Global South countries face difficulties in ocean protection due to lack of funding

The UN Convention on Biodiversity COP17 concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, causing disappointment among many delegates as the urgency of the issue was not adequately reflected in the adopted decisions. Although the meeting was intended to be a moment to correct the course in combating the causes of species extinction, genetic diversity, and ecosystem loss, observers noted that the multilateral system still lacks the ability to solve problems, only to voice opinions about them.

Four years ago, governments agreed on ambitious goals for 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. However, according to the Global Assessment presented earlier this year, none of these goals are moving in a fully positive direction. At COP17, governments adopted the 'Yerevan Pathway' to address this gap, but experts agreed that it largely relies on previously agreed text and does not provide clear practical guidelines.

Alfred DeGhemmes, Director of International Policy at Wildlife Conservation Society, stated that 'obstructionist policies of climate discussions' have emerged in biodiversity negotiations. Observers also reported that Russia repeatedly tried to weaken wording concerning indigenous peoples' rights, the open sea, and harmful subsidies, while Saudi Arabia and India resisted mentions of subsidy reform.

Negotiators excluded earlier formulations calling for the transformation of economic and financial systems and the reform of harmful practices. Instead, the text merely calls for 'enhanced action to address the root causes of biodiversity loss.' Developed countries and those 'able to do so' are 'strongly encouraged' to increase support for developing countries, but the document specifies no concrete amounts.

It is estimated that there is a deficit of $700 billion between what is needed to solve the biodiversity crisis and what has actually been raised. COP17 President Hambardzum Matevosyan noted at a press conference that while what was achieved is not sufficient, it exceeds expectations.

Yerevan was smaller and quieter than the previous COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia. About 9,300 people registered compared to over 23,000 in Cali, and protests were limited and held indoors. Nevertheless, the negotiations themselves were tense. In Cali, the meeting could not officially conclude after going into overtime; delegates started leaving, and a quorum was lost, requiring the meeting to resume in Rome several months later. In Yerevan, the process proceeded more smoothly, concluding early Saturday morning instead of the planned Friday evening, following a final plenary session that lasted almost 12 hours.

Countries spent two exhausting weeks of negotiations, facing sharp differences of opinion on how to close the gaps in biodiversity conservation efforts. Panama's Environment Minister Juan Carlos Navarro stated at a press conference that those who support forests cannot bear the burden, while high-emitting and consuming countries evade responsibility. Ireland's Minister for Nature, Christopher O'Sullivan, emphasized that some countries, still classified as developing, 'obviously must play their part' in nature protection financing.

Under the Global Biodiversity Framework, developed countries committed to allocating at least $20 billion annually from public funds by 2025, rising to $30 billion by 2030. The Global Assessment showed that this goal was likely not met. OECD data indicates that in 2024, funding reached approximately $19 billion, but averaged around $16 billion per year between 2023 and 2025.

The JUSCANZ coalition of developed countries proposed 'expanding the contribution base' to include developing economies such as China and India in the list of countries funding nature protection. Ultimately, states wishing to join the donor list were invited to express interest, while others could make voluntary contributions without being included in this list.

Debates over insufficient funding hide another problem: where existing funds are going. Governments spend about $1.8 trillion annually on subsidies that harm nature, such as those promoting deforestation. Goal 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework calls for reducing harmful incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030. Progress in this area has been particularly limited. Earlier Global Assessment reports called for more decisive action, but the final text of the Yerevan Pathway only 'encourages' countries to 'accelerate' the implementation of this goal based on their 'national circumstances.'

The coalition, co-chaired by Colombia and Finland, known as Friends of Target 18, was also created to help countries find solutions. Greenpeace expert on biodiversity policy Anne Lambrechts noted that 'the prevalence of the topic [harmful subsidies] in negotiations is a positive sign,' adding that industries profiting from nature destruction should also participate.

A similar logic underlies the Cali Fund, established at COP16, which aims to make companies pay for genetic data, but after two years, it remains almost empty. According to the fund's terms, companies are asked to voluntarily contribute 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue to raise $1 billion annually for nature conservation. Half of these funds are designated for indigenous peoples and local communities. However, by the end of COP in Yerevan, only about $10,500 was promised.

