ANALYSIS: CBD COP17: Russia, Africa disagree as delegates adopt 14 decisions

A week into the ongoing United Nations Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP17) in Armenia, negotiations have focused on translating global commitments into concrete action to halt biodiversity loss, mobilise conservation funding and strengthen accountability among countries.

Representatives of governments, scientists, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, civil society organisations and other stakeholders from across the world have gathered in Yerevan to advance efforts to conserve nature and ensure the sustainable use of biological resources.

The conference, which kicked off on 19th October, is themed “taking action for nature” and is scheduled to conclude on 30th October.

During the first week of the ongoing negotiations, PREMIUM TIMES observed that the talks focused on implementation, with delegates grappling with how to translate global biodiversity targets into measurable progress.

However, reports of disagreements over financing, access to genetic resources, benefit-sharing and the direction of international cooperation, have highlighted differences among negotiating blocs, particularly Russia and African countries.

The disagreements come against the backdrop of the inconclusive conclusion of COP16 in Cali, Colombia, where several critical issues remained unresolved, leaving delegates in Yerevan to continue negotiations on some of the most contentious aspects of the global biodiversity agenda.

14 decisions adopted

Despite the disagreements, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Astrid Schomaker, said significant progress had been made during the first week of negotiations.

“One week into #COP17Armenia and we are making progress for nature. The stakes have never been higher, and now is the time to act decisively,” she said.

Ms Schomaker said delegates had adopted 14 decisions across the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols, describing the development as a significant milestone.

Although she did not list the decisions, she said they advanced work on several issues, including biosafety, invasive alien species, gender equality, awareness-raising, compliance and monitoring.

“These decisions advance work on issues ranging from biosafety and invasive alien species to gender equality, awareness-raising, compliance and monitoring. Each contributes to the foundations we need for more effective implementation of our global biodiversity commitment,” she said.

She noted that the decisions followed hours of negotiations, careful listening and efforts to build consensus among countries.

“At a time when multilateralism faces significant challenges, this progress matters,” she said.

Ms Schomaker said COP17 was particularly significant because countries needed to address existing implementation gaps and hold one another accountable for accelerating progress towards the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).

“Of course, some of the most complex issues are still ahead of us,” she said, adding that the success of the conference would ultimately be measured by the difference its decisions made for nature and people.

Implementation gap remains

The KMGBF remains the central framework guiding negotiations at COP17. Adopted in 2022, it sets out global biodiversity goals and targets, including 23 targets to be achieved by 2030.

The framework’s implementation remains a major concern as countries work to translate national commitments into measurable conservation outcomes.

Although many countries have established national biodiversity targets, questions remain about whether existing policies, financing arrangements and monitoring systems are sufficient to deliver the agreed goals.

Negotiations in Yerevan are, therefore, focusing on strengthening implementation, improving accountability and establishing reliable indicators for assessing progress.

Among the key priorities is the target to conserve at least 30 per cent of the world’s land and inland waters, as well as 30 per cent of coastal and marine areas, by 2030.

Delegates are also working to improve the measurement of progress on issues such as pollution, nutrient reduction and ecosystem restoration.

The outcome of these discussions could determine how effectively governments track their commitments and identify areas requiring urgent intervention.

Finance remains contentious

Biodiversity financing remains one of the most difficult issues confronting negotiators, particularly for developing countries that argue they need substantial financial support to implement the global framework.

Discussions include how to mobilise additional public and private funding, improve access to existing resources and redirect environmentally harmful subsidies towards activities that support nature conservation.

One major issue is the implementation of the Cali Fund, established following COP16 to support benefit-sharing from the commercial use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources.

The mechanism seeks to ensure that companies benefiting from the use of such information contribute to conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity.

For African countries, the debate is closely linked to questions of equity, resource ownership and the continent’s capacity to finance conservation.

African negotiators argue that the continent’s rich biological resources contribute to commercial activities globally, while the benefits generated from their use do not adequately support the communities and countries from which those resources originate.

They want benefit-sharing arrangements to deliver tangible financial resources for biodiversity protection, community development and the implementation of national conservation plans.

The negotiations also cover ways to mobilise private investment and redirect environmentally harmful subsidies, with the global framework calling for at least $500 billion annually in harmful incentives to be eliminated or redirected by 2030.

