COP17 in Armenia: Who will bridge the $1.317 trillion biodiversity financial gap?

The $1.317 trillion The United Nations Biodiversity Conference, COP17 (Conference of the Parties), began on October 19 in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, and will continue until October 30. It is the highest decision-making forum of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), with 196 parties participating.

Why is the term “COP’ significant?

Decisions at COPs are generally reached through consensus. This lends them considerable political legitimacy, but they often rely more on calls for action than on binding obligations. COP outcomes must therefore be assessed at two levels: what was declared and what was actually decided.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework

Adopted in 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) established 23 targets to be achieved by 2030. Among them, the most widely discussed is the ‘30x30’ target, which calls for protecting 30% of the world's land and 30% of its oceans by 2030.

The framework also sets targets for mobilising $200 billion annually and securing $30 billion in international public financing.

COP17 is the first global review since the adoption of the KMGBF. It is an opportunity to assess how far the parties have collectively progressed towards meeting its targets.

What do the numbers reveal to us?

On October 15, UN Secretary-General António Guterres released the State of Biodiversity Action report, stating that fewer than half of the national targets were on track. At the current rate of progress, only 26% of the world's land and 12% of its marine ecosystems will be protected by 2030, falling well short of the 30x30 target.

The Yerevan Declaration: What does it say and What remains unsaid?

Adopted at the Leaders' Summit on October 16, the Yerevan Declaration acknowledged that progress towards implementing the KMGBF remained ‘insufficient’ and called for urgent acceleration.

However, the declaration is not legally binding. It contains no new binding financing commitments. Instead, it calls for the mobilisation of public and private funding ‘from all possible sources’.

Why is the term ‘Resource Mobilisation’ used?

The term encompasses funding from public and private, domestic and international sources. It offers language that all parties can accept. However, it can also allow countries to avoid making explicit commitments to provide ‘new and additional’ funding.

Developing countries generally seek new, dedicated funding mechanisms, direct grants and predictable financial support. Developed countries, meanwhile, emphasise reforming existing funding mechanisms, encouraging private investment and eliminating harmful subsidies.

This divide lies at the heart of the financing negotiations.

The $1.317 trillion gap

One of the most contentious issues at COP17 is biodiversity financing. In 2026, annual financing for biodiversity stood at approximately $1.317 trillion.

A ‘financing gap’ refers to the difference between the amount of money required and the funding currently available. Disagreements persist over how this gap is calculated, whether public and private funding is being double-counted, and whether private finance is being used as a pretext for governments to evade their responsibilities.

According to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), negotiations on October 19 highlighted the difficulty of reaching agreements on the means of implementation, including financing, technology transfer and scientific cooperation.

What is the Yerevan pathway?

One of the central issues at COP17 is the Yerevan Pathway. It can be understood as a set of decisions intended to translate the outcomes of the global review into a roadmap for national implementation through 2030.

Its principal objectives are to close the financing gap and revive commitments. However, there is a risk that it may remain at the level of declarations rather than translate into concrete action.

Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Abisoghomonyan has stated that the global review has given COP17 a special significance and that the Yerevan Pathway will be adopted as part of this process.

More than 70 ministers and around 40 deputy ministers are participating in the ministerial-level meetings scheduled for October 27–28.

Protocols and decisions

As of October 23, 14 decisions had been adopted: eight under the Cartagena Protocol, four under the main Convention and two under the Nagoya Protocol.

The Cartagena Protocol establishes a framework for biosafety, particularly the transboundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs). It has direct legal implications for biotechnology and the seed industry.

The Nagoya Protocol provides a framework for access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation. Disputes persist between provider and user countries over digital sequence information, patents and the equitable distribution of benefits derived from genetic resources.

At the conference, invasive alien species were identified as one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss. The terminology is significant because not all alien species are harmful. The distinction is intended to identify those that spread in new environments and damage local biodiversity and economies.

The decisions adopted call for strengthening early detection, information exchange and management measures. However, the conditions governing transfers between countries have been framed around ‘mutually agreed terms’, raising contentious questions for developing countries.

Conflicting interests remain over trade and border controls, expenditure in the agricultural and forestry sectors, and the criteria used to classify a species as ‘invasive’.

Meanwhile, differences over financing and agricultural biodiversity remain unresolved.

Three questions that will determine COP17’s outcome

The outcome of COP17 will depend on three key questions.

First, how will the $1.317 trillion financing gap be addressed? Will the solution involve new public funding or private investment?

Second, will the Yerevan Pathway remain voluntary, or will it be translated into measurable national commitments?

Third, will countries' economic policies, including subsidies that harm biodiversity, align with their stated commitments to protect nature?

The Yerevan Declaration has demonstrated political willingness to protect biodiversity. However, the question of how that willingness will translate into effective action remains unanswered. Above all, it remains unclear who will fill the $1.317 trillion financing gap and how.

The real test of COP17 lies not in the language of formal declarations, but in the numbers on the budget sheets.

References

1. Xinhua, ‘UN Biodiversity Conference Begins Formal Sessions in Armenia’, October 20, 2026.

2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, ‘Yerevan Declaration “Taking Action for Nature” Adopted at the Biodiversity Leaders Summit’, October 17, 2026.

3. WWF, ‘Yerevan Declaration Recognises Not Enough Biodiversity Action but Leaves Key Commitments Unresolved’, October 16, 2026.

4. IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin, ‘Highlights and Images for 19 October 2026’.

5. Armenpress, ‘Armenia Seeks Consensus Among Stakeholders in COP17 Negotiations’, October 23, 2026.

6. IUCN Japan, ‘COP17 On-Site Report (October 23): 14 Decisions Adopted’, October 24, 2026.

7. UN Media, ‘Armenia / Guterres Presses Biodiversity COP17’, October 15, 2026.