While we were busy choosing the best disguise for the scariest night of the year, COP17 on biodiversity concluded in Armenia on October 31st, which dealt with topics really terrifying (other than ghosts and witches) like the unprecedented decline in the variety of living species on Earth.
The two weeks of negotiations in the capital Yerevan ended with a bitter realization: we are very far from reaching the 23 objectives set by the Kunming-Montreal agreement in 2022, during COP15. The best known (and contested by many) objective is the one which envisages protecting 30% of the world’s marine and terrestrial areas by 2030: for now we are at around 20% for the land and 10% for the seas (with 22-23% in national waters and only 1.5% in the high seas). “If collective implementation is not rapidly accelerated (…) the 2030 objectives will not be achieved,” underlines the final document of the global review of the Conference.
The Yerevan Pathway
One of the key decisions of COP17 on biodiversity is the adoption of the Yerevan Pathway, an action plan that aims to reach the objectives set during COP15 as soon as possible. The priorities are to reduce subsidies and incentives for activities that damage biodiversity (such as fishing and agriculture); increase financial, scientific and technical support to the poorest (but richest in biodiversity) countries; align national budgets and economic decisions with the Kunming-Montreal Agreement; check that the parties involved keep their promises, through monitoring and periodic review of the objectives achieved.
The first point highlights a paradox: the UN estimates that for every dollar invested in conservation, 30 are invested in harmful activities. As Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), points out, “we cannot protect nature by continuing to finance its destruction.”
The main problem: funding
One of the hottest topics was the financial one: the CBD provides that each party involved finances national biodiversity activities based on their capabilities, and that the more advanced countries financially help the poorer ones. This forced generosity, however, is not liked by many (especially the Arab countries): the EU asked to expand the list of donor countries, but this was not the case. Overall, new funds totaling approximately $2 billion were announced.
So, how did it go?
COP17 has concluded without infamy and without praiseavoiding disaster without setting more ambitious goals.
According to Steven Guilbeault, one of the architects of the Kunming-Montreal agreement, the two weeks of discussions in Armenia mark “an important step forward, which however is not enough to respect the commitments for 2030”. The opinion of other experts is more negative, such as An Lambrechts (Greenpeace International), according to which “the pace and scope of actions are still lower than what the biodiversity crisis requires”, and Bonaventure Bono (Greenpeace Africa), who draws attention to the issue of indigenous populations, noting that “COP17 did not recognize the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples and local communities, nor did it use strong formulations on their rights”. The next appointment is for 2028 in Quito, Ecuador, where COP18 will be held.