Russia’s position

At COP17, Russia has emphasised the need to prevent the politicisation of international environmental agreements and ensure that biodiversity cooperation remains separate from wider geopolitical disputes.

Led in high-level discussions by Russian presidential aide Ruslan Edelgeriyev, the country’s position reflects concerns about international cooperation, national sovereignty and the financial implications of new mechanisms.

Russia has argued that biodiversity conservation should not become subject to geopolitical tensions or unfair competition. It has advocated for scientific and technical collaboration to continue despite broader international conflicts.

On genetic resources and DSI, Russia has stressed the need for non-discriminatory access and voluntary approaches to benefit-sharing.

The Russian delegation has also expressed opposition to establishing new international administrative structures or funding mechanisms where they duplicate existing arrangements, arguing that such bodies could increase costs for member states.

In negotiations on subsidiary issues, including gender-related action plans, Russian delegates have also sought to have their national positions formally reflected in the negotiating record.

These positions have implications for discussions on how biodiversity funding should be mobilised, how benefits should be distributed and how new international mechanisms should operate.

Why Africa disagrees

African countries have placed greater emphasis on securing predictable and adequate financing, equitable benefit-sharing and support for implementing the KMGBF.

For many African governments, the debate over genetic resources is not merely about access to scientific information. It is also about ensuring that countries and communities whose biodiversity supports commercial products and research receive a fair share of the resulting benefits.

The continent hosts a substantial share of the world’s biodiversity, including species and genetic resources that support agriculture, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and other industries.

African representatives argue that the commercial value generated from these resources should contribute more directly to conservation in countries of origin, rather than leaving them to shoulder the costs of protecting biodiversity with limited financial resources.

The Cali Fund has, therefore, become an important part of the broader debate over fairness in the global biodiversity system.

Differences emerge when countries debate the extent to which benefit-sharing should be mandatory, how contributions should be calculated and distributed, and what safeguards should govern access to genetic resources.

Russia’s emphasis on voluntary mechanisms and non-discriminatory access could complicate efforts by African countries to secure stronger benefit-sharing arrangements.

However, the precise implications will depend on the final negotiating language and the extent to which countries can agree on practical rules for implementing the mechanisms.

In an interview with PREMIUM TIMES, Joseph Onoja, director-general of the Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF), said Nigeria’s position at the CBDCOP17 mostly dwells on resource mobilisation and technology transfer among others, but that the first week saw discussions that showed that the gaps are still very wide in terms of agreement between the Global North and the Global South.

“Nigeria is favourably disposed to introducing additional climate-related obligations through biodiversity decisions. But Russia is against it. So I hope that the second week will see more progress and agreements between parties,” he said.

Climate, land restoration and Indigenous rights

Beyond financing, negotiations in Yerevan have addressed the relationship between biodiversity conservation, climate action and land restoration.

The host country has sought to strengthen the links between these issues, following the adoption of the Yerevan Declaration at the pre-COP Leaders’ Summit on 16 October.

The discussions seek to ensure that climate and land-restoration initiatives support biodiversity rather than inadvertently damaging ecosystems or contributing to deforestation.

For example, projects designed to increase carbon storage through forestry and agriculture must also consider their effects on native species, habitats and local communities.

The rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) have also featured prominently in the negotiations.

READ ALSO: CBD COP17: UNDP, UNICEF launch campaign to promote green careers among young people

A central concern is ensuring that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are recognised not only as groups to be consulted but also as contributors to biodiversity conservation and beneficiaries of relevant funding and decisions.

These discussions intersect with broader questions about access to genetic resources, traditional knowledge and the distribution of benefits under the Nagoya Protocol.

What lies ahead

With the first week of negotiations concluded, delegates face further work on some of the most complex questions surrounding the implementation of the global biodiversity framework.

The adoption of 14 decisions represents progress, but it does not resolve the wider disagreements over finance, accountability, benefit-sharing and international cooperation.

For African countries, the remaining negotiations will be important in determining whether global biodiversity commitments are matched by sufficient financial support and mechanisms that recognise the value of the continent’s biological resources.

For Russia and other countries concerned about the design of international mechanisms, the challenge will be to reconcile national positions with collective efforts to halt biodiversity loss.

The outcome of COP17 will ultimately depend on whether delegates can bridge these differences and agree on measures that move beyond commitments towards measurable results for nature and people.