Negotiations at the UN biodiversity conference COP17 are entering a critical phase, with countries divided over who should pay for nature conservation and how Indigenous peoples and local communities should participate in decisions affecting their territories and livelihoods.
The first week of formal discussions concluded on Friday evening, with negotiations set to resume on Monday. Funding responsibilities, gender equality, human rights protections and inclusive decision-making remain among the key unresolved issues.
The conference is expected to test countries’ commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
However, a draft global progress assessment published in July and analysed by Carbon Brief found that countries were off track on 22 of the framework’s 23 targets, highlighting a significant gap between international commitments and implementation.
Guido Broekhoven, WWF’s interim global director for multilateral policy, said the first week had brought difficult decisions into focus but had yet to resolve them. He urged ministers to translate the assessment into stronger national implementation measures.
The Armenian presidency is seeking an overarching outcome, known as the “Yerevan Pathway”, to identify implementation gaps and establish priorities for measurable progress over the next two years.
Financing remains one of the most contentious issues. The European Union and several developed countries want to expand the pool of contributors to include major emerging economies and Gulf states, including China and India.
Supporters argue that the global economic landscape has changed considerably since the list of official donor countries was last reviewed in 2006. They say countries’ current economic capacity should be reflected in their contributions to biodiversity protection.
Developing countries, however, argue that established donors must first fulfil their existing financial commitments before the rules governing funding responsibilities are changed.
The distinction between voluntary contributions and formally assigned funding obligations has become a central point of contention. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also opposed proposals to broaden the pool of official donors.
Juliette Landry, a researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, said Saudi Arabia and Qatar had blocked discussions during the summer. China, meanwhile, supports developing countries but does not want to accept formal funding obligations, she said.
Under the global biodiversity framework, countries aim to mobilise at least $200 billion annually from all sources by 2030. International biodiversity finance for developing countries is expected to reach at least $20 billion a year by 2025 and $30 billion by 2030.
Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests that the 2025 financing milestone may not have been met, although further data are needed for a definitive assessment.
A high-level dialogue on the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund and an announcement of financial pledges are scheduled for October 26, followed by ministerial discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Beyond the amount pledged, negotiators face another challenge: ensuring that conservation funding reaches the people protecting ecosystems on the ground.
Bangladeshi negotiator Zahidul Kabir said Bangladesh supports simplifying access to international biodiversity finance for communities dependent on nature and ensuring that funding reaches them directly.
He said supporting livelihoods that depend on natural resources could help reduce pressure on biodiversity, while civil society organisations could play an important role in working with local communities.
Kazi Amdadul Hoque of Friendship stressed the need to empower communities facing environmental pressures to participate in decision-making.
River erosion and salinity are already affecting agriculture, drinking water and daily life in vulnerable areas, underscoring the importance of locally led conservation and adaptation initiatives.
Negotiators are also discussing a commitment to reduce harmful incentives, including subsidies, by at least $500 billion annually by 2030. Any reform, however, must take into account the livelihoods of farmers, fishers and workers who depend on existing support.
Eva Zabey, executive director of Business for Nature, has argued that harmful subsidies should not be treated solely as an environmental issue, as reform also affects public finance, economic policy and competitiveness.
The slow progress of the Cali Fund has intensified concerns about the private sector’s contribution to biodiversity conservation.
The fund is designed to share benefits arising from the commercial use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources, which can support research and product development in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.
According to The Guardian, pledges to the fund stood at $10,656 at the start of the conference, with only $7,085 paid in. The fund aims to raise $1 billion annually.
At least half of its resources are intended to support the self-identified needs of Indigenous peoples and local communities. However, questions remain over contributions, allocation rules and how benefit-sharing obligations will work in practice.
The Cali Fund is separate from the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, which supports broader biodiversity-related priorities.
Target 22 of the Global Biodiversity Framework calls for inclusive participation in biodiversity-related decision-making, access to justice and information, and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. It also highlights protections for environmental human rights defenders.
Yet Carbon Brief’s assessment has identified gaps in national commitments, monitoring and reporting, including limited attention to protecting environmental defenders.
Disagreements have also emerged over wording on human rights safeguards and gender equality in forest-related negotiations. The final language could determine how explicitly these protections are reflected in implementation.
Nakeu Leshao, an Indigenous rights advocate from Kenya’s Maasai Mara, told the media that Indigenous peoples and local communities must have meaningful and distinct opportunities to participate in biodiversity decisions. Funding should reach communities directly so they can pursue their own conservation priorities, she said.
The conference is due to conclude on Friday. Ministers now face the challenge of turning the global assessment into measurable action backed by reliable financing, meaningful community participation and clear human rights safeguards.
Without progress on these issues, the ambition to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 risks remaining far ahead of implementation.
