COP17 in Yerevan warns 2030 nature targets will be missed without much faster action

Countries at the COP17 UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan, Armenia, have concluded that the world will not reverse nature loss by 2030 unless action is rapidly accelerated, according to an analysis of the outcomes published by Carbon Brief on 31 October 2026. The talks, which opened on 19 October, also produced a hard-fought compromise on who should pay to protect nature.

The two-week meeting marked the halfway point of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). This 2022 agreement, often called the "Paris Agreement for nature", sets 23 targets to be met by 2030. Countries chose Quito, Ecuador, to host COP18 in 2028.

A first check on progress

A central outcome was the first "global review", a stocktake of collective progress towards the GBF targets. The text expresses deep concern that the goals will not be met without much faster action and urges countries to step up implementation, including through greater ambition.

That wording was contested. Some developing countries resisted the word "ambition", arguing that doing more requires more money for nature, which is already falling far short. Kirsty Leong, a policy expert at WWF, told Carbon Brief that one side argued "the main problem in implementation is that they don't have the means to do it".

Unlike COP16 in Colombia, which ran so long that it lost quorum, the minimum number of countries needed to take decisions, COP17 signed off all major texts during a final session lasting nearly 12 hours.

Who pays for nature

Finance dominated the negotiations. According to the global report, developed countries missed their pledge to raise at least $20bn a year for nature by 2025. Delegates pointed to falling aid and a 27% drop in environmental funding for 2026-30. The GBF aims to raise at least $200bn a year from all sources by 2030.

A bloc of developed countries known as JUSCANZ pushed to widen the group of payers, which could add emerging economies such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the donor list under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. That list was last changed in 2006. Christopher O'Sullivan, Ireland's nature minister, speaking for the EU, said: "it's been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities."

Lim Li Ching of the Third World Network rejected the push, arguing that linking income status with finance ignores historical and current responsibility.

The final deal sets no criteria for expanding the list. Countries wishing to join can signal interest through confidential consultations before COP18 and at every other COP after that, and none will be added without explicit consent. Developing countries may contribute voluntarily without joining. Kenya described the outcome as a compromise with no major winner or loser.

Countries also established a permanent financial mechanism for nature after 2030 under the COP's authority, a key demand of developing countries, but left its form to COP18. Oscar Soria of the Common Initiative said the decision showed no movement towards a new fund. Carbon Brief also notes that a fund created at COP16 to pay communities for genetic resources derived from nature remains nearly empty.

Why it matters for Tanzania

Tanzania, like many developing countries, relies heavily on forests, wildlife, coastal ecosystems and rain-fed farming, so it has a direct stake in whether money for nature grows. The missed donor pledge and the delay on a dedicated fund mean support for protecting ecosystems remains uncertain at least until COP18 in 2028.

The warning that the 2030 targets are off track also bears on national efforts, which feed into these global reviews. With neighbouring Kenya among the voices shaping the finance compromise, East African countries have reason to follow the talks closely as they move to Quito.

Source: Carbon Brief