From Yerevan to Antalya: closing the gap between global ambition and action on nature and climate
The UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 17), which took place last month in Yerevan, Armenia, delivered progress but exposed the continuing gap between global commitments and implementation. As the climate summit COP 31 gets underway in Antalya, Türkiye, we examine what COP 17 achieved and why investing in nature as critical infrastructure, mobilising finance and reforming incentives must become central to the global climate and biodiversity agenda.
By Laura Clavey, Elena Almeida, Camila Cristancho-Duarte, Agata Makowska-Curran and Nicola Ranger
The world is at a critical juncture for climate and nature. Global temperatures are reaching unprecedented levels, ecosystems continue to deteriorate and the economic consequences are becoming increasingly apparent. Yet international cooperation is under pressure, public finances are constrained and progress towards global environmental commitments remains far too slow.
Nonetheless, while formal negotiations remain difficult, momentum is building beyond the negotiating rooms. Governments, businesses and financial institutions increasingly recognise that nature loss is not simply an environmental problem but a fundamental threat to economic stability, prosperity and security. The challenge now is turning that recognition into practical action.
Yerevan: progress, but not nearly enough
The first global review of progress towards the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework provided a sobering backdrop to COP 17. While the framework has generated unprecedented engagement, the world is not on track to meet its 23 targets by 2030.
The Yerevan Pathway established a shared response to this implementation gap, with nearly 50 decisions adopted, including agreements on finance, benefit-sharing and monitoring. However, significant differences remained over financing responsibilities, harmful subsidies and the relationship between biodiversity and climate policy.
There was a striking contrast between difficult formal negotiations and the greater momentum outside them, where businesses, investors and public institutions were actively exploring new financing mechanisms, partnerships and practical solutions. This includes new approaches to nature markets, credits and insurance, updated disclosure guidance from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, new targets for nature from the Science Based Targets Network and a consultation on nature-related disclosures from the International Sustainability Standards Board.
Nature is becoming a mainstream economic and financial concern
Nature-related risks are increasingly recognised as macro-critical, capable of affecting economic growth, inflation, fiscal sustainability and financial stability. Recent research sets out why. The Green Scorpion report from the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) examines how nature degradation can generate complex, cascading economic and financial risks. Hidden harms from the Centre for Economic Transition Expertise traces the economic and financial consequences of deforestation. Earth Capital Nexus’s Too big to fail makes the case for recognising critical ecosystems as essential economic infrastructure.
The common thread is that forests, wetlands, rivers and soils underpin food and water security, agricultural productivity, energy systems and resilience to shocks. Recognising nature as productive infrastructure fundamentally changes the case for investment: protecting ecosystems can reduce disaster losses, safeguard productive assets and strengthen long-term growth.
This thinking is beginning to reach economic decision-makers. One of the most encouraging developments at COP 17 was the growing engagement of Ministries of Finance and central banks. The NGFS showcased 35 examples of central banks and supervisors assessing nature-related risks, and an inaugural high-level dialogue brought together finance and environment ministries, central banks and development banks to discuss integrating nature into fiscal policy and investment decisions.
But recognition is only the first step. Ministries of Finance now need practical tools, including macroeconomic models, scenario analysis and improved public investment frameworks, to understand and manage these risks. The Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action’s Economic Analysis for Green and Resilient Transitions initiative shows how this capacity can be built. It has brought together a global community of practice, surveyed nearly 60 Ministries of Finance on their access to tools and capabilities, and compiled over 130 case studies of how ministries are applying economic analysis to climate-related policy questions. Recent research on integrating nature into the Low-Income Country Debt Sustainability Framework, and the IMF-World Bank’s Debt Sustainability Framework for Low Income Countries demonstrates how these risks can be incorporated into fiscal and debt sustainability assessments. Work with Uganda’s Ministry of Finance on adaptation, sovereign debt and credit illustrates how investments in resilience can be better recognised within national economic and financing frameworks.
This is particularly important for low- and middle-income countries, where climate and nature-related risks are often greatest but fiscal space is constrained. Environmental degradation can undermine growth and public revenues, increase disaster-related expenditure and exacerbate sovereign debt vulnerabilities. Yet better national tools can only go so far when the constraints are partly external. The international financial architecture can reinforce extractive, commodity-dependent development pathways, limit investment in an ecologically aligned transition and narrow the space for ambitious environmental policy. The countries most exposed to shocks may face the tightest constraints on financing the investments needed to reduce those risks. Fiscal and financial frameworks need to recognise not only the costs of environmental degradation, but also the economic returns from building resilience.
Mobilising more money is only half the solution
Finance remained among the most contentious issues in Yerevan. High-income countries missed their target of mobilising at least US$20 billion annually in international biodiversity finance by 2025, while disagreements over financing responsibilities complicated the negotiations.
