UN Biodiversity Agreement in Yerevan Makes Only Limited Progress

According to Lambrechts, the political commitments reflect good intentions but do not resolve the essential implementation problems. These include, in addition to financial bottlenecks, the urgent reform of harmful subsidies. It therefore remains unclear to what extent the new agreement will actually enable effective species conservation.

The involvement of international actors shows that preserving biological diversity continues to be treated as a shared governmental responsibility. The conclusion reached in Yerevan, however, creates above all a political framework. Its impact depends on whether the states later implement binding measures, viable funding mechanisms, and reforms in practice.

For countries such as Ecuador, Panama, Germany, and Austria, the financial room for maneuver varies. The central problems of the agreement, however, do not concern individual states alone, but rather international funding and the willingness to change policies that may harm biological diversity.

International Funding at the Center

The role of organizations such as Greenpeace International and WWF Germany also highlights that the process is accompanied by civil society actors. These organizations point to the gap between political intentions and their funding, and call for faster implementation of effective measures.

Further development will likely depend particularly on how governments implement the Cali Fund and international commitments in practice. Reform of harmful subsidies and closing the funding gap also remain unresolved. Without concrete funds and binding steps, the political commitments made in Yerevan remain, above all, a beginning.

With the agreement, the states have at least established a common position. Catherine Weller explicitly assessed this as good news. An Lambrechts, by contrast, warned: “Political promises made in Yerevan set good intentions, but won't remove major roadblocks to implementation such as insufficient finance, fiscal and debt constraints, the nearly empty coffers of the Cali Fund and urgent reform of harmful subsidies“.

The Further Process Remains Open

The agreement thus marks political progress, but not the completion of the work. The next tests will show whether additional funding is provided, the Cali Fund is effectively replenished, and harmful subsidies are reformed. Only then could the commitments made in Yerevan reach species conservation on the ground.

Until then, the balance remains mixed. The states have reached an understanding and thereby created a political foundation. However, according to the available information, the financial and institutional obstacles identified by Greenpeace International persist and must be resolved in the further process.