Reynand Wu
YEREVAN, Armenia — Next week, the international diplomatic community will descend upon Yerevan, Armenia, as 196 parties gather under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The stakes could not be higher. As the global community reaches the halfway point between the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the 2030 deadline for its ambitious targets, the atmosphere in Yerevan is one of urgent reflection and mounting pressure.
For two weeks, from October 19 to 30, delegates will engage in a grueling process of negotiation, attempting to hammer out the precise legal language for dozens of critical decisions. With recent UN reporting indicating that the world is currently failing to meet 22 out of the 23 specific targets outlined in the GBF, the Yerevan summit serves as a litmus test for international environmental cooperation.
The Main Facts: A Halfway Point Defined by Disparity
The Kunming-Montreal agreement was hailed as a "Paris Agreement for Nature." However, the optimism of 2022 has been tempered by the harsh reality of implementation. The CBD’s latest assessments reveal a systemic shortfall in national efforts, with the vast majority of the 23 nature targets currently off track.
The conference will focus on the two supplemental protocols to the CBD:
- The Cartagena Protocol: Governing biosafety and the movement of living modified organisms.
- The Nagoya Protocol: Establishing rules for access to genetic resources and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization.
These "Meetings of the Parties" (MOPs) are critical, though they involve a smaller subset of signatories compared to the full CBD. As delegates gather, they will rely on the foundational work provided by the CBD’s three subsidiary bodies: the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), and the newly established Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) (SB8J), which focuses on the rights and knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Chronology of Conflict: From Cali to Yerevan
To understand the friction expected in Yerevan, one must look at the recent, turbulent history of the CBD summits.
- October 2024 (COP16, Cali, Colombia): The summit concluded in a state of partial suspension. While significant strides were made in recognizing the role of indigenous communities, the talks hit a wall regarding the financial mechanism for biodiversity. Parties were unable to bridge the gap between Global South demands for a new, independent fund and the Global North’s insistence on utilizing existing structures.
- Early 2025 (Resumed Session, Rome): Following the stalemate in Colombia, a resumed session in Rome provided a breakthrough of sorts. Countries agreed upon a "roadmap" toward a permanent financial mechanism.
- October 2026 (Yerevan): The current summit acts as the operational follow-up to the Rome roadmap. It is here that the diplomatic community must translate the abstract agreements of 2025 into tangible legal texts that govern how money, science, and policy are deployed to halt nature loss.
Supporting Data: Decoding the Negotiating Texts
A unique feature of these negotiations is the presence of "square brackets" within draft texts. In the world of UN diplomacy, square brackets denote language that has yet to achieve consensus. They are the physical representation of political disagreement.
To track this, analysts utilize color-coded monitoring systems:
- Dark Green: Denotes sections with low levels of disagreement (few brackets).
- Red: Indicates high-conflict zones where fundamental wording remains contested.
Furthermore, texts often present "options" or "alternatives" (marked as "alt"). These represent competing visions of how to interpret international law, and their volume in the Yerevan draft texts will provide an immediate pulse-check on whether this COP is moving toward convergence or fracturing further.
The Financial Fault Line: North vs. South
The most contentious issue in Yerevan will undoubtedly be the mobilization of resources. The debate is polarized between two distinct schools of thought:
The Global South Perspective:
Biodiverse nations, many of which are in the Global South, argue that they are the stewards of the world’s most precious ecosystems—from the Amazon basin to the Congo forests—but are not receiving the financial support required to protect them. They are advocating for a dedicated financial mechanism under the direct control of the CBD. They argue that the current funding landscape is fragmented, difficult to access, and overly influenced by donor-country priorities.
The Global North Perspective:
Developed nations, representing the primary source of international conservation funding, generally prefer to maintain the existing financial architecture, primarily through the Global Environment Facility (GEF). They argue that creating a new, separate mechanism would lead to administrative duplication, increased overhead costs, and a fragmentation of international aid.
The progress made in Rome to create a roadmap for a "permanent mechanism" is, in essence, an attempt to bridge these two views. Whether the Yerevan delegates can finalize the details of this mechanism will determine whether the summit is viewed as a success or a missed opportunity.
Official Responses and Strategic Implications
The implications of the Yerevan summit extend far beyond the negotiating halls. If the parties fail to reach a consensus on the financial mechanism, the 2030 targets will become mathematically impossible to achieve.
Recent analysis suggests that the nature finance gap is widening. While some nations have stepped up, the collective total remains a fraction of what is needed to restore degraded lands and protect existing biodiversity. The pressure is mounting on developed nations to demonstrate that their "nature pledges" are not merely rhetorical, but are backed by substantive capital transfers.
The Role of Indigenous Leadership
The inclusion of SB8J is a significant evolution for the CBD. By centering the discussions on Article 8(j), the UN is acknowledging that the protection of biodiversity is inseparable from the protection of Indigenous sovereignty. Reports from the field indicate that lands managed by Indigenous peoples show higher levels of biodiversity than state-managed protected areas. Consequently, the legal language regarding how Indigenous knowledge is incorporated into national biodiversity strategies is a major focus for NGOs and activists present in Yerevan.
Global Outlook: The Lula Presidency Effect
As delegates arrive, they do so against the backdrop of significant regional successes. For instance, recent data indicates that the current administration in Brazil has successfully protected at least 20,000 square kilometers of the Amazon rainforest since 2022. This demonstrates that political will, when backed by consistent policy, can yield rapid environmental results. Such successes serve as the "north star" for negotiators: proof that the GBF is not just a theoretical framework, but a catalyst for real-world change.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Now
As the clock ticks toward 2030, the Yerevan summit is more than a routine diplomatic gathering; it is an emergency response to a biosphere in decline. The sheer volume of work remaining, as evidenced by the high density of brackets and alternatives in the draft texts, suggests that the next two weeks will be characterized by intense, round-the-clock negotiation.
If the parties can transcend the North-South divide on finance, they will provide the necessary foundation to move from target-setting to implementation. If they fail, they risk leaving the 2030 nature targets as little more than a set of ambitious, unfulfilled promises. The world will be watching to see if the delegates in Yerevan possess the political courage to prioritize the survival of the planet’s ecosystems over the short-term preservation of national financial interests.
For the international community, the mandate is clear: the era of deliberation must give way to an era of accelerated, funded, and inclusive action. The forests, oceans, and species currently on the brink of collapse cannot afford another decade of debate.
Nana Muazin
Layla Zulfa
Ali Ikhwan
Nila Kartika Wati
Jia Lissa