From COP17 in Armenia to COP31 in Türkiye

From COP17 on Biodiversity in Armenia to COP31 on Climate in Türkiye

From the conference in Yerevan, Armenia, which has just concluded, to the next climate summit in Antalya, Türkiye. Two international summits, one shared challenge: turning commitments to save the planet into concrete action. Because without forests, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, there can be no climate future.

📖 Would you like a brief overview of this article? Open this section for a short summary, or continue reading.

From COP17 to COP31: the future of the planet depends on forests

Biodiversity loss and climate change are two closely interconnected emergencies that can no longer be tackled separately.

From COP17 on biodiversity, which has just concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, to COP31 on climate, scheduled to take place in Antalya, Türkiye, the international community is being called upon to turn commitments into tangible results. But with ambitious targets, insufficient funding and conflicting economic interests, there is still a long way to go.

There is one fundamental point we cannot ignore: protecting nature does not simply mean planting trees or funding new environmental projects. It means conserving mature forests, protecting biodiversity, restoring degraded ecosystems and ensuring that the resources invested actually reach those working on the ground.

New financial instruments, such as biodiversity credits, will also have to prove that they deliver real benefits, rather than allowing bureaucracy, certification schemes and intermediaries to absorb resources intended for nature conservation.

In this article, we examine the outcomes of COP17, the challenges facing the upcoming COP31 and the fundamental role of forests in tackling the climate crisis and biodiversity loss.

Because the climate future is also being shaped by the fate of the forests we choose to protect today.

👉 Read the full article and discover why nature can no longer wait.

COP17 in Armenia: taking stock of global biodiversity

COP17 on biodiversity, the seventeenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, concluded on 31 October in Yerevan, Armenia.

This was a particularly important milestone because, for the first time, the international community carried out an overall assessment of progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the global agreement adopted in 2022 with the aim of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.

The assessment offers little reason for optimism: the world is still far from meeting the agreed targets. Almost all 23 action targets set out in the framework need to be accelerated, while funding, monitoring tools and national policies remain inadequate.

The conference concluded with the adoption of the so-called Yerevan Pathway, a shared roadmap to accelerate implementation of the commitments by 2030. Nearly fifty decisions were adopted, and new funding for nature conservation worth close to 2 billion US dollars was announced.

This is an important result, but it should not obscure the scale of the problem: financial announcements alone do not guarantee that ecosystems will actually be protected and restored.

Biodiversity is about more than animals and plants

When people talk about biodiversity, they often think of protecting rare species or wild animals. That is far too narrow a view.

Biodiversity has a direct impact on our daily lives, our health, the economy and the safety of our communities.

Natural ecosystems provide essential functions free of charge:

  • they support the pollination of agricultural crops;
  • they maintain soil fertility and structure;
  • they help ensure the availability and quality of water;
  • they reduce the risk of erosion, landslides and floods;
  • they absorb and store large amounts of carbon;
  • they regulate the climate and mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.

A forest is not simply a collection of trees. It is a complex network of organisms, ecological relationships, soils, water and microorganisms. It is a living system that helps maintain the balance of nature and provides essential services even to people living hundreds or thousands of kilometres away.

When we destroy a habitat, deplete a soil or damage an ecosystem, we do not merely lose part of the planet’s natural wealth: we also diminish its ability to sustain and protect us.

The funding gap: commitments are not enough

One of the key issues addressed in Yerevan was the gap between the resources needed to protect biodiversity and those actually available.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for at least 200 billion US dollars a year to be mobilised by 2030 from public and private sources. This is an ambitious target, which also includes transferring resources to developing countries.

But the problem is not simply finding new sources of funding. Above all, we need to redirect a substantial share of the financial resources currently going to activities that harm nature.

Harmful subsidies, uncontrolled land consumption, deforestation, intensive agriculture and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources continue to drive biodiversity loss.

The paradox is clear: on the one hand, we invest in protecting ecosystems; on the other, we continue to fund activities that undermine them.

COP17 highlighted the need to reform these incentives and integrate nature conservation into economic, agricultural, industrial and financial policies.

Business and finance: nature becomes part of economic decision-making

The private sector, too, is being called upon to play an increasingly important role.

