After nearly two weeks of negotiations in Yerevan, Armenia, representatives from almost 200 nations announced that they had finally agreed on the core elements of a new global nature action plan. The agreement builds on the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework, which set 24 targets—including protecting 30 % of the planet’s land and sea by 2030—but the summit highlighted a stark gap between ambition and the money required to deliver it.

What was agreed

The summit concluded with a consensus on the “key parts” of a fresh action plan aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss. Participants reaffirmed the 2022 commitment to protect 30 % of terrestrial and marine areas by the end of the decade and acknowledged that the world is currently experiencing a sixth mass extinction, with species disappearing at a rate 100 times faster than the natural background rate.

Quotes from the floor illustrate the mood: Catherine Weller of Fauna & Flora described the outcome as “good news that countries could reach agreement,” while Craig Bennett, CEO of The Wildlife Trusts, warned that “we are still seeing an appalling loss, threatening the collapse of ecosystems globally.” Both emphasized that the agreement, though modest, offers a platform for scaling up conservation successes such as the recent recoveries of elephants, green sea turtles and tigers.

Financing challenges

Money emerged as the most contentious issue. In 2022, nations pledged $30 billion in public funds for nature recovery and aimed to mobilise an additional $170 billion from private sources by 2030. The summit revealed that actual contributions have fallen far short of those goals. While more than $1 billion was pledged at the meeting—half of it from philanthropists like Leonardo DiCaprio’s Re:wild organisation—the amount is a fraction of the $30 billion target.

Several factors are undermining financing progress. Many countries have redirected international aid toward defence spending and energy‑price shocks, diluting the flow of resources earmarked for biodiversity. The newly proposed Cali Fund, intended to collect up to $3.6 billion annually from companies exploiting genetic material, attracted only $10,000 in pledges at the start of the talks, underscoring the difficulty of converting voluntary contributions into substantial funding.

Implications for biodiversity

The financing shortfall threatens the ability to meet the Global Biodiversity Framework’s targets. Without sufficient investment, the protection of 30 % of land and sea—an area larger than Greenland—remains aspirational. Moreover, the continued subsidisation of harmful practices, such as large‑scale trawling, compounds the challenge. Anna Ducros of the International Institute for Environment and Development highlighted the paradox of governments “paying twice” by funding nature projects while simultaneously subsidising activities that damage ecosystems.

Nevertheless, the agreement signals a renewed political will to address biodiversity loss. The consensus on scientific reporting, despite opposition from a small bloc of countries (including Saudi Arabia and Russia), demonstrates a commitment to evidence‑based policy—a prerequisite for effective conservation.

Looking ahead

Next month, leaders will convene at COP31, the annual climate conference, where the interplay between climate action and biodiversity financing will be tested again. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) faces similar hurdles in securing funding for its scientific assessments, suggesting that the financing dilemma is not confined to biodiversity alone.

Key take‑aways:

In sum, the Yerevan summit marks a modest diplomatic victory but also a stark reminder that without robust financing, the world’s biodiversity goals risk remaining unfulfilled.