How biodiversity loss is threatening human survival, why global conservation commitments are falling behind, and what the Yerevan negotiations mean for the future of our planet. Will nations turn promises into meaningful action this time, or allow the destruction of nature to deepen a crisis that ultimately threatens humanity itself?
In Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, some of the most consequential arguments of the week were not confined to the country’s parliament. Behind the doors of the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP17), delegates representing nearly 200 countries were engaged in difficult negotiations over a question that concerns every living being on Earth: how can humanity stop the destruction of nature?
After nearly two weeks of discussions, disagreements and political negotiations, COP17 reached its closing stage on October 30, 2026, with governments facing difficult decisions over biodiversity financing, harmful subsidies and the implementation of existing conservation commitments.
The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) formally opened in Yerevan on October 19, bringing together thousands of delegates, including government representatives, scientists, environmental organisations and conservation experts. The conference represented a critical halfway checkpoint for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022.
Its 23 targets aim to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. They include conserving at least 30 per cent of the world’s land, inland waters and oceans, restoring degraded ecosystems and mobilising substantial financial resources for nature conservation. However, progress remains inadequate. The State of Biodiversity Action report, released on October 15, 2026, found that fewer than half of the assessed national biodiversity targets were on track.
In response, the Yerevan Declaration was adopted at the Leaders for Nature Summit on October 16, reaffirming international commitments to nature protection. COP17 subsequently focused on developing the Yerevan Pathway, intended to accelerate implementation of the global biodiversity framework and address the gaps between political promises and practical results.
The negotiations were not without controversy. But the conference secured a number of early decisions and attracted significant financial commitments. Its discussions also exposed the difficulties of achieving international cooperation when governments have competing economic and political priorities. The central message was clear: humanity cannot afford to continue losing biodiversity while waiting for another international agreement. Nature is essential not only to wildlife but to economies, public health, food production, human well-being.
COP17: The Biodiversity Crisis Is a Human Crisis
Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, from microscopic organisms and soil fungi to forests, insects, birds, whales and entire ecosystems. Every component contributes to the natural processes that make life possible. Hence, it is not merely the variety of life on Earth; it is the living foundation upon which human survival depends. From the forests that regulate our climate and wetlands that purify our water to the pollinators that sustain food production and the countless species that keep ecosystems functioning, nature quietly supports almost every aspect of human life.
Healthy ecosystems regulate water cycles, maintain soil fertility, store carbon, support pollination, purify air and water, and provide habitats for countless species. These benefits, known as ecosystem services, often go unnoticed until they begin to disappear. Yet, as habitats disappear, species decline and ecological systems come under mounting pressure, we are steadily weakening the very natural foundations that sustain us. Despite ambitious promises to halt biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems, progress remains dangerously uneven, exposing a widening gap between international commitments and action on the ground.
Unfortunately, human activities are placing these systems under growing pressure. Deforestation, intensive agriculture, habitat destruction, fossil fuel combustion, pollution, overexploitation of wildlife and climate change are disrupting ecosystems across the planet. According to WWF’s Living Planet Report 2026, the average size of monitored vertebrate wildlife populations declined by 73 per cent between 1970 and 2022. Freshwater populations experienced an even steeper average decline of 85 per cent.
These figures measure changes in monitored population sizes, not the percentage of all individual animals that have disappeared. Nevertheless, they reveal the alarming deterioration of ecosystems worldwide. Other scientific assessments have warned that approximately one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, unless the pressures driving biodiversity loss are reduced.
Scientists increasingly warn that Earth may be entering a sixth mass extinction, primarily driven by human activities. Unlike previous mass extinction events caused by natural planetary changes, the current crisis is closely connected to how humanity uses land, water, energy and biological resources. The consequences are already reaching human communities.
