As governments prepare for the first global assessment of progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, financing shortfalls, harmful subsidies and uneven implementation threaten to undermine commitments to protect nature. The world has four years left to meet its 2030 biodiversity targets. Yet, as governments prepare to gather in Yerevan, Armenia, the distance between their commitments and the action required to fulfil them remains substantial.

The 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17), scheduled for October 19–30, will bring governments, scientists, Indigenous Peoples, civil society organisations and businesses together for the first global review of collective progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Adopted in December 2022, the framework established an international plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss through four overarching goals and 23 targets. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s official COP17 identifies the meeting as a critical opportunity to assess implementation and determine where additional action is needed.

Governments have agreed on the scale of the biodiversity crisis and outlined measures to address it. The harder task is to translate those commitments into protected habitats, restored ecosystems, reformed economic incentives and reliable funding. COP17 will test whether countries can accelerate that work before the 2030 deadline.

Global Framework Under Pressure

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established several measurable ambitions. These include conserving at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030, restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems, mobilising at least 200 billion dollars annually for biodiversity from all sources, and identifying and eliminating or reforming incentives harmful to biodiversity worth at least 500 billion dollars annually.

The framework also calls for increased international biodiversity finance, including 30 billion dollars annually in international financial flows to developing countries by 2030. Its provisions cover the sustainable use of biodiversity, equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources, and the integration of nature into decisions made across government and economic sectors.

These targets recognise that conservation cannot be confined to isolated protected areas. Agricultural production, infrastructure development, financial decisions, trade and consumption all influence the condition of ecosystems. The first global review will examine collective progress using national reports, national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and other relevant information. Its findings should help governments identify where implementation is lagging and what changes are needed.

The challenge is already visible in conservation projections. A Reuters report published on October 14 found that current commitments were projected to protect 27% of land and inland waters by 2030, compared with approximately 20% at present. Marine protection was projected to rise from 10% to just 12%. These figures indicate that existing commitments fall short of the 30% targets, particularly for marine ecosystems.

Nature Loss is an Economic Problem

Biodiversity decline is frequently discussed through the disappearance of species and the destruction of habitats. Its consequences extend into food production, water availability, employment and economic stability. The explainer supplied for this article cites a 2024 assessment that found monitored wildlife populations across more than 5,500 species had declined by 73% between 1970 and 2020. It also reports that 460 million hectares of forest are degraded, an area larger than the combined territory of the European Union’s 27 member states.

Wetlands have suffered substantial losses, too. According to the same source, 35% of the world’s wetlands have disappeared since 1970, while a quarter of those remaining are degraded. It also reports that 56% of assessed mangrove ecosystems across 34 provinces are at risk of collapse. These figures describe damage to ecological systems that sustain human livelihoods. Small-scale fisheries, which depend heavily on healthy coastal habitats, account for 40% of the global catch and support the livelihoods of approximately one in every 12 people worldwide, according to the supplied explainer.

Forest loss can also affect rainfall patterns, with implications for farmers who depend on predictable seasonal water supplies. Wetland degradation reduces the natural functions these ecosystems perform, while the destruction of mangroves removes habitats that support fisheries and coastal communities.

The economic consequences are therefore not confined to conservation budgets. Damage to ecosystems can undermine agricultural productivity, disrupt supply chains and increase the vulnerability of communities already exposed to environmental stress. For COP17, the implications are direct: biodiversity policy must account for the economic decisions that accelerate ecological decline, rather than treating conservation as a separate environmental concern.

The Subsidy Contradiction

One of the most consequential issues facing negotiators is the continued flow of money towards activities that damage nature. The framework calls for governments to identify and eliminate, phase out or reform incentives harmful to biodiversity, reducing them by at least 500 billion dollars annually by 2030. Yet a Reuters report published on October 12 cited estimates that approximately 2.6 trillion dollars is channelled each year into incentives that harm ecosystems. The report also noted that only 5% of governments had fully addressed the relevant target.