The Cali Fund, established to share benefits from the commercial use of digital sequence information (DSI), illustrates both the potential and limitations of voluntary private finance. LSE research on its revenue potential suggests the mechanism could mobilise around US$1 billion annually, yet as of early November, contributions from just five firms stood at only US$10,588, and no large company in the relevant sectors, such as pharmaceuticals or biotechnology, had paid. Companies have pointed to legal clarity, overlap with national access and benefit-sharing measures, and the proportionality of contributions to DSI use as reasons for holding back. COP 17 reaffirmed the indicative rates but largely deferred further work on these questions to COP 18, so substantially larger flows may be unlikely until they are resolved. Further LSE research on corporate incentives examines how market, policy and regulatory incentives, including disclosure requirements, certificates and tax treatment, could encourage companies to pay into multilateral nature funds.
There are encouraging examples of what is possible. New research from Earth Capital Nexus and Natcap on Understanding nature’s ROI [return on investment] examines how five leading companies have captured commercial value from nature-related investments, including through water security and supply-chain resilience. A second study of 54 nature investment vehicles demonstrates how projects can be structured and aggregated to attract institutional investors.
But mobilising additional nature-positive finance is only half the challenge. We cannot close the nature finance gap while economic systems continue to reward activity that destroys nature. Around US$7 trillion annually flows into these activities, vastly outweighing investment in nature-based solutions. Progress at COP 17 on reforming harmful incentives under Target 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework was limited, although new initiatives, including the Friends of Target 18, offer opportunities for cooperation.
From Yerevan to Antalya: connecting climate, nature and economic resilience
The UN climate and biodiversity conventions have historically operated through largely separate processes, despite deep interconnections between them. Although the Global Biodiversity Framework recognises the climate–nature connection, COP 17 heard that separate processes still limit policymakers’ ability to draw bridges between the two agendas.
COP 31 in Antalya provides an opportunity to bridge these agendas, particularly through forests, water, food systems and the circular economy. Forests offer a clear example: protecting them supports biodiversity, carbon storage, rainfall regulation and livelihoods. Similarly for water: restoring watersheds and landscapes can strengthen resilience to droughts and floods while supporting agricultural productivity, water security and economic stability.
With growing risks of climate-related food and water disruptions, including from El Niño, the economic and security case for investing in natural infrastructure as a response to climate change is increasingly compelling.
Stronger cooperation also requires attention to finance. Climate and biodiversity finance face similar challenges including contributor responsibilities, transparency and whether resources reach developing countries and local communities. Consistent reporting and tracking of finance flows, including distinguishing grants from loans, would improve accountability and help avoid exacerbating debt vulnerabilities.
What needs to happen next?
Four priorities for governments emerge from COP 17 for COP 31 and beyond.
First, move from commitments to implementation. Governments need policies, institutions and investable pipelines that translate international goals into real improvements in ecosystems and people’s lives. The real challenge is how to do this, as capacity gaps often leave governments unable to deliver. Closing the gaps will require governments, donors and technical assistance providers working together.
Second, reform the economic incentives driving degradation. Harmful subsidies, inadequate regulation and financial systems that overlook nature-related risks continue to undermine progress. This agenda must become central to finance ministries and economic policy, not remain confined to environment departments.
Third, make climate and nature resilience a core economic and security priority. Investment in natural infrastructure can deliver multiple benefits for food and water security, growth and fiscal stability. But countries, particularly those facing high debt burdens and exposure to environmental shocks, need access to affordable finance and international support to make these investments.
Fourth, strengthen incentives for private sector engagement. Where regulation is weak, voluntary action alone may not deliver at scale, as the Cali Fund shows. Governments can make moving first safer and more worthwhile through credible policy signals and incentives that help companies present nature-related investment to their investors as a business case, from managing risks and dependencies to realising returns.
These priorities extend beyond the COPs. The IMF and World Bank, financial regulators and international economic forums have important roles in translating them into mainstream economic practice. The UK’s G20 Presidency in 2027 offers an important opportunity to advance this agenda.
Yerevan demonstrated that international ambition remains strong, but delivery is falling short. Antalya must build on the growing recognition that climate and nature are inseparable from economic resilience and prosperity.
Ultimately, success will be measured not by the number of declarations agreed, but by whether nature is recovering, communities are becoming more resilient and economies are better prepared for the shocks ahead.
This commentary draws on discussion points raised at a webinar hosted by LSE’s Global School of Sustainability.
About the authors
Laura Clavey is a Research Officer at Earth Capital Nexus. Elena Alemeida is a Senior Policy Fellow at CETEx. Camila Cristancho-Duarte is a Policy Officer at the TPI Global Climate Transition Centre. Agata Makowska-Curran is a PhD Candidate in Environmental Economics in the LSE Department of Geography and Environment. Nicola Ranger is Executive Director of Earth Capital Nexus and Professor in Practice at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. All are based at LSE.