When Wetlands Disappear, Clean Water Becomes More Expensive
Wetlands are among the most valuable ecosystems on Earth. Marshes, swamps, floodplains and other wetland environments provide habitats for wildlife, store carbon, reduce flood risks and help filter pollutants from water. Yet these ecosystems are disappearing at an alarming rate. The Global Wetland Outlook 2021 estimated that approximately 85 per cent of the world’s wetlands had been lost since the 1700s.
Their disappearance carries substantial environmental and economic costs. Research from the University of Waterloo in Canada has highlighted the considerable water-filtration benefits provided by wetlands in southern Ontario. The study estimated these benefits at billions of Canadian dollars annually, demonstrating the economic value of natural water purification.
By retaining nutrients and filtering pollutants, wetlands help protect water quality and reduce pressure on treatment facilities. When wetlands are drained or degraded, more pollutants can enter rivers, lakes and groundwater. Water treatment becomes more expensive, wildlife loses essential habitats, and communities may become more vulnerable to flooding.
Wetland destruction therefore demonstrates an important principle: protecting nature is not simply an environmental preference. It is an investment in public health, economic resilience and human security. Against this backdrop, the COP17 negotiations in Yerevan, Armenia, represent a critical moment for the future of our planet.
Declining Pollinators Threaten Food Security
Bees, butterflies, bats, birds and other pollinators perform an essential function in natural and agricultural ecosystems. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), approximately 75 per cent of global food crop types depend, to some extent, on animal pollination. This does not mean that 75 per cent of the world’s food supply is entirely dependent on pollinators. Rather, it demonstrates their importance to agricultural diversity and food production.
Pollinators help produce many fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutritious foods. Their decline can affect crop yields, food quality and farmers’ livelihoods. Habitat destruction, pesticide exposure, diseases, invasive species and climate change are among the major pressures affecting pollinator populations.
Meanwhile, soil degradation, extreme heat, droughts and floods are placing additional pressure on agricultural production. When these threats occur together, they can undermine food security and make farming increasingly unpredictable. The effects extend beyond individual farms. Countries that depend heavily on food imports may become vulnerable to environmental damage occurring thousands of kilometres away. Protecting biodiversity is therefore essential not only for wildlife but also for stable food systems and resilient economies.
Nature’s Hidden Contribution to Human Medicine
The natural world has contributed enormously to modern medicine. Many medicines originate from natural compounds or have been developed using biological substances as starting points for scientific research. Plants, fungi, microorganisms and other organisms contain chemical compounds that may offer valuable medical applications. Penicillin, one of the most influential antibiotics in medical history, was discovered through research involving a mould of genus Penicillium. Its development transformed the treatment of bacterial infections and helped save countless lives.
Other natural compounds have contributed to treatments for cancer, cardiovascular disease and numerous other conditions. Even some unusual animals offer valuable medical possibilities. The Gila monster, a venomous lizard native to the southwestern United States and Mexico, produces a biologically active compound known as exendin-4. Research into this compound inspired the development of exenatide, a medicine used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
As species disappear, humanity risks losing biological resources before scientists have had the opportunity to study them. Extinction can permanently remove potentially valuable compounds and genetic information from nature. Conserving biodiversity therefore protects not only existing medical resources but also the possibilities of future scientific discoveries.
Why the Loss of One Species Can Change an Entire Ecosystem
Not every species performs an identical ecological function. Some have particularly powerful influences on their surroundings. Scientists describe such organisms as keystone species because their presence can help maintain the structure and stability of an ecosystem. Oysters provide a striking example. By filtering water, creating reef habitats and supporting other marine organisms, they contribute to coastal ecosystem health. Large oyster reefs can also help reduce wave energy and protect shorelines. When oyster populations collapse, the consequences can extend beyond the loss of a commercially valuable species. Water filtration may decline, habitats can disappear and other marine organisms may lose important shelter.
Sea otters demonstrate another remarkable ecological relationship. Along parts of the North American Pacific coast, sea otters prey on sea urchins, which feed on kelp. When otter populations were severely reduced by hunting, sea urchins could multiply and consume kelp forests. Following conservation measures that allowed sea otter populations to recover in some areas, their predation helped restore ecological balance in certain kelp ecosystems.
