COP17: Global Biodiversity is in Trouble

Held in Yerevan, Armenia, COP17 was the seventeenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: a meeting of governments working together to protect nature. What happened and why should you care? Let’s get into it!

Why do these gatherings matter?

COP17 mattered because it conducted the first global review of progress under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework – the international plan to protect biodiversity by 2030. That framework includes 23 targets addressing conservation, restoration, and the ways economic activity affects nature around the world. The framework’s best-known commitment –which Canada has also adopted – is 30 by 30: conserving at least 30% of terrestrial and inland-water areas, and 30% of coastal and marine areas, by 2030.

What happened at COP17?

The main finding was sobering: the world is not on track to achieve the framework’s 2030 targets. Governments responded by adopting the Yerevan Pathway, intended to accelerate implementation during the remaining four years.

The principal outcomes included:

A stronger focus on national action. Countries identified priorities including aligning budgets and economic decisions with biodiversity commitments, improving monitoring, and tackling subsidies that encourage damage to nature.

New financial announcements. Governments, institutions, and other organizations announced nearly $2.8 billion in biodiversity funding.

A stronger role for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Governments adopted the Sevan Guidelines, establishing operating rules for the new permanent body concerned with Indigenous and local knowledge and participation under the convention.

Further technical decisions. The conference advanced work on forests, protected areas, invasive species, marine biodiversity, sustainable wildlife management, and other issues.

These were meaningful steps, but important obstacles remain. COP17 identified inadequate finance, unresolved questions about implementing the Cali Fund (introduced at the previous biodiversity conference, COP16), and limited progress on reforming harmful subsidies and production practices. The summit strengthened the machinery for action without resolving every dispute about who pays or how economies must change.

What does this mean for biodiversity?

COP17’s importance lies less in creating a new headline target than in making existing promises more credible. Its central message was that conservation commitments must influence everyday decisions about spending, land use, and economic development.

That is also its limitation. Announcing money does not restore a wetland, and agreeing on monitoring does not stop a species from declining. The convention’s own assessment says success must now be judged through policy changes, delivery of resources, and measurable improvements for nature and people.

What does it mean for Canada?

Canada already has a 2030 Nature Strategy that responds to the global framework, including its commitment to conserve 30% of land and waters by 2030. COP17 therefore increases the importance of delivering and demonstrating progress, rather than merely repeating the target.

For Canada, the main challenges include:

Cooperation across governments. Federal, provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments must work together because conservation cannot be delivered by Ottawa alone. Remember, in our constitution, so many aspects of biodiversity conservation are areas of provincial jurisdiction – and the Crown has the duty to consult Indigenous governments when decisions might impact their traditional rights and title.

Indigenous-led conservation. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, Guardians programs, and Indigenous governance are central parts of Canada’s approach. The strengthened international role for Indigenous Peoples reinforces the importance of rights, leadership, and knowledge – not just consultation after decisions are made.

Better evidence of results. International pressure for stronger monitoring makes it more important to show whether conservation measures are protecting ecosystems effectively. Counting hectares alone does not answer that question.

Closer scrutiny of economic policy. The Yerevan Pathway’s attention to harmful incentives and national budgets raises a difficult question for Canada and other countries: are governments funding nature protection while other policies continue to encourage its destruction?

COP17 provided Canada and other countries with additional direction and tools to advance the agreed-upon targets. But its impact – and the future of biodiversity at home and abroad – will ultimately depend on the follow-through: will governments put the policies in place, deliver the funding, and build the partnerships needed to turn the framework’s promises into reality?