COP17: the world’s first check on its 2030 nature goals finds it falling behind

On Monday, governments from 195 countries and the European Union open the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP17, in Yerevan, Armenia. It runs until 30 October.^1,4 Its main job is one the world has never done before: the first global review of progress on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the agreement adopted in December 2022 that set 23 targets to halt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030.¹

The evidence for that review arrived on 15 October. The UN’s State of Biodiversity Action report, launched by Secretary-General António Guterres, found widespread engagement but slow results: “fewer than half of national targets assessed by Parties are on track.”¹

The scorecard: one target clearly ahead, three furthest behind

The report rates every target for “relative progress”, comparing the 23 targets with each other rather than against their 2030 finish lines. Half of the score comes from how well countries’ own targets cover the global one and whether countries say they are on track; the other half comes from measured indicators.² Even the best-rated target is not on course: the report states that “none of the targets present a fully positive picture.”²

The one target rated highest is Target 8, on limiting the impact of climate change on biodiversity and building resilience. The three rated lowest are Target 18, cutting subsidies that harm nature by at least $500 billion a year; Target 19, raising $200 billion a year for biodiversity; and Target 23, gender equality in biodiversity action.² The pattern is consistent: targets about conserving nature directly score better than targets that require change from finance ministries, businesses and consumers. As the report puts it, “targets requiring action beyond environment ministries” are “among those furthest behind.”¹

30 by 30: closer on land, far behind at sea

The best-known promise in the framework is Target 3: to protect or conserve 30% of the world’s land and 30% of its oceans by 2030. On the latest official count, 18.5% of land is covered.⁸ At sea, coverage passed 10% in April 2026, an increase of about 5 million square kilometres in two years, but still a third of the goal.⁵ Only 1.66% of the high seas, the ocean beyond any country’s control, is protected.⁵

Countries’ own plans will not close the gap. According to Guterres, current national commitments would protect 26% of land and 12% of marine ecosystems by 2030, well short of 30%.³

The official count may also understate what already exists. A study published in Nature on 15 October, led by researchers at the University of Kent, combined global data with national records and estimated that 26.8% of land was in some form of conservation area, though many habitats such as grasslands and shrublands have little protection.⁸ Area alone is not the point, the authors stress. “Increasing the area of land under conservation will do little unless these sites are effectively and fairly managed,” said Bob Smith, director of the university’s Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology.⁸ On that measure the gap is starker: only 1.3% of the ocean is covered by protected areas whose management effectiveness has been assessed and reported.⁵

The money gap

Target 19 promised that international biodiversity finance flowing to developing countries would reach at least $20 billion a year by 2025 and $30 billion by 2030. The UN report concludes that the 2025 milestone “was likely not met”, although a final verdict needs complete data.² OECD figures put the real flow at about $16 billion a year between 2023 and 2025.³ The wider goal of $200 billion a year from all sources, public and private, is further away: the OECD estimates current spending at $78–91 billion a year, a shortfall of around 60%.⁴

Money flowing the wrong way dwarfs both. UN Environment estimates that for every dollar spent protecting nature, $30 goes towards destroying it.³ The UN’s biodiversity chief, Astrid Schomaker, pushed back on claims that funds simply do not exist: “if you hear there is no finance, please do not believe it.”³ Who should pay remains contested. Saudi Arabia and Qatar rejected an EU proposal to widen the group of donor countries, and China said doing so should not weaken developed countries’ responsibility.³ A separate fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia, under which companies are expected to pay when they use genetic data from nature, “remains empty” apart from a small symbolic sum, according to Germany’s development agency GIZ.⁴

Plans are in. Results are not.

On paper, engagement is far higher than under the previous set of global goals. When the report was prepared, 162 Parties, or 83%, had set national targets aligned with the framework, each covering 22 of the 23 global targets on average. At the final review of the earlier Aichi targets in 2020, only about half had done so.² Close to 60% have produced new national biodiversity strategies and action plans, over 70% have submitted national reports, and Indigenous peoples, local communities, subnational governments, businesses and civil society groups have registered about 5,000 commitments.¹

The report also points to gaps in what is measured. No country reported on every headline indicator, and the methods for two of them are not yet working. Small island developing states, whose constraints the report says are likely to be even more pressing, are under-represented because fewer of their reports arrived in time.²

The host country

Armenia, a mountainous country in the South Caucasus, faces the same tensions it is hosting. An analysis for the Heinrich Böll Foundation ahead of the summit described “competing interests with the mining and energy sectors” and noted that “extractive industries, small hydropower plants, and deforestation impact local ecosystems,” alongside “a lack of reliable data on forests and other biological resources.”⁹

What COP17 will decide

The global review is the summit’s central outcome, a nature equivalent of the Global Stocktake held under the climate talks.³ Governments are expected to agree guidance on raising ambition before 2030, and campaigners and the Armenian government plan a call to action on reforming harmful subsidies.³ The UN Environment Programme’s Inger Andersen linked the review to the wider crisis: “We cannot tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution in isolation.”¹