This creates a fundamental contradiction in public policy. Governments may allocate funds to conservation while other subsidies encourage activities associated with habitat destruction, unsustainable resource extraction or environmentally damaging production. Reforming these incentives requires more than announcing a reduction target. Governments must identify which subsidies cause harm, examine who benefits from them and establish alternatives that do not shift the economic burden onto vulnerable communities.

Agriculture, fisheries, energy and infrastructure can all involve competing economic and environmental priorities. Abruptly withdrawing support without considering livelihoods can create additional hardship. Reform therefore requires transparent assessments, appropriate safeguards and credible alternatives for affected workers and producers.

COP17 is expected to examine how finance ministers can be brought more directly into this process. The objective is to align economic incentives with biodiversity commitments, so that public spending does not continue to undermine the goals governments have endorsed.

The Unresolved Question of Biodiversity Finance

Meeting the global targets will require sustained funding for conservation, restoration, monitoring and implementation. The framework’s annual biodiversity finance ambition of 200 billion dollars encompasses resources from public and private sources, domestic and international funding, and other financial channels.

Within this total, international financial flows to developing countries are expected to reach 30 billion dollars annually by 2030. Establishing the target was a significant step, but governments must still determine how to mobilise the required resources and ensure that they reach the places and communities where conservation is needed.

Developing countries face competing demands on public expenditure, including debt servicing, infrastructure, health and education. Biodiversity commitments can become difficult to implement when governments lack fiscal room to fund them. The negotiations are expected to consider interim milestones for international public finance and ways to address the links between debt burdens and biodiversity loss. Such measures could help make funding commitments more concrete, although their effectiveness will depend on the terms agreed and the resources actually delivered.

The management of biodiversity finance is another concern. Governments agreed at COP16 to review where biodiversity funding is held and how it is governed. COP17 is expected to consider initial options arising from that process. The distinction between announced finance and money available for implementation matters. Funding targets have little practical value if they do not translate into resources that conservation agencies, local governments and communities can access.

Can the Cali Fund deliver equitable benefits?

Another issue concerns the use of digital sequence information derived from genetic resources. Genetic information obtained from plants, animals and microorganisms can support research and commercial development in fields such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and agriculture. Digital sequence information allows researchers and companies to use genetic data without necessarily handling the original biological material.

The resulting benefits raise questions about fairness. Countries and communities that conserve biodiversity may not receive a proportionate share of the value generated from genetic information derived from their biological resources. At COP16, governments established the Cali Fund to help address this issue. Under the arrangement described in the supplied explainer, companies in sectors benefiting from digital sequence information are expected to contribute to the fund under specified conditions.

However, the mechanism has struggled to attract contributions. A scientific editorial published in Nature Reviews Biodiversity on October 13 reported that the fund had received only $6,000 against a target of 1 billion dollars annually. The editorial identified limited awareness and unresolved implementation details as obstacles to wider participation.

COP17 will need to address the practical barriers preventing the fund from fulfilling its intended purpose. Clearer rules, incentives and potentially regulatory measures could help establish a functioning system for benefit-sharing.

The issue extends beyond revenue. Equitable benefit-sharing is also connected to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities whose knowledge and stewardship contribute to biodiversity conservation. A system that recognises the commercial value of genetic resources without adequately addressing these interests would leave a central part of the framework unfulfilled.

Indigenous Knowledge and Community Rights

The framework recognises that biodiversity protection depends on the participation of people who live in and manage ecosystems. Indigenous Peoples and local communities hold knowledge about species, landscapes and ecological practices that can contribute to conservation and sustainable resource use.

Yet recognition in an international agreement does not automatically translate into influence over decisions on the ground. The supplied COP17 explainer identifies human rights, Indigenous knowledge and community participation as areas requiring greater attention across the framework’s targets. It also notes that COP16 established a subsidiary body concerned with Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, innovations and practices.

The task now is to ensure that these commitments shape implementation. This includes meaningful participation in decisions, respect for rights and the fair distribution of benefits arising from biodiversity and its use. Community participation should not be measured simply by the number of consultations held. Its value depends on whether people can influence decisions affecting their territories, livelihoods and knowledge.

