The hard questions facing biodiversity negotiators and why COP17 matters to Kenya

Countries are jointly assessing progress towards its 23 targets, shifting the focus from commitments to measurable results. [AFP]

As governments gather in Yerevan, Armenia, for the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP17, from 19 to 30 October 2026, the challenge is no longer agreeing on ambitious goals for nature. It is delivering them.

The conference comes at a critical point in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. For the first time since the Framework was adopted in 2022, countries are jointly assessing progress towards its 23 targets, shifting the focus from commitments to measurable results.

For Kenyans, these negotiations may seem distant, but their consequences are close to home. Biodiversity underpins food and water security, livelihoods and economic resilience. Healthy ecosystems are also increasingly important as climate change and land degradation place greater pressure on nature and the people who depend on it.

Along Kenya’s coast, the connection is particularly tangible. Coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass meadows support fisheries, coastal resilience, livelihoods and local economies.

Promises are not enough

The first hard question for COP17 is whether the Global Review will lead to genuine course correction. Recording that the world is off track will achieve little unless countries act on the findings, strengthen accountability and improve the systems used to track biodiversity outcomes.

The challenge is already evident in the data. For 19 of the Framework’s 23 targets, fewer than half of reporting Parties submitted quantitative indicator data. Better monitoring, scientific cooperation and capacity are therefore essential to implementation.

Then there is money.

Target 19 envisages at least US$30 billion annually in international biodiversity finance for developing countries by 2030, and at least US$200 billion a year from all sources. But success cannot simply be measured by how much money is mobilised.

Finance must be predictable and accessible to those who need it. It should not deepen fiscal pressures on countries already being asked to conserve ecosystems of global importance. Nor does it make sense to finance ecosystem restoration while other public or private incentives continue to reward activities that degrade nature.

Kenya’s nature, Kenya’s stakes

Another major test is 30x30, the global commitment to conserve at least 30 per cent of the planet’s land and waters by 2030. But conservation cannot become a race to accumulate hectares.

Effective conservation is about more than drawing boundaries on a map. Conserved areas must be ecologically representative, connected, effectively managed and equitably governed.

This is particularly important for Kenya and the wider Western Indian Ocean. Coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass meadows are interconnected ecosystems. Protecting a reef while losing the mangroves, seagrass beds, nursery grounds and ecological connections around it is a poor model of conservation.

As the climate changes, conservation must increasingly protect ecological resilience and connections, not simply boundaries. Healthy reefs, mangroves and seagrass systems should form part of an integrated agenda linking conservation, restoration, climate adaptation and sustainable coastal development.

Biodiversity must also become part of the wider economic conversation. Many decisions that determine whether nature is conserved or lost are made outside environment ministries. Fisheries, infrastructure, tourism, agriculture, finance and trade all shape biodiversity outcomes.

That means biodiversity cannot remain an environmental consideration added after development decisions have already been made. It needs to become part of how governments, businesses and financial institutions make those decisions in the first place.

The same applies across global environmental agendas. Biodiversity conservation, climate action and land restoration increasingly depend on the same ecosystems, institutions and financial resources. Better alignment can reduce duplication and help countries pursue several environmental and development objectives together.

From targets to action

Implementation must also be fair.

Indigenous Peoples and local communities should have meaningful space within the institutions shaping biodiversity decisions. In coastal areas, this is particularly important for small-scale fishers and communities who may bear the costs of conservation restrictions while holding knowledge and stewardship practices essential to successful conservation.

Ultimately, the questions facing COP17 are practical ones.

Will countries respond when the evidence shows they are off track? Will biodiversity finance reach the people and places that need it? Will 30x30 deliver genuine conservation rather than impressive statistics? And will biodiversity begin to influence the economic decisions that determine whether nature is conserved or lost?

Yerevan does not need another declaration of concern.

With 2030 rapidly approaching, COP17 must show that countries can move from agreed targets to accountable delivery, from negotiating rooms to the forests, rivers, coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass meadows where success will ultimately be measured.

The writer is the Chief Executive Officer of WWF-Kenya