What did COP17 deliver for investors?

1. Looking back on COP17, what stands out to you most? 

The stark reality check that, unless action accelerates rapidly, the 2030 biodiversity goals will not be achieved. The discussion also shifted heavily away from high-level ambition toward how governments, companies, and financial institutions can close the implementation gap. One example is the decision to align national budgets and economic decision-making with biodiversity objectives. 

2. The conference focused heavily on Target 18 (reforming environmentally harmful subsidies). Why is this so crucial for financial markets?

Financial markets respond directly to policy signals, but right now, global capital flows are going backwards. Over USD 2.6 trillion a year in public spending unintentionally accelerates resource depletion and nature loss. When governments continue to subsidize nature-negative activities, sustainable business alternatives operate at a severe market disadvantage. Public policy should reward the business models we need for the future, not make environmentally harmful activities artificially competitive.

That's also why we ahead of Yerevan joined over 130 global businesses and financial institutions in signing an open letter to governments coordinated by Business for Nature and Finance for Biodiversity. By rewriting the rules of what public money rewards, governments can make sustainable, resilient production the competitive default for every business rather than a costly exception. 
Reforming harmful incentives is a trillion-dollar economic opportunity to shift capital away from destruction and toward long-term value creation.   

3. What was the most tangible outcome for investor decision-making? 

One of the most important decisions made in Yerevan was reforming harmful incentives. Aside from that, the continued momentum around corporate assessment and disclosure was a major win, forcing companies to measure and report their material impacts on nature.  

We need standardized, quantitative data to compare corporate impacts and dependencies in order to shift capital at scale. The progress made toward mainstreaming nature-related disclosures means that we as investors increasingly will have the tools to identify where hidden vulnerabilities sit within our portfolios and improve the basis for long-term investment decisions. 

4. The official outcomes have been criticized by some as being too timid. Did COP17 actually deliver for investors?

Nearly 50 decisions were adopted, showing that multilateralism can still deliver, even in a challenging geopolitical climate. Implementation and follow-up at the national level will determine whether these decisions translate into measurable progress by 2030. They also send a clear market signal that companies a should anticipate tighter domestic environmental regulation. 

5. Given the gaps highlighted, what needs to happen next?

Institutional investors can’t solve the biodiversity crisis in a vacuum. Capital can help fund the transition and invest in solutions, but it needs the right enabling conditions from policymakers. Governments acknowledged in Yerevan that they are off track to meet the 2030 biodiversity targets and agreed to accelerate national action. 

Moving forward, governments must build robust regulatory frameworks that mandate nature corporate reporting. When policy risks are clear, incentives are aligned, and reliable data flows from companies, capital markets can do what they do best which is pricing risk accurately and fund the transition to a more sustainable economy. We will continue to actively engage with portfolio companies to ensure they are preparing for this inevitable regulatory shift. 

📸 Jan Erik Saugestad, CEO of Storebrand AM, at #COP17 in Yerevan, speaking on behalf of more than 130 companies and financial institutions that backed a joint call to accelerate reform of environmentally harmful subsidies.