Countries were supposed to finalize details such as which specific companies—small, medium, or large—should contribute to the fund and how the funds would be distributed. However, decisions were postponed until the following year due to the inability of countries to reach an agreement. June Rubis, a scientist and member of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Biodiversity, stated that 'indigenous peoples and local communities cannot wait while companies use nature's genetic information for free.'

Nevertheless, they achieved some progress in their specific area. Countries agreed on the functioning of a permanent body for indigenous peoples and local communities, established at COP16. This body can make recommendations at COP, but final decisions remain with governments. Inara Vati Sateré-Mave, deputy coordinator of COIAB, an indigenous organization in Brazil, stated at COP: 'Yes, we are present here, but a colonial state sits at the negotiating table. We do not have the conditions for this.'

Countries also adopted a document on biodiversity and climate change, which calls on governments to consider new voluntary guidelines for expanding nature-oriented solutions. However, following objections, references to last year's advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change and the assessment of IPBES, the UN's scientific advisory body on biodiversity, were removed from the text. A representative of the European Union at the closing of the plenary session expressed 'deep concern' over attempts at 'undermining science' and the reduction of IPBES's contribution, calling it one of the 'best compasses.'

Negotiations on marine biodiversity were also contentious. Russia opposed mentions of the agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, known as the High Seas Treaty, which entered into force in January and has been ratified by over 100 countries. The final Yerevan text on marine biodiversity merely noted the treaty's entry into force rather than welcoming it, although countries agreed to create an informal consultative group on the convention's work in the open sea. Brianna Fruan, a climate and ocean activist from Samoa, stated that this development is extremely disappointing: 'The world is losing time while political leaders argue over words and punctuation.'

The next opportunity to address these gaps will be at COP18 in Quito, Ecuador, in 2028, two years before the 2030 deadline. An official representative of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment told the plenary session that the country would work 'transparently and constructively.' For Astrid Schomaker, head of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the current test is what governments will change upon returning home. She stated that 'we cannot protect nature while continuing to finance its destruction. Resources must flow to the countries and communities that need them. And biodiversity must become part of everyday economic decisions.'

The 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17), held in Yerevan, Armenia, is just hours away from its official closing, with participating states showing significant distance from reaching a consensus on the central elements for Nature preservation, which may lead to discussions continuing into the night.

After almost two weeks of proceedings, significant divergences remain regarding crucial topics. These include granting subsidies to environmentally harmful activities, such as oil extraction; defining the best methodology to fund biodiversity protection; and increasing corporate contributions to a United Nations fund dedicated to nature conservation, which faces resource scarcity.

Francisco Ferreira, president of the environmental association Zero, commented in a note sent to Lusa that several vital issues still await a decision. He stressed that although technical advances and important decisions have occurred over the two weeks, the more complex political issues remain unresolved. Ferreira stated that COP17 showed that the world possesses the necessary knowledge to curb biodiversity loss, but the obstacle lies in the absence of political will, funding, and concrete decisions, with progress towards 2030 falling short of the goals set in 2022.

A plenary meeting scheduled for early afternoon was postponed until early evening, while smaller working groups continue to operate. Discussions at COP17 are primarily focused on drafting a 'global stocktake' of progress in the area of biodiversity, a document awaited but still pending despite initial optimism about its completion before the current day.

This stocktake should be based on the results obtained after the 2022 Biodiversity Agreement, known as the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, which is comparable to the Paris Agreement on climate change. This agreement defined 23 goals to be achieved by 2030, such as protecting 30% of terrestrial and oceanic areas, combating pollution and invasive species, and restoring degraded ecosystems; however, most of these goals are behind schedule.

The objective of the global stocktake is to guide states toward the correct path through tangible proposals, but countries face notable difficulties when dealing with issues related to subsidies granted to harmful practices, estimated at $2.6 trillion annually. Another relevant point of contention is determining who should bear the financial objectives set for 2030, in a context where the public finances of many countries are under pressure, leading them to try to avoid the responsibility of increasing allocations.