Businesses depend directly on natural resources and ecosystem services, yet for a long time they have treated biodiversity as something external to their economic strategies.

That approach is no longer sustainable.

Declining soil fertility, water scarcity, the loss of pollinators and ecosystem degradation pose real risks to entire productive sectors.

Investment must therefore be directed towards habitat conservation, the restoration of degraded areas and the development of sustainable agricultural and forestry supply chains.

In this context, new instruments are also emerging, such as so-called biodiversity credits, which aim to assign an economic value to the benefits generated by ecosystem conservation and restoration activities.

These instruments are still evolving and require rigorous scientific rules, reliable certification systems and independent verification. But there is another issue that must not be overlooked: these mechanisms must not turn into unwieldy structures in which certification companies, consultants, brokers and verification bodies absorb a substantial, or even predominant, share of the available resources. The real risk is that only a residual share of the funding actually reaches natural environments and the people and organisations working on the ground every day to protect and restore them. Such systems could also end up favouring large organisations exclusively, effectively preventing smaller organisations from taking part, even though these are often the groups best placed to work effectively with the local area in which a project is carried out.

The effectiveness of interventions must also be assessed very carefully. Simply reporting an increase in vegetated area or the number of trees planted is not enough to demonstrate a genuine biodiversity benefit. A tree monoculture, for example, may increase tree cover while offering very limited ecological value compared with a natural forest rich in different species and complex habitats.

The real measure of success must not be the number of credits generated, certificates issued or procedures completed, but the tangible and lasting improvement of ecosystems. We therefore need simple, transparent and proportionate tools that ensure most available resources are translated into real benefits for nature.

Ecosystem protection must not become a mere accounting offset, nor a new market in which intermediaries prosper more than the natural environments they are supposed to save.

Biodiversity credits? We are not starting from scratch: the experience of PES

But do we really need to invent new financial instruments and build complex certification systems in order to assign economic value to biodiversity?

In fact, established approaches already exist, such as Payments for Environmental Services (PES), which recognise the economic value of the benefits that forest ecosystems provide to society.

Forests, after all, do not simply produce timber, and their importance is not limited to their ability to absorb CO₂. The many ecosystem services they provide include:

  • conserving biodiversity and natural habitats;
  • regulating the water cycle and protecting water resources;
  • stabilising soils and preventing erosion;
  • mitigating extreme weather events;
  • sequestering and storing carbon;
  • conserving the landscape;
  • providing scientific, educational, cultural and recreational value;
  • maintaining natural resources that are essential to local communities.

Protecting a forest therefore means safeguarding all these benefits at the same time, not just one of them.

This is precisely the principle behind the PES work promoted by Foreste per Sempre. Through conservation projects, the environmental services provided by forests are recognised, and the corresponding Environmental Services Payment Certificates (CSA, according to the Italian acronym) are issued. These instruments help provide financial support for ecosystem protection and for the communities living in the areas concerned.

This experience was first significantly implemented in Costa Rica, a country that has developed a national payment-for-environmental-services system. Foreste per Sempre has helped extend this approach through conservation projects in other countries too, including Madagascar.

These experiences show that it is possible to assign tangible value to the services provided by nature without losing sight of the main objective: ensuring that resources reach the conservation of natural environments and the communities that help protect them.

Biodiversity credits may eventually represent an evolution of these instruments, but they should build on existing experience rather than multiply procedures, certifications and intermediaries.

The real innovation does not lie in creating new markets, but in finding effective, transparent and sustainable ways to fund nature conservation.

Because a protected forest, with its biodiversity and all the ecosystem services it provides, creates value that goes far beyond any certificate.

To learn more about Foreste per Sempre’s experience with Payments for Environmental Services and its PES certificates, visit the dedicated page.

Forests and climate: two battles that cannot be separated

This is probably the most important message to emerge from comparing international biodiversity and climate policies.

We cannot fight climate change by destroying the ecosystems that help us tackle it.

Forests, peatlands, wetlands, grasslands and marine environments play a fundamental role in regulating the climate. They absorb and store carbon, protect soils, regulate the water cycle and help reduce the impacts of extreme events.

But not every solution presented as climate-friendly is necessarily good for biodiversity.