Kelp forests provide habitat for marine life, absorb carbon and help buffer coastal environments. The recovery of a single influential predator can therefore contribute to broader ecosystem restoration. These examples demonstrate why conservation cannot focus exclusively on individual species. Protecting ecological relationships is equally important.
Biodiversity Loss and the Spread of Disease
Healthy ecosystems can also influence the transmission of infectious diseases. Changes in wildlife populations, habitat fragmentation, agricultural expansion and human encroachment into natural areas can alter interactions among wildlife, domestic animals, disease-carrying organisms and people. For example, research in North America has investigated relationships between predator populations, small-mammal communities and the risk of Lyme disease, that is transmitted by infected ticks.
The relationships are complex and vary among ecosystems. The disappearance of a particular species does not automatically cause an increase in disease. Nevertheless, ecological disruption can change the abundance and behaviour of organisms that carry pathogens. Climate change adds another layer of complexity. Changes in temperature and rainfall can influence the distribution and seasonal activity of mosquitoes, ticks and other disease vectors.
Protecting biodiversity alone will not eliminate infectious diseases. However, conserving healthy ecosystems, monitoring wildlife and reducing harmful human-wildlife interactions can contribute to broader disease-prevention strategies.
Is It Too Late to Prevent a Sixth Mass Extinction?
Earth has experienced five recognised mass extinction events in its geological history. Each involved the loss of a substantial proportion of species over a relatively short geological interval. Scientists continue to examine whether current extinction rates and biodiversity declines meet the criteria for a sixth mass extinction. The present crisis is already severe, but scientific classification of an ongoing mass extinction is distinct from the well-established evidence that human activities are accelerating species loss.
The possibility of a sixth mass extinction should not lead to despair. Instead, it should strengthen our determination to act. Conservation successes demonstrate that wildlife populations and ecosystems can recover when threats are addressed.
Green sea turtles, for instance, have benefited from the protection of nesting beaches, conservation measures and changes to fishing practices in several regions. Sea otter recovery has also helped restore ecological relationships along parts of the Pacific coast.
Recent conservation assessments have also highlighted recoveries involving elephants, tigers and other threatened wildlife. These achievements demonstrate that nature is not necessarily destined to disappear. Given sufficient protection, time and appropriate management, damaged ecosystems and threatened species can recover. However, isolated successes must be expanded into coordinated action at national and international levels.
Governments need to protect and restore habitats, reduce pollution, reform environmentally harmful subsidies, promote sustainable agriculture and fisheries, and ensure that Indigenous Peoples and local communities participate meaningfully in conservation decisions. Businesses must also be held accountable for their impacts on forests, freshwater systems, oceansl, wildlife.
COP17 and the Yerevan Pathway: From Promises to Action
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established an ambitious international agenda for nature protection. Its 23 targets include conserving at least 30 per cent of the world’s land, inland waters and seas by 2030, restoring degraded ecosystems, reducing pollution, addressing invasive species and mobilising financial resources for biodiversity.
Yet commitments alone cannot reverse nature loss. Countries need credible national plans, transparent reporting, adequate funding and clear accountability for implementation. This is where the Yerevan Pathway becomes particularly important.
The Yerevan Declaration, adopted on October 16 at the Leaders for Nature Summit, reaffirmed political commitments to accelerate biodiversity protection. The separate Yerevan Pathway was intended to provide a practical direction for speeding up implementation of the global framework.
One of the most significant challenges discussed in Yerevan was financing. Under the 2022 agreement, countries committed to increasing international biodiversity finance for developing countries to at least $30 billion annually by 2030, while working towards mobilising at least $200 billion per year from all sources for biodiversity.
However, financial commitments have not progressed at the required pace. International aid priorities, defence spending and repeated energy shocks have placed additional pressure on available resources. The COP17 presidency reported that more than $1.9 billion had been mobilised through government, philanthropic and investor commitments during the conference. The announcements also included substantial support for species recovery.
