Nature is the foundation of life. It has sustained life on Earth for millions of years, providing the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe and ecosystems on which human survival depends. Forests absorb carbon and shelter wildlife, rivers sustain communities, wetlands help regulate floods, and fertile soils provide the basis for food production. From the smallest microorganisms to the largest mammals, every living organism forms part of an interconnected natural system.
Yet these life-supporting systems are under growing pressure from decades of habitat destruction, pollution, unsustainable resource extraction, and climate change. In response to the escalating global biodiversity crisis, the international community adopted the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, recognising that no country can protect the planet’s natural heritage alone. The agreement established a framework for international cooperation to conserve biodiversity, promote the sustainable use of biological resources, and ensure the fair sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources.
Despite these longstanding commitments, the world remains off track to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. As the deadline approaches, progress towards the ambitious targets set by governments remains too slow. Financial resources are inadequate, while activities that damage nature continue to receive substantial public support. The gap between political promises and meaningful action is growing increasingly difficult to ignore.
Against this backdrop, the upcoming United Nations Biodiversity Summit, COP17, scheduled for 19–30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia, presents a critical opportunity for governments to reassess their priorities and accelerate efforts to protect nature. The summit will provide the first global review of collective progress towards the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022. It will offer an important opportunity to assess whether countries are translating their commitments into concrete measures to conserve ecosystems, restore degraded habitats, and halt biodiversity loss.
The central question is no longer whether the world needs to protect nature, but whether its leaders are prepared to turn their promises into measurable results before the window for meaningful action narrows further.
Global Biodiversity Goals 2030: What Are the Global Biodiversity Goals 2030?
In 2022, nearly 200 countries adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, widely described as the world’s equivalent of the Paris Agreement for nature. The framework established 23 targets intended to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 while supporting the long-term recovery of ecosystems and species. These targets address several interconnected environmental challenges, including:
– Protecting and restoring degraded terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems.
– Conserving at least 30% of the world’s land and inland waters, alongside 30% of coastal and marine areas, by 2030.
– Reducing pollution, including pollution from pesticides, excess nutrients and plastics.
– Preventing the extinction of threatened species and improving the conservation of wildlife.
– Promoting sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
– Reducing financial incentives that encourage environmental destruction.
– Mobilising greater financial resources to support biodiversity conservation, particularly in developing countries.
Collectively, these commitments represent an important international effort to safeguard the natural foundations of human well-being. However, adopting targets is only the beginning. Their success depends on national policies, effective enforcement, adequate funding and a willingness to confront economic activities that undermine ecological health.
The 30×30 Conservation Target Remains at Risk
One of the most prominent commitments under the global biodiversity framework is the 30×30 target: conserving 30% of the world’s land and inland waters, as well as 30% of its coastal and marine areas, by 2030. The objective is to provide wildlife with secure habitats, protect ecological processes and maintain the natural systems that support human societies.
According to the assessment described in the supplied report, however, existing government pledges remain insufficient. If implemented in full, current commitments would cover approximately 27% of land and inland waters by the end of the decade, while marine coverage would reach only about 12%. These figures illustrate the difference between political ambition and the conservation measures currently being proposed.
Protected areas are essential, but their effectiveness depends on how they are managed. Declaring a forest, wetland or marine area protected does not automatically prevent illegal logging, poaching, destructive fishing or pollution. Conservation must be supported by monitoring, enforcement, local participation and long-term management. Moreover, biodiversity protection should not become a matter of drawing boundaries on maps alone.
Wildlife corridors, connected habitats and the restoration of degraded ecosystems are also necessary to help species survive environmental changes. The remaining years before 2030 must therefore bring stronger commitments and practical action on the ground.
The Funding Gap Is Undermining Nature Protection
Money remains one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the global biodiversity goals. The international commitment calls for mobilising $200 billion annually for biodiversity by 2030 from public and private sources, including $30 billion a year in international biodiversity finance for developing countries.
These resources are intended to help countries protect ecosystems, restore damaged landscapes, strengthen conservation programmes and support communities whose livelihoods depend on nature. Yet funding has not kept pace with the scale of the challenge.
Developing countries often possess extraordinary natural wealth but face severe financial constraints. They may be responsible for protecting extensive forests, river systems, wetlands and wildlife habitats while simultaneously addressing poverty, food insecurity, infrastructure needs and climate-related disasters.
Without predictable international support, conservation programmes can struggle to recruit staff, monitor protected areas, restore degraded land and provide sustainable alternatives to environmentally damaging activities.
Wealthier nations face competing domestic spending priorities, but the consequences of insufficient biodiversity funding extend far beyond national borders. The destruction of ecosystems can disrupt food supplies, accelerate soil erosion, reduce water security and weaken natural protection against extreme weather.
Investing in nature should therefore be recognised not merely as an environmental expense but as an investment in economic stability, public well-being and the survival of future generations.
The Cali Fund and the Challenge of Corporate Responsibility
Governments alone cannot finance the transformation required to protect the natural world. Businesses and financial institutions also have a significant role to play because their activities can either support ecological recovery or intensify environmental damage.
The Cali Fund, launched in February 2025, was designed to help mobilise private-sector contributions for biodiversity conservation, particularly in developing countries. The initiative aimed to raise $1 billion annually from companies. However, the supplied report describes an extremely slow financial response, with only around $6,000 attracted at the time of reporting.
