COP17 Biodiversity Talks: Progress and Challenges
UN biodiversity negotiations in Yerevan, Armenia, have run beyond their scheduled close. Nearly 200 countries are trying to resolve disputes over finance, subsidies, genetic data and scientific advice. The conference marks the first global review of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework since its adoption in 2022. That framework contains 23 targets aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.
For UK businesses, the summit matters because it will shape the rules around corporate biodiversity disclosure, benefit-sharing from genetic resources and the reform of environmentally harmful subsidies. These issues affect supply chains, compliance obligations and access to international markets. Moreover, the financial mechanisms under discussion influence the funding available for nature-positive investments, which are becoming increasingly important for public sector tenders and corporate sustainability commitments.
The conference ran from 19 to 30 October 2026 alongside meetings under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing. As the scheduled closing date passed, negotiators remained in session to resolve outstanding disagreements. The pattern echoed the previous biodiversity summit in Colombia in 2024, which also overran its timetable amid disputes over conservation finance.
Finance pledges fall short of conservation needs
Biodiversity finance dominated the political agenda. By the end of the high-level segment on 28 October, the Convention on Biological Diversity secretariat reported more than US$1.8 billion in new funding announcements. The figure included government pledges, multilateral commitments and public-private financing initiatives.
Six contributors separately announced approximately US$60.13 million in new pledges to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, which is hosted by the Global Environment Facility. The fund supports developing countries in implementing the global framework. However, negotiators remained divided over who should contribute, how much should be mobilised and which institutions should manage the long-term financial mechanism.
The scale of the challenge is substantial. Estimates cited during the negotiations suggest that protecting and restoring ecosystems requires roughly US$700 billion in additional annual spending beyond current levels. That shortfall affects efforts to conserve forests, wetlands and oceans, restore degraded land and protect threatened species.
A central disagreement concerned whether wealthy emerging economies should join the traditional group of developed-country donors. The European Union supported expanding the contributor base to include countries such as China and Gulf states. Several countries resisted language that could create new obligations for them. Developing countries argue that historically wealthy states bear primary responsibility for financing conservation. Meanwhile, donor countries increasingly maintain that biodiversity protection requires contributions from a broader range of economically capable nations.
Consequently, the financial debate reflects a long-running divide in global environmental diplomacy. For UK businesses working internationally, this matters because the outcome will determine the resources available for conservation projects, the expectations around corporate contributions and the stability of biodiversity-related compliance frameworks.
Harmful subsidies and the US$500 billion target
Negotiators also struggled over Target 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. This target calls for the reform, reduction or elimination of incentives harmful to biodiversity. These include subsidies and financial support linked to fossil fuels, intensive agriculture, overfishing and other activities that damage ecosystems.
Governments have committed to reducing harmful incentives by at least US$500 billion per year by 2030. Nevertheless, progress has been limited. Around US$2.4 trillion is still estimated to flow annually toward subsidies or other incentives that can harm nature. The gap between commitment and action remains wide.
The main dispute was over the strength of the language. Some countries favoured references to identifying, eliminating or phasing out harmful incentives. Others opposed wording they viewed as too prescriptive, particularly in relation to agricultural subsidies. More than 130 businesses and financial institutions backed a call for faster reform, adding pressure outside the formal government negotiations.
Supporters argue that redirecting existing public spending could be one of the fastest ways to narrow the biodiversity finance gap. Opponents and affected sectors have raised concerns about food security, energy costs, rural livelihoods and the distributional effects of subsidy reform. For UK manufacturers and food producers, the debate matters because international subsidy reform could reshape competitive conditions in agricultural and industrial markets.
Additionally, UK businesses operating in sectors affected by subsidy reform need to understand the direction of policy. Changes to agricultural support, fossil fuel subsidies or fisheries incentives will alter costs, regulatory requirements and market access conditions. Therefore, the outcome of these negotiations has direct commercial implications beyond environmental compliance.
The Cali Fund struggles to attract contributions
Another unresolved issue involved the Cali Fund, a mechanism designed to share benefits from the commercial use of digital sequence information. This refers to digital genetic data derived from plants, animals and other organisms. The mechanism was created to ensure that countries and communities supplying biological resources benefit when companies use genetic information in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, cosmetics and other industries.