Test of Implementation

COP17’s first global review will provide governments with an opportunity to examine the collective record against the commitments made in Montreal. Its significance will depend on what countries do with that assessment. A credible outcome would identify implementation gaps, establish clearer milestones and strengthen accountability for finance and policy reform. It would also address the contradiction between spending on conservation and the much larger financial flows that continue to harm ecosystems.

The remaining four years will require action across national governments, financial institutions, businesses and local communities. Protected areas must be supported by effective management; restoration must produce ecological gains; and biodiversity finance must become accessible and dependable.

The framework already sets out the broad direction. COP17 must determine whether countries are prepared to change the policies, budgets and economic incentives that stand in its way. By 2030, the measure of success will not be the number of declarations adopted at international meetings. It will be whether ecosystems are recovering, species and habitats are better protected, and the people whose lives depend on nature have stronger reasons and greater capacity to sustain it.

Chandigarh’s Sukhna Wetland, an urban wetland ecosystem centred on Sukhna Lake, has been designated a Ramsar site, bringing greater international attention to its ecological importance and the need to protect its habitats.

Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav announced the designation on Thursday, naming Sukhna Wetland in Chandigarh and Sheelaj in Uttar Pradesh among India’s latest additions to the list of internationally important wetlands. The announcement brings India’s Ramsar site count to 103, according to the minister’s post on X.

The Ramsar Convention is an intergovernmental treaty adopted in 1971 to promote the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands. Sites are recognised for their ecological significance, including their role in supporting biodiversity and maintaining essential environmental processes.

Why Sukhna Wetland Matters

Sukhna Lake, an artificial reservoir created in 1958, is a prominent landmark in Chandigarh. The associated wetland ecosystem extends beyond the open water to include habitats shaped by seasonal water levels, vegetation and the interaction between land and water. The Ramsar designation applies to the officially identified wetland site, rather than automatically covering every area surrounding the lake.

Wetlands provide benefits that extend well beyond their role as wildlife habitats. Depending on their characteristics and condition, they can absorb excess rainfall, help regulate water flows, recharge groundwater and trap sediments. They also support aquatic organisms and provide feeding, breeding and resting grounds for birds.

These functions are particularly important in urban areas, where construction, land-use changes and pressure on water resources can degrade natural ecosystems. Wetlands may also face threats from pollution, waste accumulation, encroachment and changes in water inflows.

International recognition can strengthen the case for conservation and encourage more systematic monitoring. However, Ramsar status does not by itself eliminate these pressures. The long-term benefits depend on effective management and enforcement of conservation measures.

India’s Expanding Ramsar Network

India’s wetlands range from high-altitude lakes and inland floodplains to coastal lagoons, mangroves and marshes. These ecosystems sustain diverse plant and animal communities while contributing to water regulation and local livelihoods.

The addition of Sukhna Wetland and Sheelaj expands the country’s internationally recognised wetland network. The designation also draws attention to the need to maintain the ecological character of these sites through regular assessments of water quality, habitat protection and responsible land and water management.

For Chandigarh, the recognition offers an opportunity to strengthen the protection of an important urban ecosystem. Preserving Sukhna Wetland will require sustained attention to the health of the lake, its surrounding habitats and the environmental pressures affecting them. The designation establishes international recognition; effective conservation will determine whether that recognition translates into lasting ecological benefits.

Bees are an attractive species to capture on your mobile phone. They may fit well into the aesthetic imagery of our habitats. But recent studies warn that, in the near future, it might become more convenient to create an AI image of a bee than to spot one in our environment.

There are around 20,400 recorded species of bees in the world. More than 90% do not live in hives or produce honey. This percentage is even higher in India, where, of the approximately 700 bee species, only five are social bees that live in hives and produce honey. The rest are “solitary” bees, with no social hierarchy. These bees live alone, forage and fend for themselves. Moreover, they play an important role in our world.

A new study has reported alarming findings about the fertility traits of these solitary bees. Titled “Lasting impacts of sublethal prepupal heatwaves on fertility-related traits of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis,” the study reveals that simulated sublethal heatwaves during the prepupal stage alter fertility-related traits in solitary bees.

