IDDRI.
In the end, countries agreed simply to state that “contributions from more Parties
would improve the mobilization of biodiversity finance” and invited others to contribute voluntarily, the draft text shows.
Some successes
Despite the divisions, many hailed the final agreement as a win for green multilateralism as governments remain committed to the overarching goal of protecting 30% of Earth’s land and sea areas and increase financing for biodiversity to $200 billion annually by 2030.
“In Yerevan, we saw environmental multilateralism prevail once again. Countries came together, found the spirit of compromise and allowed us to agree important decisions that will support real progress for people and for planet,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UN Environment Programme.
After two weeks of endless meetings, panels and plenary sessions, negotiators agreed to strengthen the role of cities and local governments in implementing biodiversity goals, and improve how biodiversity funding reaches them. They also adopted decisions to support capacity-building and scientific cooperation, and agreed that more needs to be done to protect marine ecosystems.

Countries also recognized the need to reduce subsidies funding economic activities that harm nature and create incentives for activities that protect it. “Incentive reform has moved from the margins to the mainstream of the biodiversity agenda,” said Eva zabey, CEO of the Business for Nature coalition.
Some governments including Germany, Iceland, Uzbekistan and Spain made fresh financial commitments totalling $1.8 billion to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund and the Global Environment Facility, the funding structures set up to implement the Convention. Under the GBF, countries have pledged to mobilize $200 billion annually by 2030.
The U.N. Environment Programme also published a report showing that nature restoration is underway at an “unprecedented scale” with over 250 million hectares of land under restoration worldwide.
Still, countries remain off track on meeting their 2030 targets.
In Yerevan, green groups welcomed the agreement but criticized its lack of ambition key issues.
“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, a biodiversity politics expert with Greenpeace International.
Governments have struggled to stay the course since inking the Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022. Though many countries have adopted national biodiversity strategies, financial flows to conservation projects are nowhere near where they ought to be. Geopolitical shifts and economic crises have also made it harder for governments — including the 27 EU member countries — to prioritize environmental protection.
Countries agreed to renew talks to implement the objectives of the convention in Ecuador.