The fund was launched with an ambition to raise approximately US$1 billion annually for conservation and biodiversity-related development in developing countries. However, it had reportedly attracted only around US$10,000 by the time of the summit. This highlighted the difficulty of relying on voluntary corporate contributions.
Negotiators debated which commercial users should contribute, how contributions should be calculated and how the fund's governance should operate. The technical discussions included a proposed memorandum of understanding between the CBD secretariat and the United Nations Development Programme's Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office. Delegates also considered the mandate of a steering committee for the multilateral mechanism on benefit-sharing from digital sequence information.
The dispute has wider significance because genetic data can circulate globally without the physical transfer of biological material. That complicates traditional access-and-benefit-sharing rules. It has created pressure for a system capable of capturing value from digital research and commercial applications. For UK pharmaceutical, agricultural and biotechnology companies, the Cali Fund represents a potential compliance obligation. If the mechanism becomes mandatory, businesses using genetic information may face new payment requirements.
Scientific advice and Indigenous representation remain unresolved
Scientific evidence was another point of contention as governments debated how technical advice should inform implementation and future decisions. Related discussions covered technical and scientific cooperation support centres. These are intended to help countries build capacity to apply the biodiversity framework.
Negotiators also addressed the establishment of a permanent body for Indigenous Peoples and local communities under Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Indigenous Peoples and local communities play a central role in managing many areas of high biodiversity. However, questions remain over institutional status, representation and the extent of their participation in decision-making.
The talks further included debates about technology transfer, links with the climate regime and the relationship between biodiversity decisions and the agreement governing marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. For UK businesses, the establishment of stronger scientific and Indigenous advisory mechanisms could influence how biodiversity standards are interpreted and enforced. It may also affect the design of nature-positive projects and the requirements for demonstrating genuine community engagement.
The Yerevan Pathway seeks to accelerate progress
Negotiators also considered the proposed Yerevan Pathway, a package intended to accelerate implementation through 2030. The pathway was among the decisions still awaiting agreement as the meeting moved into its final sessions. It was designed to translate the Global Biodiversity Framework's broad commitments into more specific actions and timelines.
The pathway was intended to address gaps in national biodiversity strategies, strengthen monitoring and reporting systems and clarify how different elements of the framework connect. It also sought to provide guidance on aligning biodiversity and climate action, improving corporate disclosure and integrating biodiversity considerations into economic planning.
For UK businesses, the Yerevan Pathway could set the template for how governments expect companies to report on biodiversity risks, contribute to conservation financing and align operations with global targets. Consequently, the outcome will influence the regulatory environment for corporate sustainability over the next four years.
Key facts from the Armenia biodiversity summit
- The 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity ran from 19 to 30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia, and entered overtime as countries sought to resolve financial and policy disputes.
- The summit marked the first global review of collective progress in implementing the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which contains 23 targets for 2030.
- More than US$1.8 billion in new funding was announced, but estimates suggest that protecting and restoring ecosystems requires roughly US$700 billion in additional annual spending.
- Governments have committed to reducing harmful incentives by at least US$500 billion per year by 2030, yet around US$2.4 trillion is still estimated to flow annually toward subsidies that can harm nature.
- The Cali Fund, designed to share benefits from the commercial use of digital genetic data, had attracted only around US$10,000 despite an ambition to raise approximately US$1 billion annually.
- Negotiators debated who should contribute to biodiversity finance, with the European Union supporting an expanded contributor base including wealthy emerging economies.
- Discussions also covered scientific advice mechanisms, Indigenous representation and the proposed Yerevan Pathway to accelerate implementation through 2030.
Commercial implications for UK businesses
The Armenia summit matters for UK businesses in several ways. First, the financial mechanisms under discussion will determine the resources available for nature-positive investments. Many public sector tenders now require suppliers to demonstrate contributions to biodiversity or carbon reduction. Our net-zero program for carbon reporting compliance helps businesses meet these requirements and position themselves for contracts that include environmental criteria.
