COP17 Puts Nature-Damaging Finance and Subsidies in Focus

The financial flows behind biodiversity loss are drawing scrutiny at the U.N.’s 2026 biodiversity conference, COP17, in Yerevan, Armenia. A mural of elephants in the venue’s main hallway, organized by Friends of the Earth International, casts those entrenched systems as the “elephants in the room.” The image gives an abstract policy debate a physical presence: the focus is on money that continues to support activities damaging the natural systems governments have pledged to protect.

That framing matters because conservation discussions often center on goals, protected areas and restoration, while the incentives behind damaging production can receive less attention. Subsidies and other financial support shape which activities remain viable and where capital flows. The mural’s message is pointed, but the underlying question is practical: can governments change those flows at the scale their biodiversity commitments require?

The gap between protection and harm

“It is astounding that the global economy is spending only $1 on nature protection for each $30 that it spends on nature destruction,” said An Lambrechts, a biodiversity politics expert with Greenpeace International. She cited a finding from the U.N. Environment Programme’s State of Finance for Nature 2026 report. The comparison is stark, even without further detail here about how the report defines or measures each category of spending.

That imbalance suggests conservation funding can't be judged in isolation. More money for protection may help, but it doesn't by itself address public and private support for activities that degrade ecosystems. Similar funding debates often turn on what counts as harmful support, who receives it, and whether governments can redirect it without simply shifting the damage elsewhere. Those are questions of implementation, not just accounting.

The wildlife figures add urgency. WWF International’s recent Living Planet report found wild vertebrate populations fell by an average of 73% from 1970 to 2022. Its authors pointed to climate change and agriculture, as well as financial support for industries and practices that damage nature. The statistic describes an average change in monitored populations; it shouldn't be read as meaning that 73% of all wild animals disappeared.

Industrial logging in Papua New Guinea’s New Ireland province. Image by John Cannon/Mongabay.

What the subsidy target asks governments to do

Under Target 18 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by 196 parties in 2022, governments set an ambition to reduce subsidies and other financial support for biodiversity-harming activities by $500 billion a year. The target puts financial reform alongside conservation goals: governments are being asked to examine not only what they fund to protect nature, but also what they support that can undermine it.

Unsustainable fishing and industrial agriculture are among the practices contributing directly to declines in plant, animal and fungal life. Yet support for these “nature-negative” activities remains high; the source reports a figure beginning at $7.3 billion, but the text cuts off before giving the full amount. That missing figure limits what can responsibly be concluded about the scale or scope of the estimate. It also makes clear why the definitions and reporting behind subsidy claims matter: a target is difficult to track if the baseline is incomplete or categories aren't clearly explained.

The harder test is implementation

Here's the thing: changing a subsidy can affect producers, workers and communities that depend on the activity it supports. That doesn't settle whether the support should continue, but it does mean reform involves choices about how to reduce environmental harm while managing economic consequences. The article's available facts don't describe particular plans or outcomes at COP17, so the conference's challenge can be stated only at the level of the stated target and the funding imbalance.

This is more significant than it looks. A government can endorse biodiversity goals while leaving financial incentives largely intact, creating tension between its public commitments and the economic choices it backs. And yet, a target alone doesn't show whether that tension is being resolved; progress depends on identifying harmful support, changing it, and making the changes visible enough to assess.

(And this is the part most people overlook.) A large headline target is only useful if it can be connected to specific decisions and tracked over time. If you're working in this space, the $1-to-$30 comparison and the incomplete subsidy figure point to the same question: what exactly is being counted, and what will governments change? The answer matters as much as the ambition. For now, the gap remains.

This article was originally published on Mongabay.