Francisco Ferreira identified financing as the 'main blockage' of the summit, highlighting an 'enormous contradiction between funding for conservation and subsidies that promote habitat destruction, soil degradation, and overfishing.' In addition to monetary issues, the president of Zero mentioned that the positions adopted by certain countries, specifically Russia and Saudi Arabia, are complicating collaboration between biodiversity and climate change, as well as scientific recognition and articulation with other international pacts.

The president of Zero also expressed concern about the persistence of divergences regarding the effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, emphasizing that it is deeply worrying the time spent 'discussing words' instead of implementing concrete actions, given that biodiversity protection sustains both human living conditions and economies.

The European Union has been trying to persuade large emerging economies, such as China, to adhere to the official donor base, without success so far. Efforts to strengthen the 'Cali Fund,' a United Nations mechanism intended to share profits generated by companies exploiting genetic data of plants and other organisms, are also proving challenging.

In previous events, such as the biodiversity summit in Colombia in 2024, negotiations ended without an agreement on conservation funding, which were resumed and concluded in Rome in early 2025. In Yerevan, it is expected to be decided today whether Panama or Ecuador will host the next summit, COP18, in 2028. On the eve of the COP17 closing, Astrid Schomaler, UN biodiversity officer, called on countries to demonstrate 'audacity and innovation to find common ground.'

More than ten years ago, Wang Xiaoyun began his work on coral conservation in the waters off Shenzhen, southern China. He became one of the founders of the local group DiveForLove, which organized volunteers to survey reefs, clean up debris, and collect and transplant corals damaged by storms. Protecting the corals off the coast of Shenzhen, a highly urbanized city, is an extremely important task.

In the 1980s, corals covered about 70% of the Dappen Bay, while by 2000, this figure had dropped below 30%, matching the current coverage level of the bay. Coral bleaching occurs due to thermal stress and oceanic conditions related to weather systems; corals lose color by expelling symbiotic algae. In 2024, Dappen Bay experienced a particularly severe bleaching episode, where, according to Wang, 60% of local corals turned white. Although corals can survive bleaching, prolonged exposure to excessively high temperatures leads to their death, resulting in the disappearance of other species that depend on coral reefs for food and shelter.

A large-scale study published earlier this year, based on 21.1 million observations across more than 36,000 reefs in 124 countries, showed a global decline in hard coral cover. The study noted that the interval between major global bleaching events has shortened to approximately five to six years, which is often insufficient for reef recovery. Furthermore, a new report released this month indicated that about 44% of reef-building coral species are under 'elevated relative risk of extinction.' These species were assessed by marine biologists from around the world and have all been listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The ocean is rapidly setting new temperature records, and the current El Niño phase promises to further raise temperatures. Corals face a bleak future marked by bleaching. However, the problem extends beyond the death of marine invertebrates: the loss of corals threatens the livelihoods, food security, and coastal protection of hundreds of millions of people worldwide who depend on their local reefs.

In recent years, Wang's group has shifted its focus from coral restoration to marine environmental education, hoping this will ultimately lead to better ocean protection. He notes that in the context of global climate change, local efforts may seem insignificant, but he urges not to give up, striving to 'sow seeds in people's hearts.'

Near the coast of Kenya, where the Indian Ocean meets the village of Kuruvitu, fisherman Katangangala is also involved in restoring local reefs. For two decades, he has dedicated himself to creating underwater coral nurseries to help connect fragmented corals in a marine reserve. This 30-hectare area was established after the 1996 El Niño event to restore fish populations and protect damaged and degraded reefs.

El Niño is a climate pattern in which surface waters in the eastern-central tropical Pacific Ocean warm significantly above average. This affects rainfall patterns and weather globally, increasing global temperatures during its duration. El Niño is part of a phenomenon called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO); the opposite, cooler phase is called La Niña. El Niño events do not occur on a regular schedule but happen, on average, every two to seven years.

Katangangala tells Dialogue Earth that several years ago, before starting coral restoration work, they suffered greatly due to dependence on fishing, but there were no fish. He is glad that thanks to their efforts, fish and corals have returned to the waters. He emphasizes that the ocean is vital for men and women, fishermen and fish traders, as well as children who fish. He knows the risk posed by the high temperatures observed in many places: 'Corals need a warm temperature within 25-30°C. More than that, and the corals will die and bleach.'

