Ahead of COP17, Hambardzum Matevosyan discusses preparations for the conference, Armenia’s environmental reforms and the outcomes he hopes will endure after international delegations leave Yerevan.
Armenia has won the right to host COP17, which is being described as the largest event the country has ever hosted. What do you hope Armenia gains from two weeks in the global spotlight?
- For Armenia, the real value of COP17 will be measured by what continues after the conference. We want to turn international attention into lasting partnerships, scientific and technological cooperation, and new investment in nature. We also see the conference as an opportunity to showcase Armenia’s natural heritage and deepen our role in international environmental cooperation.
The preparations themselves have already brought government institutions, experts and other stakeholders closer together. Biodiversity is no longer an issue for one institution alone. It is connected to water, food, health, the economy and the future of our communities.
Ultimately, I would like COP17 to leave a stronger place for nature in Armenia’s development decisions and in the choices we make as a society.
What has been the biggest logistical or diplomatic challenge in preparing Armenia, and Yerevan in particular, to welcome tens of thousands of delegates?
- The biggest challenge has been bringing many different parts of the preparation together at the same time. A conference of this scale requires transport, security, healthcare, communications, venues and arrangements for delegations to function as one system.
There has also been a major effort to prepare the conference facilities and the surrounding infrastructure, in cooperation with the CBD Secretariat, Yerevan Municipality and other partners.
But COP17 is not only a logistical exercise. As the Presidency, our responsibility is also to build trust among Parties, listen to different positions and help create the conditions for constructive negotiations.
That is ultimately what successful hosting means: making it possible for countries to focus on finding solutions.
What have been Armenia’s most significant environmental achievements over the past five years?
- The most important change has been a more integrated approach to environmental management. We increasingly address biodiversity, water, forests, land and climate as interconnected systems, linking individual interventions to the protection of entire ecosystems.
This approach is reflected in Armenia’s Biodiversity Conservation Goals and Action Plan for 2026–2030, which includes five national goals, 30 targets and 125 measures. Another important step is the revised Law on Specially Protected Areas of Nature, which entered into force on 24 July 2026. It broadens our conservation tools to include protected landscapes, ecological corridors, biosphere areas and effective conservation beyond formally protected areas. It also clarifies the role of local communities.
Work has continued on restoring Lake Sevan’s ecosystem, supporting the recovery of Sevan trout and red deer populations, and improving sustainable forest management and reforestation. We are also developing air, water and soil monitoring, waste management and digital tools so that decisions are informed by scientific assessments and reliable data.
Looking ahead, the Government’s 2026–2031 Programme envisages afforestation and reforestation across approximately 10,000 hectares, alongside round-the-clock protection of forests and protected areas through the Eco-Patrol Service. These are priorities for consolidating the changes already under way.
The important point is that these are not isolated projects. We are building a more coherent system for managing and protecting nature.
What is Armenia’s message to the world through the theme “Taking Action for Nature”, and how did the slogan take shape?
- “Taking Action for Nature” expresses the central demand of this moment: turning agreed goals into tangible results. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework gave the world a common direction in 2022. COP17 now gives us an opportunity to look honestly at where implementation stands and what needs to change.
The first global review at COP17 provides that opportunity. We want its findings to guide further action and engage everyone whose decisions shape nature’s future, from governments and communities to scientists, businesses and financial institutions.
Biodiversity loss, climate change and land degradation are closely connected. We therefore place particular importance on coordinating action across the three Rio Conventions, so that investment in one area also helps address challenges in the others.
That interconnectedness is reflected in the conference’s visual identity. Inspired by the Yerevan blue butterfly, the logo draws on the colours of the Framework’s 23 targets, reminding us that nature conservation is a shared, interconnected agenda.
COP17 will host the first global review of progress towards the 2022 Kunming–Montreal targets. Based on the national biodiversity strategies submitted so far, is the world on track for 2030? How is Armenia doing?
- The direction is encouraging, but the pace is not yet sufficient.
Since the Framework was adopted, countries have stepped up the revision of national strategies, the setting of targets and the submission of reports. That represents important political engagement. Yet having plans in place does not, by itself, mean that biodiversity loss is being halted quickly enough.
Preliminary assessments informing the global review highlight precisely this gap: strong engagement, but significant shortcomings in implementation. We need faster progress on finance, institutional capacity and access to data.
Armenia has an approved national action plan for 2026–2030 aligned with the Framework. Our responsibility now is to translate its targets into funded, consistently implemented measures. We must assess progress through measurable indicators and be transparent about both achievements and the areas where further work is needed.
Which Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework target is most at risk of being missed globally, and why? Which is the most challenging for Armenia?
- I would be cautious about identifying a single target, because some of the most difficult targets are precisely those that require changes across the economy.
Environmental institutions cannot deliver those changes alone. Reforming incentives that harm nature, for example, requires joint decisions involving finance, agriculture and other sectors. The same applies to securing adequate financial and technical resources: without them, even ambitious plans are difficult to implement.
For Armenia, expanding area-based conservation and restoring ecosystems are particularly demanding tasks. Our national target is to ensure effective conservation of at least 20 per cent of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems by 2030, through protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, known as OECMs.
But conservation is not simply about drawing new boundaries on a map. It requires connected habitats, sustainable financing, scientific monitoring and the participation of local communities. What matters in the end is whether conservation produces real and lasting results.
Achieving that requires more than designating additional areas. It depends on connected habitats, sustainable financing, scientific monitoring and community participation. The decisive measure for us is whether conservation delivers lasting results.
What outcome would you personally consider a success for COP17? Are you hoping for a new funding commitment, stronger monitoring rules or something else?