The study investigated the effects of a field-realistic, three-day fluctuating heatwave regime, with temperatures below 40°C and below the critical thermal maximum (CTmax) for this species, replicating the temperature conditions experienced in the UK during July 2022. After the bees overwintered following juvenile exposure, researchers assessed male sperm and female oocytes to examine the effects on reproductive traits.

The study found that, although there was no direct effect on survival to adulthood, male sperm counts were reduced by 33% and sperm motility by 53%, while sperm length was shortened by 17%. In females, oocyte production was reduced by 15%, along with a 17% reduction in terminal oocyte volume.

In bees and many other insect species, testicular development and spermatogenesis usually begin during the prepupal and pupal phases, when the heat stress regime was applied. This period has been found to be thermally sensitive, with heat stress interfering with normal reproductive development. The heatwave simulated in the study may therefore have impaired testicular development and initial sperm production, reducing sperm numbers in adult bees despite the months of overwintering between exposure and assessment.

Reductions in sperm numbers and quality may affect fertilization. Previous research has found that elevated temperatures of 29°C led to decreased sperm abundance, reducing egg fertilization rates and embryo development.

Although this experimental approach does not allow for a detailed exploration of thermal thresholds or breakpoints, it provides valuable insights into the potential biological consequences of ecologically realistic, fluctuating heat stress, as experienced during heatwaves in nature.

Solitary bees are crucial to the pollination of several crops, including cucurbits, blueberries, cranberries, tomatoes, eggplants, apples, plums and almonds, as well as various lentils and other crops. These bees are efficient pollinators because they carry dry pollen across their bodies, potentially making them more effective than honeybees for certain crops.

This is not an isolated area of research. Another study published in 2023 also examined the damaging effects of heat on sperm production in bees, focusing on bumblebees of the genus Bombus.The study found that exposing whole male bumblebees to 4°C for 85 minutes, isolated seminal vesicles to 4°C for 85 minutes ,and whole males to 4°C for 48 hours did not significantly affect sperm viability.

However, after 85 minutes at 45°C, males showed significantly reduced sperm viability. This suggests that short-term heatwaves below the critical thermal maximum could substantially reduce male bumblebee fertility, with potential population-level consequences.

The thermal tolerance of worker bumblebees is relatively high, with a CTmax of approximately 48–55°C, making it unlikely that they would experience these temperatures under ordinary conditions, even with climate warming. However, the thermal tolerance of whole organisms often exceeds that of their reproductive cells. Many insects can be sterilised by exposure to temperatures well below their upper thermal tolerance.

Why Should This Matter?

Pollination, a crucial process for maintaining the planet’s biodiversity and food security, is primarily driven by bees and other insect pollinators.

In agricultural systems, pollinators are essential for producing a wide range of crops, including orchard fruits, horticultural crops and forage, as well as seeds for root and fibre crops. Pollinators contribute to approximately 35% of global crop production by volume, enhancing the yields of 87 of the 115 major food crops and numerous medicinal plants.(FOA data)

Bees pollinating on a flower.Image credit:Pexels

The benefits of pollination extend beyond improving the quantity and quality of food production. Pollinator-dependent plants contribute to the production of many micronutrients and vitamins that are important for human nutrition and dietary diversity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also points out that more than 80% of wild flowering plant species are pollinated by animals, mostly insects.

Bees and other pollinators face significant threats, with current extinction rates estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates due to human activities. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), national Red List assessments indicate that around 40% of bee species assessed in some regions are at risk of extinction, while 16.5% of vertebrate pollinators are at risk of global extinction.

Habitat loss and fragmentation, intensive farming, monocultures, pesticides, pests, diseases and climate change-related impacts, such as temperature extremes and shifts in flowering times, are major contributing factors to pollinator decline. These pressures can disrupt the balance between flowering plants and their pollinators.

To establish whether the observed reproductive changes translate into fewer offspring, declining populations or substantially reduced pollination under real-world conditions, further research and evidence are needed. However, habitat fragmentation, climate change, extreme heat and biodiversity loss are already placing increasing pressure on ecosystems. Understanding how these stressors affect the reproductive capacity of bees is therefore essential to assessing the potential long-term consequences for biodiversity and food security.