World leaders urged to course correct as UN nature goals fall short

By the Editorial Team · Monday, October 12, 2026

Nearly 200 countries are meeting at COP17 in Yerevan to review progress on 23 biodiversity targets aimed at halting nature loss by 2030, but reports show most are not on track to meet their commitments. The summit is critical for setting concrete actions on subsidy reforms and securing funding, as financial shortfalls and slow corporate participation threaten the effectiveness of global conservation efforts.

As world leaders prepare to convene at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Yerevan, Armenia, concerns are mounting over the slow progress toward global biodiversity targets set under the 2022 “Paris Agreement for Nature.” Nearly 200 countries committed to a series of 23 goals aimed at halting and reversing nature loss by 2030, including reducing pollution, protecting endangered species, and conserving 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans. However, a draft review indicates that most nations are falling short of meeting these objectives.

The summit, scheduled to formally begin on October 19, with a leaders’ summit on October 13, is seen as a critical juncture for nations to reassess their commitments. An Lambrechts of Greenpeace International expressed that governments must move beyond reiterating promises to establish concrete actions, emphasizing the need for a "clear course correction."

Astrid Schomaker, executive director of the CBD, noted that although progress has been made, significant changes are required to stay on track. She highlighted the importance of reducing subsidies and incentives for politically sensitive sectors such as agriculture and fossil fuel industries—areas where governments have demonstrated limited advancement. “We are moving in the right direction, but the pace is far too slow,” Schomaker said.

The Yerevan summit also faces financial challenges, with a sizable funding gap threatening the implementation of biodiversity initiatives. Nations pledged to raise $200 billion annually by 2030 from both public and private sources, including $30 billion in international financing for developing countries. Yet, achieving these targets remains elusive as wealthier countries grapple with their own budget constraints, making funding discussions fraught with political tension. The United States, notably, is not a party to the biodiversity convention and is absent from the negotiations.

The role of the private sector is expected to come under scrutiny, particularly regarding the performance of the Cali Fund, a UN initiative launched in February 2025 to channel $1 billion annually from corporations toward conservation efforts in developing countries. To date, the effort has raised only $6,000. Schomaker acknowledged the slow pace of corporate participation but maintained optimism about the fund’s transformative potential.

Another major obstacle is subsidy reform. The 2030 goal calls for reducing harmful subsidies by $500 billion annually, yet little progress has been made. According to UN figures, while investments in conservation are increasing, destructive activities continue to receive disproportionately high financial support—around $30 for every dollar invested in nature preservation. Over 130 companies and financial institutions, including Nestle and H&M Group, have urged governments to overhaul these incentives, pointing to $2.6 trillion in annual public spending that contributes to ecosystem degradation.

Guido Broekhoven of WWF International stressed that repurposing subsidies must be prioritized at COP17, while Greenpeace’s Lambrechts underscored the importance of demonstrating international unity amid rising geopolitical tensions. He said the summit presents an opportunity to prove that multilateral cooperation remains possible in securing the planet’s ecological future.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.