A framework without a pathway
Four years after Kunming-Montreal, the world has the framework, the evidence and increasingly capable tools for measuring nature-related risk. What it still lacks is a credible pathway to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) at scale. That tension defined COP17, which wrapped up in Yerevan, Armenia, on 31 October 2026. Negotiations ran into overtime, reflecting persistent divisions over who pays, how much economic activity must change and how governments are held to account.
Parties adopted nearly 50 decisions1, including the Yerevan Pathway2 in response to the first Global Review of GBF implementation. The review, informed by the “State of Biodiversity Action” report, was disappointing: all existing collective efforts are insufficient to achieve the 2030 targets. The GBF needs the parties to commit to mobilising at least 200bn of dollars annually by 2030, including 30bn of dollars in international finance to developing countries, with an interim milestone of 20bn of dollars by 2025. The review found that developed countries had failed to meet this interim commitment3. The Presidency launched the Yerevan Call for Positive Incentives4 and Mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors5, a decision to enable progress on subsidies and transition plans for businesses and financial institutions.
European nations pushed for a broader contributor base to include emerging economies; developing countries pointed to the historical responsibility of developed countries. The donor list remains unchanged.
The most consequential number is the money already being spent
The GBF estimated the biodiversity finance gap6 at ~700bn of dollars per year: 500bn of dollars in nature-harmful subsidies to be phased out or repurposed and at least 200bn of dollars in new capital by 2030. The gap is real, but this reading understates the opposing forces. Total harmful incentives exceed the mobilisation goal several times over.
Reforming these incentives would do more to change the economics of biodiversity than to fund isolated projects. The aim is less to withdraw public support than to change its conditions, so that livelihoods are protected while public money stops rewarding environmental damage.
As Marina Von Weissenberg (Finland), co-chair of the Friends of Target 18, put it: “we do not need to spend more to close the gap, we just need to spend better.7”
COP17 announced nearly 2bn of dollars in new commitments8, including 560mn of dollars through the Global Environment Facility, 500mn of dollars through the Species Recovery Alliance and more than 330mn of dollars through the Value Nature Fund. However, mobilisation and disbursement differ. Funds must reach areas with demonstrable conservation needs, be sustained and deliver measurable ecological improvement.
The Cali Fund9 illustrates the point. Created at COP16 to raise at least 1bn of dollars annually from companies using digital sequence information (DSI) from genetic resources, it had reportedly attracted only c.10k dollar by the close of COP17, with no contribution from any large company in the sectors concerned. Creating a mechanism is not enough: incentives, clear rules and political backing determine whether it delivers.
Private capital is needed alongside public finance. The European Union, France and Peru launched the Friends of Credits for Nature and Biodiversity10, an intergovernmental platform to support nature credits. Their value will depend on robust baselines, evidence of additionality, long-term monitoring and safeguards against double counting. Restoring one wetland does not offset the loss of another ecosystem.
Green Finance Institute, UNEP FI and others have launched a Call to Action on High-Integrity Nature Markets11, urging to establish robust standards before the market fragments around inconsistent methodologies.
What investors should take away from Yerevan
COP17 showed the limits of treating biodiversity as a standalone theme. Water scarcity, soil degradation and pollination loss carry financial consequences, often transmitted through supply chains. The priority is to link nature analysis with financial materiality and stewardship, to determine where impacts occur, how credible transition plans are and how exposed business models remain.
Frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and tools such as ENCORE map these exposures. However, data alone changes nothing. Rather, it must shape investment decisions and engagement priorities. Engagement should also target governments on subsidies, land use and disclosure standards.
The road to 2030 is a test of economic credibility
COP17 delivered a roadmap, funding announcements and governance decisions, but also showed the limits of a system for which governments agree on collective objectives without agreeing on the economic change required. Its impact will be measured in government budgets, investment decisions and portfolios.
The success of biodiversity finance cannot be judged by the volume of capital labelled nature-positive, but by whether capital has stopped funding the destruction of what it claims to protect.
Completed on 9 November 2026
By Deepshikha Singh, Deputy Head of Financial and Extra-financial Analysis, Crédit Mutuel Asset Management
Crédit Mutuel Asset Management is an asset management company of La Française, the asset management branch of Crédit Mutuel Alliance Fédérale.
This commentary is provided for informational purposes only. The reference to certain financial instruments is given as an illustration. It is not intended to promote direct investment in these financial instruments. The opinions expressed by Groupe La Française are based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. These opinions may differ from those of other investment professionals. The information contained in this publication is based on sources considered reliable, but Groupe La Française does not guarantee that it is accurate, complete, valid, or relevant. Published by La Française Finance Services, headquartered at 128 boulevard Raspail, 75006 Paris, France, regulated by the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel as an investment services provider, no. 18673, and registered with ORIAS (www.orias.fr) under no. 13007808 on November 4, 2016, a subsidiary of La Française. Crédit Mutuel Asset Management: 128 boulevard Raspail, 75006 Paris, is an asset management company authorized by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers under no. GP 97 138 and registered with ORIAS (www.orias.fr) under no. 25003045 since April 11, 2025. Public limited company with capital of €3,871,680, RCS Paris no. 388 555 021.
[1] COP17: Nations chart ‘Yerevan Pathway’ to speed up action for nature | UN News
[2] pr-2026-10-31-cop17-en.pdf
[3] CBD COP17: Yerevan Pathway adopted as world falls behind on biodiversity targets
[4] COP17 Presidency Flagship Initiatives
[5] Mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors
[6] Governments adopt first global strategy to finance biodiversity: Implications for financial institutions – United Nations Environment – Finance Initiative
[7] COP 17 Presidency Launches Initiative to Close the Biodiversity Funding Gap by Reforming Economic Incentives | International Institute for Sustainable Development
[8] COP17: Nations chart ‘Yerevan Pathway’ to speed up action for nature | UN News
[9] COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan - Carbon Brief
[10] EU launches Friends of Credits for Nature and Biodiversity - Environment
[11] The finance sector joins global call for high-integrity nature markets – United Nations Environment – Finance Initiative