Experts point out that while local actions cannot counteract warming waters caused by global greenhouse gas emissions, reducing fishing pressure, cleaning water, and supporting reefs through projects like Katangangala's can help reefs adapt. Activities that improve coral health give them a greater chance of surviving sharp temperature increases.

Juliet Furaha Karisa, an ecologist and conservationist from the Kenyan Institute of Marine and Fisheries Resources, tells Dialogue Earth that Kenya uses protected areas, community-led conservation initiatives, restoration, and other tools to aid its reefs. She notes that government agencies, scientists, conservation organizations, districts, communities, women, and youth are taking strong and increasingly coordinated action. Nevertheless, she stresses that restoration and local management cannot cool the ocean, and Kenya's national efforts must be accompanied by rapid global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for Kenya's coral reefs to survive in a functional form.

As part of the Coral Triangle, Bali Island in Indonesia plays a key role in coral reef conservation. This region, covering six countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste—is a global center of coral biodiversity, hosting 76% of the world's coral species. More than a third of the region's 350 million inhabitants depend on the ocean.

On Bali, these reefs provide significant income from tourism. Pariama Hutasoit, an Indonesian marine conservationist and chairman of the Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Foundation (Bali Blue Harmony), says that communities are beginning to realize the importance of coral reefs for the sustainability of marine life and for themselves. Fishermen can catch fish more easily and earn additional income from marine tourism.

In one such community is Nusa Penida, located near Bali. This island is known for its impressive diving spots and aggregations of Mola mola (ocean sunfish) and manta rays. In 2010, I Nyoman Karyawan, a resident of Nusa Penida, became concerned that seaweed farming was damaging local reefs to make space for cultivation. He launched a coral planting project. Like many who love and depend on corals, he faced a problem much larger than the local pressure he was trying to mitigate: 'Global warming... yes, the impact is usually felt worldwide. We seem to have to accept it, and it's hard to prevent if it's just us. However, we continue to try to care for them and plant them as well as possible, without stopping. Because these coral reefs are part of a natural chain and the livelihoods of people here.'

This natural chain is under unprecedented pressure. If it breaks, not only the corals will suffer.

In Quintana Roo state, Mexico, coral reefs attract many tourists eager to see reefs, sharks, rays, and turtles. Nadia Rubio-Cisneros, a researcher from the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Mexico (UANL), based on the island of Cozumel in the state, asserts that reef health is inextricably linked to fishing, tourism, and the well-being of their communities. Nadia also leads the research and education group Sustainable Seas Science and Conservation (MSCC), which works to protect sharks dependent on local habitats.

Caribbean reefs generate billions of dollars annually from tourism and fishing, yet they are among the most degraded in the world. Besides bleaching, they face issues with diseases, massive influxes of brown algae that can cover corals, plastic pollution, damage from overtourism, and massive hotel developments that worsen water quality.

Luis Fernando Amesqua, a diver and resident of the coastal village of Mahaual south of Cozumel, notes: 'Compared to 15 or 25 years ago, the reef is heavily damaged. If you spot a barracuda, a grey ray [southern spiny ray], or a turtle during a dive, it's cause for celebration.' He adds that some long-time workers feel bitter disappointment seeing the coral reefs where they once worked literally disappear in a single month.

Rosa Elisa Rodriguez-Martinez, a reef researcher from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), based in Puerto Morelos, 300 km up the coast from Mahaual, states that many species previously common in the Caribbean, such as certain agalactid and porites species, have not been observed for many years or only in 'significantly reduced' numbers.

Many local residents and experts interviewed by Dialogue Earth hope that local efforts can buy time for global emission reductions, which will ultimately limit global warming. However, Rodriguez-Martinez is pessimistic. She fears that given trends in ocean temperature rise, eutrophication, and marine pollution, coral reefs located far from human-impacted coasts and in colder, deeper waters may be the only ones to survive. She suggests that perhaps only after thousands of years could survivors repopulate the seas if conditions become suitable for coral growth again.