COP17: Baton Passes to Ministers Following Week of Slow Progress at Biodiversity Talks
The opening week of the UN Biodiversity Conference in Yerevan ended with a familiar pattern. Technical agreements moved forward on invasive species, monitoring, and compliance. Meanwhile, the difficult questions around money, subsidies, and benefit-sharing remained stuck. Negotiators have now passed those issues up to ministers, who arrived this week to find the same divides that have hampered biodiversity talks for years.
For UK businesses, particularly those with supply chains tied to agriculture, forestry, or natural resources, the outcome matters. The decisions taken at this conference will shape how biodiversity risk is measured, how subsidies are reformed, and how companies demonstrate nature-related performance to investors and public sector buyers. The gap between ambition and delivery is narrowing, and the pressure on governments to move beyond declarations is growing.
What COP17 is and why it is happening now
COP17 is the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It runs from 19 to 30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia. Two related agreements are also meeting alongside it: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing.
This is the first global review of progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which governments adopted in 2022. That framework sets targets for 2030, including protecting 30% of land and oceans, restoring degraded ecosystems, cutting pollution, and raising significantly more finance for nature. With only four years left, the review is a chance to assess whether implementation is on track.
It is not. The Convention on Biological Diversity has identified finance, capacity-building, scientific cooperation, and stronger participation by Indigenous peoples and local communities as essential conditions for faster progress. Those conditions are not yet in place at the scale required.
Technical progress and limited political breakthroughs
Delegates did adopt several decisions during the first week. The CBD Secretariat confirmed that COP17 adopted four decisions covering invasive alien species, gender, education, and knowledge management. Parties to the Cartagena Protocol adopted eight decisions on monitoring, reporting, compliance, and national implementation. Two further decisions were adopted under the Nagoya Protocol.
Invasive alien species received particular attention. Decisions aim to improve early detection, information sharing, emergency response, and technology transfer. Invasive species are recognised as one of the five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss globally.
Several funding announcements accompanied the technical decisions. Nine philanthropic organisations launched the Species Recovery Alliance, committing $500 million over five years to support endangered and critically endangered species. The Bezos Earth Fund pledged $100 million to that initiative. Six contributors announced approximately $60.13 million in new pledges to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, including four first-time contributors and the first city government to pledge.
According to the CBD Secretariat, the fund has programmed more than $362 million across 87 countries since it was established. Armenia and Colombia also launched the Coalition of Action to Recover Endangered Species. More than 130 businesses and financial institutions backed a call for faster reform of incentives that damage biodiversity.
COP17 President Hambardzum Matevosyan said the conference was enabling "a total mobilisation of more than $1.8 billion from all sources" in support of biodiversity action. However, these commitments need to be set against the scale of the financing challenge and the political divisions that remain unresolved.
Finance, subsidies, and benefit-sharing remain stuck
Three issues dominate the unfinished business at COP17. Each involves money, sovereignty, and competing national interests. Each has been discussed for years without resolution. Ministers are now expected to find compromises that technical negotiators could not.
First, biodiversity finance. Developing countries argue that implementing the Kunming-Montreal framework requires predictable international funding, particularly for countries with high biodiversity and limited domestic resources. Negotiators remain divided over who should contribute, how much should be mobilised, and which mechanisms should administer it.
These disagreements matter because the framework's targets cannot be delivered through national policy alone. Many lower-income countries face substantial costs for ecosystem protection, restoration, monitoring, and enforcement. Current pledges to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund remain far below the scale required to transform land use, food systems, infrastructure, and conservation practice.
Second, harmful subsidies. Target 18 of the Kunming-Montreal framework calls for identifying and eliminating, phasing out, or reforming incentives that are harmful to biodiversity. This issue reaches well beyond conservation policy. Agricultural, fisheries, forestry, energy, and infrastructure subsidies influence production decisions and land-use change. Reforming them could redirect public spending toward ecosystem health, but it may also affect food prices, rural livelihoods, national industries, and politically influential sectors.
The CBD Secretariat said Parties remained divided over language concerning the reduction or phase-out of harmful incentives, including agricultural subsidies. Support from more than 130 businesses and financial institutions indicates growing private-sector pressure. Nevertheless, political agreement among governments remains necessary for binding or measurable progress.
Third, digital sequence information and the Cali Fund. Digital sequence information refers to digital data derived from genetic resources. It can be used in research, biotechnology, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and other commercial applications, often without the physical movement of the original genetic material. Negotiations seek to establish how benefits from the use of this information should be shared with countries and communities connected to the underlying genetic resources.
The Cali Fund is intended to receive contributions linked to the use of digital sequence information and distribute benefits in support of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The issue is technically complex because genetic data circulate internationally, commercial uses can be difficult to trace, and governments disagree over the contributions that should be expected from users. Progress on this mechanism will be closely watched by developing countries and Indigenous peoples, which have argued that benefit-sharing must be fair, transparent, and capable of supporting conservation where genetic resources originate.
Ministers expected to seek political compromises
The high-level segment is scheduled for 27 and 28 October. The Armenian government said the ministerial meetings are intended to build political momentum for implementation of the Kunming-Montreal framework and for the decisions expected at COP17. The CBD Secretariat expects approximately 1,500 people to participate, including about 140 environment and finance ministers and deputy ministers.