As mentioned above, not all wooded areas have the same ecological value. An artificial tree plantation, especially one made up of a single species, is not equivalent to a natural forest. The latter is the result of ecological processes that have unfolded over decades or even centuries: it is home to a wide variety of plant and animal species, contains trees of different ages and sizes, includes deadwood, cavities and undergrowth, and supports a complex network of organisms living in the soil.

Conserving a mature forest means protecting a natural heritage that is difficult to recreate. Its largest trees store substantial amounts of carbon, while the soil, often rich in organic matter, is a valuable carbon reservoir and helps regulate the water cycle. The diversity of habitats provides food and shelter for numerous species, supports ecological relationships and makes the ecosystem more complex and resilient.

That is why conserving mature forests and still-intact forest ecosystems must be an absolute priority. It is equally important to encourage their natural expansion by protecting surrounding areas and creating the conditions for spontaneous regeneration. Where necessary, targeted restoration measures can speed up the recovery of degraded areas, prioritising native species and the rebuilding of ecological complexity in ways that reflect the natural characteristics of each place.

Planting trees can be useful, but it must not become an end in itself or a substitute for protecting existing forests. A mature forest is not measured only in trees or cubic metres of timber, but in the richness of life, ecological relationships and services it can provide. And something that has taken centuries to develop cannot simply be recreated by planting new trees.

Climate change, in turn, puts these very environments at risk: droughts, fires, heatwaves, floods and changes in rainfall patterns can undermine the ability of ecosystems to regenerate.

The two crises reinforce one another. Tackling one while ignoring the other also undermines the chances of success.

Towards COP31 in Antalya: the next crucial meeting

Just days after the conclusion of COP17, international attention now turns to COP31 on climate, scheduled to take place in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026.

This will be another crucial opportunity to assess governments’ ability to accelerate implementation of the Paris Agreement and address a climate crisis whose consequences are becoming increasingly evident.

The negotiations will address reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, funding for the energy transition, support for the most vulnerable countries, adaptation strategies and the protection of communities exposed to extreme weather events.

A particularly significant factor will be the new geopolitical landscape. Since 27 January 2026, the United States has no longer been a Party to the Paris Agreement, following completion of the withdrawal process. Its absence as a negotiating Party to the Agreement is a major concern, given the country’s economic and climate impact and its historic role in international climate finance.

In this context, the responsibilities of other major economies, starting with the European Union and China, will grow; they will be called upon to make a decisive contribution to international cooperation.

But Antalya will also have to address a broader issue: the relationship between climate mitigation strategies and the protection of nature.

Reducing emissions is not enough if, at the same time, we continue to destroy forests, consume land and undermine ecological balances. The energy transition and the ecological transition must go hand in hand, avoiding solutions to one problem that create new ones.

From COP17 to COP31: turning words into action

The two conferences, one on biodiversity in Armenia and the other on climate in Türkiye, represent different stages of the same challenge.

COP17 showed how far we still are from the nature conservation targets set for 2030. COP31 will have to demonstrate whether there is genuine political will to accelerate the response to the climate crisis as well.

The problem is no longer a lack of scientific knowledge. We know the causes of biodiversity loss, we understand the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and we have many solutions available to reduce damage and restore ecosystems.

What is still missing is the ability to turn this knowledge into consistent political decisions, adequate investment and concrete action.

For an organisation such as Foreste per Sempre, which works to defend forest heritage and raise environmental awareness, the message is particularly clear: forest conservation cannot be treated as a secondary objective or merely as a matter of protecting landscapes.

Protecting a forest means defending biodiversity, safeguarding carbon stores, preserving the water cycle, protecting the soil and maintaining natural systems on which our own well-being also depends.

Above all, it means recognising that nature is not an inexhaustible resource to be used according to short-term needs, but our shared heritage and the foundation of every possibility for development.

The time for declarations is over.

We can no longer settle for new agreements, distant targets and solemn promises. We need bold choices, adequate resources and verifiable action, both internationally and in our own territories.

Because the climate future is also being decided by the fate of the forests we choose to protect today. And every year lost makes it harder, and more expensive, to recover what we have destroyed.

Nature cannot wait. And neither can we.

🌱 Because protecting a forest means protecting much more than trees: it means defending life.
💰 Support Foreste per Sempre