Dhaka, October 24, 2026 — The first week of negotiations at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP17) has exposed persistent divisions over biodiversity finance, Indigenous peoples’ rights and the implementation of global conservation commitments, despite progress on several technical issues.
As negotiations enter their second week in Yerevan, Armenia, the central challenge is becoming increasingly clear: countries broadly agree on the need to halt biodiversity loss, but remain divided over who should pay, how resources should be distributed and how commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) should be implemented.
The conference, running from October 19 to 30, marks the first global review of collective progress towards the framework’s 2030 targets. The review is particularly significant because current national commitments and implementation efforts remain insufficient to put the world on track to meet most of those targets.
Finance Remains the Biggest Obstacle
Biodiversity finance has emerged as one of the most contentious issues of the first week. Negotiations have focused on the future architecture of the Convention’s financial mechanism, the mobilization of resources from different sources and whether the list of countries expected to contribute international biodiversity finance should be expanded.
The KMGBF calls for mobilizing at least $200 billion annually from all sources by 2030, including at least $30 billion a year in international biodiversity finance. However, developing countries argue that existing resources remain inadequate and that developed countries must fulfil their financial responsibilities.
Developed countries have argued that changes in the global economic landscape warrant reconsideration of the contributor base. Developing countries have resisted approaches that could alter their obligations under the Convention, emphasizing historical responsibility and the principle of equity.
A roadmap adopted during the resumed session of COP16 provides for further work through COP17 to COP19 on establishing a permanent financial mechanism and improving resource mobilization. However, the first week in Yerevan has shown that agreement on the direction of this process remains difficult.
Some progress has been reported in discussions on the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. Delegates agreed to call for stronger resource mobilization and more transparent reporting on pledges and actual contributions. Yet the broader question of whether funding will be sufficient, predictable and accessible remains unresolved.
The ICCA Consortium, representing Indigenous and community conservation interests, has stressed that the financing gap is not simply about the amount of money available. It is also about who can access the funds, who makes decisions and whether resources reach communities that protect biodiversity on the ground. It has called for direct financing mechanisms and stronger safeguards for community-led conservation.
Indigenous Rights Under Negotiation
The institutional role of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) has been another major issue. Delegates are negotiating the operating procedures of the new Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j), which deals with traditional knowledge and the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities in biodiversity conservation.
Discussions have addressed representation, regional participation, the appointment of an Indigenous co-chair and the relationship between full participation and the Party-led character of the Convention. Several provisions remained under discussion at the end of the first week.
Civil society groups and Indigenous representatives have warned against weakening existing rights-based commitments. Their concerns include recognition of customary territories, free, prior and informed consent, women’s rights and direct access to conservation finance.
A joint call by Indigenous, Afro-descendant and civil society organizations has urged governments to preserve safeguards and ensure that communities are recognized as rights-holders and decision-makers, rather than merely beneficiaries of conservation projects.
Some Progress, but Important Disagreements Persist
Negotiations on biodiversity and agriculture produced agreement on several provisions concerning soil biodiversity. These include integrating soil conservation, restoration and sustainable use into national planning, improving coordination between agriculture, environment and health authorities, and strengthening monitoring methodologies.
However, delegates failed to agree on provisions concerning financial support for soil research and monitoring, the reform of incentives and subsidies harmful to biodiversity, and some pollution-related measures. A smaller group was tasked with resolving outstanding differences.
On biodiversity mainstreaming, delegates agreed on the importance of integrating biodiversity values into decision-making across sectors. But disagreement remains over how sectoral activities should be aligned with global targets and how far the decision should go in prescribing national action.
Discussions on biodiversity and climate change, marine and coastal ecosystems, the global progress review and digital sequence information also continued without resolving all major differences. Some less controversial decisions were adopted during the first week’s closing plenary, but the most politically sensitive issues remain open.
Nature Credits and the Private Sector
Beyond formal negotiations, the launch of draft international standards for nature credits by the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits has added to discussions about the role of private finance.
The proposed standards seek to establish common minimum requirements for nature-credit markets, including fair payment and consent for local communities. Such markets could attract additional investment in conservation, but their credibility will depend on transparent measurement, environmental integrity and safeguards against harm to communities.
The COP17 Presidency has also highlighted the need to operationalize the Cali Fund, which is intended to share benefits arising from the commercial use of digital sequence information on genetic resources. Discussions have focused on encouraging corporate contributions, ensuring transparent allocation and protecting the interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
The challenge is to ensure that private investment complements public financing obligations rather than replacing them, while avoiding the commodification of nature without adequate safeguards.
What to Expect in the Second Week
The second week is likely to focus on closing differences over biodiversity finance, the financial mechanism, Indigenous participation, the Cali Fund and the global review of KMGBF implementation.
Finance will be the decisive test. Governments will need to bridge differences over the contributor base, the future financial architecture and the scale and accessibility of funding. Without credible progress, the global review risks documenting implementation gaps without providing a convincing response.
The rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities will also require political compromise. Decisions on Article 8(j) must establish workable procedures while preserving meaningful representation and participation.
The 30-by-30 target will receive renewed attention. Target 3 of the KMGBF calls for conserving at least 30% of terrestrial and inland-water areas, and 30% of marine and coastal areas, by 2030. A dedicated Target 3 Action Day on October 25 is expected to bring governments and conservation organizations together to discuss how commitments can translate into effective protection on land and at sea.
The planned release of new findings on the global state of kelp forests will also draw attention to the vulnerability of marine ecosystems and opportunities for restoration.
From Negotiation to Delivery
WWF’s first-week assessment asks whether countries can turn their stated willingness to act into practical outcomes. The question reflects the wider challenge facing COP17: global biodiversity commitments will mean little without finance, effective national implementation and accountability.
The coming week must therefore deliver more than carefully negotiated language. It must establish a credible pathway for financing conservation, protecting community rights and accelerating implementation before the 2030 deadline.
For developing countries, the outcome will be judged not only by the ambitions stated in the final decisions, but also by whether the agreed measures provide the financial and technical support needed to implement them.
COP17 still has an opportunity to turn its first global progress review into a turning point. Whether it succeeds will depend on the willingness of governments to resolve their differences and match biodiversity commitments with practical action.