Their involvement is particularly important because the remaining disputes involve national budgets, economic policy, trade-offs among sectors, and the design of international institutions. Technical negotiators cannot settle those questions without political direction. The conference is also expected to consider a proposed "Yerevan Pathway" aimed at accelerating implementation of the global biodiversity framework through 2030. Its significance will depend on whether it produces concrete measures or remains primarily a political declaration.
Commercial implications for UK businesses
The outcome of COP17 will affect UK businesses in several ways. First, biodiversity finance commitments will shape how nature-related risk is priced into investment decisions. Financial institutions are already integrating biodiversity into risk assessments, and clearer international finance flows will accelerate that process. Companies with high exposure to land use, water, or natural resources will face closer scrutiny from investors and lenders.
Second, reforms to harmful subsidies will change competitive dynamics in sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. UK businesses operating in those sectors, or sourcing from them, will need to track subsidy reforms in supplier countries. Changes to agricultural support schemes can affect commodity prices, supply security, and the availability of sustainably produced inputs. Companies that have committed to deforestation-free supply chains or sustainable sourcing will need to monitor how subsidy reforms interact with those commitments.
Third, the Cali Fund and digital sequence information mechanism will affect companies using genetic resources in research, product development, or biotechnology. The rules agreed at COP17 will determine contribution requirements, reporting obligations, and the scope of benefit-sharing arrangements. Businesses in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, cosmetics, and biotechnology should pay close attention to how the mechanism is designed and what compliance requirements emerge.
Fourth, public sector suppliers face growing scrutiny on nature-related performance. Procurement policies in the UK already require suppliers to demonstrate carbon reduction plans. Nature-related requirements are likely to follow. Companies that can show alignment with the Kunming-Montreal framework's targets, particularly on ecosystem restoration and biodiversity-positive practices, will be better positioned for public sector contracts.
Finally, the pace of implementation will determine how quickly mandatory disclosure regimes evolve. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures has already published its framework. As governments demonstrate progress under the biodiversity framework, pressure will grow for regulatory adoption of nature-related reporting. UK businesses should expect disclosure requirements to tighten, particularly for listed companies and those accessing public finance or contracts.
Key facts from the first week
- COP17 adopted four decisions covering invasive alien species, gender, education, and knowledge management during the opening week.
- Nine philanthropic organisations committed $500 million over five years to the Species Recovery Alliance, targeting endangered and critically endangered species.
- Six contributors announced approximately $60.13 million in new pledges to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, including four first-time contributors.
- The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund has programmed more than $362 million across 87 countries since its establishment.
- More than 130 businesses and financial institutions backed calls for faster reform of incentives that damage biodiversity.
- Negotiators remained divided over biodiversity finance, harmful subsidies, and the sharing of benefits from digital sequence information.
- Approximately 140 environment and finance ministers and deputy ministers are expected to participate in the high-level segment on 27 and 28 October.
What businesses should be considering now
We work with businesses that are trying to understand what biodiversity commitments mean in practice. The gap between international targets and commercial reality is significant. However, three areas deserve attention regardless of how COP17 concludes.
First, supply chain risk. Companies need to map exposure to biodiversity-sensitive sectors and geographies. This includes understanding where commodities are sourced, how production practices affect ecosystems, and whether suppliers operate in areas covered by protected-area targets or restoration commitments. Supply chain mapping is not new, but biodiversity adds complexity because impacts are location-specific and cumulative.
Second, disclosure readiness. Nature-related financial disclosure is moving from voluntary frameworks to regulatory expectation. Businesses should assess whether they have the data, systems, and governance to report on biodiversity impacts and dependencies. This includes identifying material risks, setting targets, and tracking progress. Companies that wait for mandatory disclosure rules to appear will find themselves behind those that have already built internal capacity.
Third, subsidy exposure. Businesses that rely on, or compete with, subsidised sectors should monitor reform discussions. Changes to agricultural, energy, or fisheries subsidies can affect input costs, market access, and competitive positioning. Companies should also consider whether they receive support that could be classified as harmful to biodiversity under Target 18. Transparency about subsidy exposure will become more important as governments report on progress.
Finally, engagement with the biodiversity framework should be practical, not symbolic. Setting a biodiversity target is straightforward. Delivering it requires understanding what drives biodiversity loss in your operations and supply chain, and then changing those practices. Businesses that treat biodiversity as a reporting exercise will find themselves exposed when investors, customers, or regulators ask for evidence of real-world impact.
Our ESG compliance support helps businesses understand regulatory expectations and build reporting systems that can withstand scrutiny. We also provide nature-positive project guidance for companies looking to invest in biodiversity outcomes that align with their commercial objectives.
Where to find authoritative information
The Convention on Biological Diversity publishes official documents, negotiating texts, and decisions from COP17. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides UK government policy on biodiversity and updates on international negotiations. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures offers guidance on nature-related risk assessment and reporting frameworks.
For businesses working through biodiversity requirements in procurement or supply chains, the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership publishes research on nature-related business risks. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment provides professional guidance on biodiversity impact assessment and mitigation.
These sources offer technical detail and policy context. They will be updated as COP17 progresses and as governments finalise decisions during the ministerial segment.