Nearly 200 nations finalized a series of hard-fought agreements on Friday at a United Nations biodiversity summit in Armenia, concluding two weeks of intense negotiations. While delegates cheered as the texts were approved in overtime, the atmosphere remained tempered by frustration regarding the limited progress made on several contentious issues. The COP17 summit was organized with the specific aim of reviving a landmark commitment to halt and reverse nature's destruction by 2030, a goal that global efforts have thus far struggled to meet.
Throughout the two-week gathering in Yerevan, nations were urged to correct course to protect the diverse plants, animals, and ecosystems essential for life on Earth. The United Nations had previously warned that current progress was insufficient to achieve the 2030 target, which includes protecting 30 percent of the planet's land and oceans, mitigating pollution, controlling invasive species, and increasing conservation funding. COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan officially brought the summit to a close as he struck his gavel to approve the two major texts, though final versions were not available until early Saturday.
Despite the approval, the outcome drew sharp criticism from some participants. French Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut stated early Saturday that the results were not commensurate with the crisis currently facing the natural world. She described the lack of sufficient progress as a series of missed opportunities to accelerate the response to biodiversity loss, emphasizing that nature will not wait for the pace of diplomatic negotiations.
Negotiations were marked by significant tension, stretching through Friday night and into Saturday morning as delegates argued over technical details. Juliette Landry, a veteran COP observer from the IDDRI think tank, noted that the summit involved considerable push and pull in every direction, which made reaching consensus difficult. However, some voices offered a more measured perspective. Guido Broekhoven of WWF International acknowledged that the agreements represent a step forward, despite noted weaknesses regarding harmful subsidies. Similarly, An Lambrechts from Greenpeace International highlighted that the summit generated important political momentum to address financial incentives that harm nature, such as fossil fuels, intensive agriculture, and overfishing.
A notable conflict erupted over the role of science, with several countries accused of obstructing efforts to approve key reports in scenes that shocked seasoned negotiators. Swiss negotiator Gabriela Blatter, speaking on behalf of dozens of countries, expressed regret that scientific evidence was being constrained by politics, asserting that while national interests are respected, science is not negotiable. Additionally, a dispute persisted regarding the financing of conservation efforts, exacerbated by public budget strains linked to the energy crisis and ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. The European Union pushed for wealthy emerging economies, including China, to contribute more to global conservation. Although a draft text circulated Friday invited non-developed countries to join as donors, the future of the Cali Fund—a UN mechanism intended to attract corporate contributions—remains uncertain. Critics like Pakhi Das from the nonprofit organization Plant-for-the-Planet warned that by punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have ensured the fund remains empty. Looking ahead, the summit concluded with the decision that Ecuador will host the next biodiversity talks in 2028, following a secret vote against Panama.
