At the Meridian Centre in Yerevan, Armenia, the atmosphere inside the negotiation halls for the COP17 biodiversity summit is one of quiet apprehension rather than urgency. While organisers are fond of reminding delegates that the “world is watching,” the reality on the ground suggests that global attention remains firmly elsewhere. Environment ministers from across the globe have gathered to address a sobering truth: four years into the current cycle, they are failing to meet almost all of the biodiversity targets they once championed.
This consistent failure has created a sense of inertia that plagues the current multilateral process. As the summit progresses, there is an uncomfortable recognition that the international community is at risk of continuing its track record of failing every biodiversity objective it sets.
Despite this systemic stagnation, there have been glimmers of positive progress outside the conference walls. Recent political shifts, such as the presidential comeback of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, are widely expected to bolster efforts to curb deforestation in the Amazon. Similarly, the formation of a new government in Serbia offers potential for long-awaited environmental reforms. However, these national victories serve as a stark contrast to the sluggish, increasingly fractured nature of the global environmental diplomatic process.
In a recent side meeting, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), acknowledged the need for structural change. She emphasised that while the current process remains functional, its pace is vastly insufficient. “The process is delivering, but it’s going too slowly,” Andersen said. “This is what the secretary-general said when he was here: ‘Thank you. Good. Do more, but faster, because we are not where we want to be.’”
The fundamental hurdle remains the implementation of these agreements. Negotiated with great effort, these pacts often lack robust mechanisms to enforce compliance or effectively hold laggard nations accountable for their inaction. Ultimately, the burden of execution rests with individual sovereign governments, many of which struggle to reconcile international commitments with domestic political priorities.
Calls for a radical overhaul of the COP process are growing. Following climate COP29 in 2024, prominent policy experts argued that the current model is “no longer fit for purpose,” suggesting that the focus must shift from the endless cycle of negotiation to concrete implementation. Some have even proposed that hosting duties be reserved exclusively for nations that demonstrate genuine environmental ambition.
Andersen points to the “cluttered” nature of the current international environmental agenda as a primary source of inefficiency. Over the decades, the international community has established a vast, overlapping patchwork of conventions—from the illegal wildlife trade to wetland protection—each designed to address a specific issue as it emerged. While historically necessary, this proliferation of agreements has created an “energy-sapping” overlap that hinders progress.
“Each of these conventions came along at the right time, but we now have a plethora of them,” Andersen noted. “Maybe we should think about that.”
As the summit nears its conclusion, governments are scheduled to finalise an action plan aimed at reclaiming momentum on this decade’s biodiversity goals. While few observers expect a major breakthrough in Yerevan, the pressure for reform is mounting. Without a fundamental shift in how international environmental goals are set and, more importantly, enforced, the integrity of these global summits will continue to be called into question. The health of the planet, experts warn, can no longer afford the current pace of diplomatic delay.
Disclaimer: This content is auto-generated for informational purposes only.
Source: Read Original News
