For many years the European Union has stood out worldwide in efforts to safeguard biodiversity. The Natura 2000 network together with the Birds and Habitats Directives and the recent Nature Restoration Regulation demonstrate that the bloc possesses a robust legal structure.

On the global stage the EU also helped shape the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in December 2022 at COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. That agreement set out an international plan to stop and turn around biodiversity decline by 2030.

Next week from 19 to 30 October Yerevan will host COP17 of the Convention where the first worldwide check on progress since the Framework was adopted will occur. The meeting offers a key chance to see whether pledges are turning into real steps and visible outcomes.

As co-chair of the European Parliament delegation at the event I will support a cohesive EU stance that matches our past record and addresses the pressing nature of the task.

The European Commission which leads talks for the Union based on positions agreed with member states must push for decisions that speed up delivery of the Global Biodiversity Framework in the years left until 2030.

Balanced review shows uneven results

This worldwide check must include a candid look at our own record. Europe should reach Yerevan ready to note both advances and remaining gaps.

The commission latest update on Framework delivery shows mixed outcomes.

Out of 45 EU targets only two are complete and 16 are advancing while 25 move too slowly and two lack enough data for judgment.

Some encouraging trends appear in the EU. Protected zones have grown organic agriculture has risen and more fish stocks are under sustainable management.

Yet the condition of many habitats and species stays concerning and farmland birds along with grassland butterflies keep falling.

The core issue is not missing rules since Europe already holds most needed tools. The real task is to apply those rules effectively and produce clear gains on the ground which calls for capable public bodies solid information defined strategies and steady resources.

The Nature Restoration Regulation illustrates this point well.

Reviving wetlands rivers forests soils and marine areas will aid biodiversity recovery while also holding water limiting flood harm protecting soils and boosting resilience to droughts heatwaves and wildfires.

Overdue submissions

Still the regulation can only produce results if member states fulfill their duties.

The deadline for draft national restoration plans was 1 September but just nine countries have submitted them.

This lag slows progress and complicates estimates of restoration costs and required resources.

The commission was due to release an evaluation of restoration funding needs and shortfalls in August 2025 yet a full analysis is still pending.

The commission states it requires the national plans to determine those costs. Meanwhile talks on the 2028-2034 financial framework advance while many plans are missing and a complete picture of needed funds for one of our key environmental laws remains absent.

This pattern highlights a central issue for COP17.

Setting targets is no longer sufficient. We must also settle how they will be carried out how results will be tracked and how measures will be funded.

Five EU goals for Yerevan

Given this setting I see the European approach centering on five goals. We need to raise more funds for biodiversity strengthen the Cali Fund advance removal of damaging subsidies track progress via tangible outcomes and link nature more closely to climate adaptation.

Funding will stand as a major topic in Yerevan since the Global Biodiversity Framework seeks at least 200 billion dollars or about 178 billion euros each year from all sources by 2030. Public spending must stay central yet private investment will also matter.

To that end the commission released its plan for nature credits in July 2025 and is now building the methods certification systems oversight structures and test projects for rollout.

These tools could support conservation and restoration but they will work only under strict standards and if they deliver genuine measurable and extra gains for biodiversity. They must not replace public money or serve to offset harm to nature in one area by funding action elsewhere.

COP17 must also firm up the Cali Fund created so firms that use digital data on genetic resources help conserve biodiversity. The deal from COP16 marked progress but actual payments and fair sharing of resources including for Indigenous Peoples and local communities are now required.

Another goal must be ending incentives and subsidies that damage biodiversity. It makes little sense to seek fresh funds for nature protection while public budgets still back activities that harm it.

The European Union should therefore review its own policies openly especially in farming fishing energy and infrastructure and set a schedule to phase out and finally end such harmful support.

The global review must also gauge real results. Success cannot be judged only by counting plans or targets. We must see whether ecosystems are improving whether species are faring better whether protected areas are run well and whether money reaches practical work.

We must also tie biodiversity more strongly to climate adaptation. The droughts floods heatwaves and wildfires hitting Europe show that safeguarding and restoring nature is not a side issue. Healthy ecosystems rank among our strongest shields against climate impacts and amount to a direct investment in security farming and the economy.

All these goals point back to the European budget because political promises gain credibility only when backed by adequate resources.

The budget question

A clear mismatch now exists between the leadership the European Union seeks to keep on biodiversity and the role assigned to it in the 2028-2034 financial framework proposal.

Although the commission suggests 35 percent of the next budget should support climate and environmental aims together it drops the specific 10 percent biodiversity target from the current budget and no longer treats LIFE as a separate programme.

By folding biodiversity into wider goals and funds its financing grows less visible and risks being sidelined by priorities such as security defence and competitiveness.

Parliament must uphold adequate and clearly marked resources for biodiversity and for the work now funded through LIFE.

Streamlining can ease access to funds but it must not lower environmental goals transparency or democratic checks.

This budget discussion also touches our global standing. Europe cannot urge other nations to raise ambition and contributions while easing its own budget backing for biodiversity inside the Union. Our role in Yerevan will rest not only on what we argue in talks but also on what we deliver and fund at home.

Europe holds strong laws useful experience and the ability to lead. We do not need to begin anew. We need to carry out what we have already decided supply the needed resources and use COP17 to speed global efforts.

The global review cannot stop at noting the distance left to the 2030 targets. It must help us agree on how to close that distance in the four years ahead. I will head to Yerevan with the European Parliament delegation committed to that aim.