If that figure is accurate for the reporting period, the contrast between the fund’s ambition and its actual contributions illustrates the difficulty of translating corporate commitments into meaningful financial support. Businesses depend on nature in countless ways. Agriculture requires fertile soil and reliable water supplies. Pharmaceutical research draws on biological diversity. Manufacturing depends on natural resources, while tourism often relies on healthy landscapes and thriving wildlife. When these natural foundations deteriorate, businesses and communities face growing risks.
Corporate responsibility must therefore extend beyond sustainability statements and environmental campaigns. Companies should assess their impacts on ecosystems, reduce harmful practices, disclose relevant information and contribute fairly to conservation efforts. Governments, meanwhile, need transparent systems to ensure that financial commitments produce genuine environmental benefits rather than simply improving corporate reputations.
Harmful Subsidies: When Public Money Works Against Nature
Perhaps one of the most difficult challenges facing biodiversity conservation is the continued support provided to activities that damage ecosystems. According to figures cited in the supplied report, governments are struggling to meet the 2030 ambition of reducing harmful incentives by $500 billion annually.
The report also cites a striking imbalance: approximately $30 is spent on activities harmful to nature for every dollar invested in protecting or restoring it. Such a financial imbalance raises fundamental questions about government priorities.
Public subsidies can support farmers, provide affordable food and energy, strengthen rural economies and protect livelihoods. But when incentives encourage excessive pesticide use, unsustainable fishing, deforestation, fossil-fuel dependence or the overexploitation of natural resources, they can deepen environmental problems. Reforming these incentives does not necessarily mean withdrawing all public support from affected industries. Instead, governments can redirect financial assistance towards practices that improve soil health, conserve water, protect wildlife and reduce pollution.
Farmers could receive greater support for sustainable agricultural methods. Fisheries could be encouraged to maintain healthy fish populations. Forest-dependent communities could benefit from conservation-based livelihoods, while energy policies could accelerate the transition towards cleaner alternatives.
The challenge is to ensure that reforms are fair, carefully planned and socially responsible. A transition that ignores the needs of vulnerable workers and communities may face resistance. A transition that combines environmental protection with practical economic support, however, can create opportunities for both people and nature.
Why International Cooperation Matters
Biodiversity loss is not confined by national borders. Migratory birds travel between continents, rivers cross political boundaries, and ocean currents connect distant ecosystems. Climate change further intensifies the pressures affecting habitats and species.
Consequently, no country can protect the natural world in isolation. International cooperation is especially important when geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty and disagreements over financial responsibilities threaten collective action.
The biodiversity summit in Yerevan offers governments an opportunity to assess progress, identify gaps and establish a clearer path towards the 2030 targets. Its success should be measured not simply by the number of speeches delivered or declarations adopted, but by whether countries agree on concrete measures and implement them. Governments need stronger national biodiversity strategies, transparent reporting, enforceable environmental laws and adequate conservation budgets. They must also work with Indigenous Peoples, local communities, scientists, civil society organisations and responsible businesses.
As environmental campaigners have urged, world leaders need to correct course rather than merely repeat existing promises. The biodiversity crisis requires cooperation grounded in shared responsibility and practical results.
What Biodiversity Protection Means for Ordinary People
Global biodiversity targets may appear distant from everyday life, but their consequences are visible in local communities. When forests disappear, wildlife loses its habitat and hillsides become more vulnerable to erosion. When wetlands are filled or polluted, natural flood protection weakens. When rivers become dumping grounds for waste, aquatic life suffers and communities face growing risks to their health and livelihoods.
In Pakistan’s Swat Valley, rivers, streams, forests and mountain ecosystems are closely connected to agriculture, tourism, drinking water and local livelihoods. Pollution, habitat destruction and unsustainable extraction of natural resources can gradually weaken these systems. Protecting biodiversity is therefore not simply an international obligation. It is a local responsibility that begins with the way communities manage their surroundings.
People can help by planting native trees, protecting existing vegetation, avoiding unnecessary pesticide use, reducing plastic waste, conserving water and supporting responsible land management. Communities can also report illegal hunting, destructive extraction and pollution to the relevant authorities.
Individual action alone cannot replace government policy or international funding. Nevertheless, local participation makes conservation more effective and helps build public support for stronger environmental protection. Schools, universities, community organisations and media platforms can further contribute by educating people about the connections between biodiversity, climate stability and human well-being.
A Decisive Moment for the Future of Life on Earth
The warning emerging from the global biodiversity assessment is clear: the world is not moving fast enough to fulfil its promises to nature. The 2030 deadline is approaching, while funding gaps, harmful subsidies and insufficient conservation commitments continue to undermine progress. At the same time, the remaining years offer an opportunity to change direction before further damage becomes harder or more expensive to reverse.
COP17 must encourage governments to move beyond declarations and embrace measurable action. This means financing conservation, reforming environmentally harmful incentives, strengthening protected areas and ensuring that economic development respects ecological limits.
Nature does not recognise political borders, economic rivalries or election cycles. Its systems operate through relationships that connect forests, rivers, oceans, soils, plants, animals and human communities. When one part of this living network is damaged, the consequences can spread far beyond the original point of destruction.
Protecting biodiversity is ultimately about protecting the conditions that make life possible. It is about safeguarding the food on our tables, the water in our rivers, the stability of our climate and the natural heritage we will leave to future generations.
The world does not need another decade of unfulfilled environmental promises. It needs the courage to change its priorities, the resources to put those priorities into practice, and the collective determination to ensure that nature can continue to sustain life on Earth. The time to correct course is now.