- I would consider COP17 successful if we leave Yerevan with a clearer understanding of how to close implementation gaps and the means to do so.
First, the global review must provide an honest, science-based assessment of progress. That assessment must then guide countries’ next steps: what needs to change, where action must accelerate and how results will be measured. The third requirement is access to finance, technology, scientific support and professional capacity.
Our expectations therefore extend beyond a single funding pledge or monitoring rule. We need an outcome that strengthens both the ability to act and accountability for delivery. Coordinating biodiversity, climate and land-related efforts will also help make better use of available resources.
As Presidency, our role is to help Parties find workable solutions and ensure that different voices can contribute meaningfully to the process.
Resource mobilisation and the financial mechanism are on the COP17 agenda. What would a fair global biodiversity finance agreement look like from the perspective of a country such as Armenia?
- For a country such as Armenia, fairness means accessible, predictable and long-term support. Financing should reflect countries’ circumstances, needs and the real costs of conserving nature. Ecosystem restoration and protected-area management do not end when a short-term project ends; they require sustained investment.
We also need to broaden the sources of funding, combining public resources, international support, private investment and innovative financial instruments. The Framework’s objective of increasing international biodiversity finance flows to at least USD 30 billion annually by 2030 should help developing countries implement their commitments.
At the same time, the Presidency’s role is to help Parties reach agreement. We must support common solutions that improve the effectiveness of finance and ensure that resources reach those who need them most.
How is Armenia financing its biodiversity commitments, and has international support been sufficient?
- Armenia finances biodiversity conservation through the state budget, international assistance, grants and other financial mechanisms. International partners have made important contributions to work on protected areas, forests, Lake Sevan and local communities.
Nevertheless, our needs exceed the resources available. We must mobilise additional funding while improving the effectiveness of existing expenditure. The Ministries of Environment and Finance are working with Biodiversity Finance Initiative, BIOFIN, as Armenia develops a national Biodiversity Finance Plan.
We particularly value support that strengthens the country’s own capabilities. Our goal is a sustainable financing system that allows essential work to continue after individual international projects have ended.
What experience do you expect Armenia to gain from COP17, including from hosting it, and how will this support further environmental progress?
- The most valuable experience is learning to bring different interests and professional perspectives together around a common objective. The preparations have strengthened cooperation across government and given Armenian professionals direct experience with both the Convention’s substantive agenda and international negotiations.
Those capabilities will remain in Armenia.
Hosting the conference also helps us assess our infrastructure, organisational resources and management gaps more realistically. Equally important are the international relationships taking shape through this work.
But perhaps the most important opportunity is the network of relationships being created. If the scientific, technological and financial partnerships developed around COP17 turn into long-term programmes, they can support conservation, monitoring and community initiatives in Armenia well beyond the conference itself.
The Gender Plan of Action is also on the COP17 agenda. What does gender-responsive environmental policy mean in the Armenian context?
- It means ensuring that women and men have equal opportunities to influence environmental decisions and benefit from programmes. Environmental pressures, as well as access to natural resources and finance, can affect them differently. Policy must recognise those differences.
Women in Armenia’s rural communities hold valuable knowledge and experience concerning water, land, seeds and natural resources. That expertise should be represented in decision-making, community management and scientific and professional work.
Our national action plan for 2026–2030 provides for stronger participation and leadership by women in biodiversity conservation. Gender considerations need to be reflected in programme design, financing and the assessment of results, so that participation brings a real opportunity to influence outcomes.
How is your ministry involving local communities, civil society and young people before and during COP17, beyond the official “Road to COP17” events?
- We want society to participate in COP17 from the preparation stage onwards. In our work with young people, we have supported the formation of an Armenian chapter of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network and helped build its members’ capacity. Through a university-led biodiversity coalition initiative, more than 300 student ambassadors have been selected to share knowledge about nature conservation within their communities.
Civil society is involved in discussions on conference priorities and the national action plan. We also work with scientists, women’s organisations and journalists. Local communities should be full partners in decision-making and practical conservation. The revised legislation provides additional opportunities to establish protected areas of local significance.
At the global level, the rights, traditional knowledge and experience of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are particularly important. During the conference, the Green Zone will give the wider public an opportunity to engage with the discussions. We want that dialogue to continue after COP17.
Some critics argue that COPs produce declarations without enforcement. How would you respond to scepticism that COP17 will deliver more promises than results?
- That scepticism is understandable. People want to know what international decisions change in the places where they live. We have a responsibility to answer with results.
An important feature of COP17 is the first global review of progress towards targets already agreed. National reports and shared indicators should show where progress is being made, where there are setbacks and what prevents countries from acting. Making that information public strengthens accountability and allows society to follow the implementation of commitments.
Implementation difficulties do not diminish the value of multilateral cooperation. Through the Convention, countries with different interests have been able to adopt complex and important decisions. Our task is to strengthen the connection between those decisions and national policies, budgets and practical programmes.
The answer to scepticism should therefore not be another promise. It should be implementation.
After Yerevan, there should be greater clarity about the action required, who will take it and what resources are needed. That clarity is essential to building trust.
A year from now, what single indicator would you point to as evidence that hosting COP17 has made a difference for nature in Armenia?
- I would point to the number of environmental programmes that have entered implementation with new financial and technical support mobilised through COP17. That would show whether the partnerships formed during the conference have translated into work on ecosystem restoration, protected-area management, species conservation and community participation.
Of course, launching a programme is not yet proof of an improvement in the state of nature. We must also track ecosystems and species through scientific data, recognising that some results will take time to emerge.
A year from now, I would like to see programmes under way with secured resources and measurable objectives. Long-term success will mean that nature conservation has an enduring place in the country’s development decisions. That is how COP17 can become the beginning of sustained action.