Second, the debate over harmful subsidies could reshape competitive conditions in key industries. UK manufacturers and food producers operating internationally need to track how subsidy reform in agriculture, fisheries and fossil fuels might affect their markets. Changes to subsidy regimes can alter input costs, regulatory requirements and the level playing field between domestic and international competitors.
Third, the Cali Fund represents a potential compliance obligation for businesses using genetic information. Pharmaceutical, agricultural and biotechnology companies may face new payment requirements if the mechanism becomes mandatory. The current lack of clarity creates uncertainty, but businesses should prepare for the possibility that benefit-sharing obligations will expand. Therefore, tracking the evolution of the Cali Fund is prudent for companies in affected sectors.
Fourth, corporate biodiversity disclosure is becoming more demanding. The Global Biodiversity Framework includes targets for corporate transparency and action. As governments translate these into national law, UK businesses can expect greater scrutiny of their biodiversity impacts, supply chain risks and nature-related financial disclosures. The summit's outcome will influence the pace and scope of these requirements.
Fifth, access to international markets increasingly depends on demonstrating environmental credibility. Countries implementing the biodiversity framework may impose stricter standards on imports, procurement or investment. UK exporters and businesses with international operations need to understand these emerging requirements. Environmental compliance is no longer a separate function but a core element of market access and commercial risk management.
Essentially, the Armenia summit is part of a broader shift toward integrating biodiversity into economic decision-making. Businesses that anticipate these changes and build capacity early will be better positioned than those that wait for regulatory enforcement. The direction of travel is clear even if the details remain under negotiation.
What businesses should consider now
UK businesses should start by understanding their exposure to biodiversity risks. This includes direct impacts from operations and indirect risks through supply chains. Manufacturers, food producers, construction companies and businesses with significant land holdings face particular scrutiny. However, even service businesses with modest physical footprints may have biodiversity exposure through procurement or investment portfolios.
Next, businesses should review their disclosure obligations and expectations. The UK government has signalled its intention to align domestic policy with international biodiversity commitments. Companies should anticipate stronger reporting requirements, particularly around nature-related financial risks. Getting ahead of these requirements reduces compliance costs and positions businesses to meet tender criteria that include environmental standards.
Furthermore, businesses should assess their dependence on subsidies that may be reformed. If your operations or supply chains rely on agricultural support, fossil fuel subsidies or other incentives under pressure, scenario planning is prudent. Understanding how subsidy reform could affect costs, competitiveness and regulatory requirements allows for better strategic decisions.
Businesses should also track developments in benefit-sharing mechanisms. Companies using genetic information for commercial purposes should monitor the Cali Fund and similar initiatives. Even if current obligations are limited, the trend is toward greater expectations around equitable benefit-sharing. Early engagement reduces the risk of regulatory surprises.
Additionally, businesses should consider opportunities as well as risks. Nature-positive investments, biodiversity credits and conservation finance are growing markets. Companies that develop credible strategies in these areas can access new revenue streams, strengthen stakeholder relationships and differentiate themselves in competitive markets. Our nature-positive investment support helps businesses explore these opportunities.
Finally, businesses should build internal capacity to manage biodiversity issues. This includes training for procurement teams, risk managers and sustainability staff. Understanding the language, frameworks and expectations around biodiversity allows businesses to engage effectively with customers, investors and regulators. Our training programs on environmental compliance provide practical skills for managing these issues.
Where to find authoritative guidance
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides UK policy updates on biodiversity and environmental land management. The department's website includes guidance on environmental reporting, nature recovery strategies and biodiversity net gain requirements.
The Convention on Biological Diversity secretariat publishes official documents from the Armenia summit and previous conferences. This includes the text of the Global Biodiversity Framework, national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and technical reports on implementation progress.
The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment offers professional guidance on biodiversity management and environmental impact assessment. IEMA resources include technical standards, case studies and training materials for businesses developing biodiversity strategies.
The UK government's environmental reporting guidance sets out disclosure requirements for large companies. This includes greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and, increasingly, nature-related risks and impacts.
Businesses should also monitor announcements from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on the relationship between climate and biodiversity policy. Integration between the two agendas is increasing, particularly around land use, carbon sequestration and nature-based solutions.