Separately, the Global Environment Facility announced more than $500 million in additional biodiversity-related funding commitments. These announcements represent encouraging progress, but they must be considered in the context of the much larger and continuing financing requirements for global nature recovery.
The negotiations also highlighted contradictions in government spending. Some governments continue subsidising environmentally damaging industries while simultaneously promising to increase investment in nature protection.
Large-scale fishing practices, including destructive trawling, provide one example of how public financial support can contribute to environmental degradation. Governments cannot credibly promise to protect biodiversity while continuing to finance activities that destroy it.
Another important issue concerns the fair sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources and digital sequence information. The Cali Fund was established to support benefit-sharing from the commercial use of digital sequence information on genetic resources. It is intended to encourage businesses that benefit from biological information to contribute towards biodiversity conservation, including support for developing countries and local communities. However, ensuring meaningful and equitable contributions remains a challenge. Countries rich in biodiversity should not be excluded from the economic benefits generated by the biological resources found within their territories.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who often play an essential role in protecting ecosystems, deserve fair recognition and benefits. These discussions demonstrate that biodiversity conservation is not simply about protecting endangered animals and plants. It is also about economic fairness, international responsibility and ensuring that the benefits of nature are shared more equitably.
The Challenge of Balancing Economic Development and Nature Protection
The COP17 discussions also brought attention to the tensions between environmental commitments and economic interests. In Armenia, concerns surrounding the Amulsar gold mine have highlighted the difficulties of reconciling mineral development with environmental protection. Such disputes reflect a wider global challenge. Governments frequently face pressure to expand infrastructure, extract natural resources and promote economic growth, sometimes at expense of fragile ecosystems.
Economic development is important, particularly for countries seeking to improve living standards and reduce poverty. However, development that permanently damages water sources, forests, biodiversity and ecological stability can create far greater long-term costs.
COP17 also took place alongside negotiations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilisation.
Together, these international processes address important questions concerning biosafety, genetic resources and the equitable distribution of benefits derived from nature. The challenge is to ensure that economic progress does not come at the expense of the natural systems that sustain it.
Protecting Nature Is Protecting Our Future
The biodiversity crisis is not a distant environmental problem confined to forests, oceans or remote wilderness areas. It affects the food we eat, the water we drink, the medicines we use and the resilience of the places where we live. From disappearing wetlands to declining pollinators, every damaged ecosystem reveals how deeply human well-being is connected to nature.
The message emerging from COP17 in Armenia is therefore urgent: conservation commitments must be translated into practical action before more species and ecological relationships are lost. Governments must fulfil their promises. Businesses must reduce their environmental impacts. Communities must protect local habitats, while individuals can contribute through responsible consumption, waste reduction, tree planting with appropriate native species and support for wildlife conservation. Yet individual efforts cannot replace strong environmental policies and international cooperation. The scale of the crisis demands action at every level.
We must also recognise that nature is not simply a collection of resources available for human use. It is a living network of relationships that makes human life possible. Forests, rivers, wetlands, oceans, soils, plants, animals and microorganisms are interconnected components of a natural system whose stability is essential to our survival. Protecting biodiversity is therefore not merely an act of compassion towards other living beings. It is an expression of responsibility towards our own future and generations yet to come.
The question facing COP17 is not merely whether the world can save endangered species. It is whether humanity can protect the living systems on which its own future depends. The opportunity to reverse biodiversity loss still exists. But the time for endless promises is running out. The world must move beyond declarations and demonstrate, through meaningful action, that protecting nature is a genuine global priority.
References:
- Yerevan Declaration – Taking Action for Nature (2026).
- Convention on Biological Diversity – COP17 updates.
- UNEP – UN Biodiversity Conference 2026.
- COP17: What Yerevan delivered and what remained unresolved.
- WWF Living Planet Report 2026.
- Global Wetland Outlook 2021.
- FAO – Pollination and food security.
