We see the public face of COP17, featuring meetings, events, workshops, and discussions. But a lot of work takes place in the background, where experts work diligently to develop the right strategies, produce accurate reports, and help inform policymakers on key topics. We learned more about this from Alla Aleksanyan, a biodiversity and environmental policy professional with two decades of experience in science, policy and practice.
Interview : Nazareth Seferian Photo : Alla Aleksanyan’s archive, FPWC, Karine Avetisyan
Ms. Aleksanyan, you helped develop Armenia’s national biodiversity strategies in alignment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). COP17 is conducting the first formal Global Review of progress. In this context, what would you say Armenia’s biggest achievement has been so far, and what is the biggest remaining gap?
— Yes, I was involved in the team that developed the new national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which was published this April, and we also published our Seventh National Report on Biodiversity earlier this year. The COP17 review process is expected to take a decision on whether the progress on our National Biodiversity Strategy is aligned with the global strategy on biodiversity. Based on the results we have so far, I can say that we are somewhere in the middle tier in terms of progress, compared to other countries.
One big challenge is that we developed our strategy quite late, so we have not had much time to work on our targets and implementation. The other gap that we have is in terms of a lack of human resources in the field, meaning that many of our actions are delayed or not implemented fully. There is also the major gap – a worldwide problem this time – of financing. Believe me when I say that there are countries that have accepted serious commitments and undertaken commendable actions, but have no money to hire an expert team and submit a report. We actually discussed this issue at pre-COP17 meetings, and it is quite prevalent. We are fortunate enough to have financing from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), but several delays meant that we had limited time and capacity.
There is also another big gap – a lack of coordinated data collection and coordination between different stakeholders. Once again, this is a global problem. For this reason, the CBD Secretariat has decided to introduce a new mechanism to help evaluate implementation levels of KMGBF using a panel of non-state actors, where stakeholders can register their commitment under different global or national targets. But we will only see the benefits of this during the next stage of reporting because the number of commitments has been low so far. Just to give you an idea – when the seventh national reports were due, we only had around 100 commitments. Now, you can find more than 2000 commitments there, meaning that there are 20 times more stakeholders around the world today that will be providing data that can go into the next round of reporting, and this number will naturally keep rising. This is great news because it means that data collection is now not limited to the Government’s domain, anyone can contribute. There is, of course, a verification mechanism, which ensures that the submitted data is relevant.
In terms of achievement, I want to highlight target 3, which falls under the famous “30 by 30”, meaning the intention to take the share of protected areas to 30% globally by 2030.
We have two targets in Armenia under this one, focusing on the enlargement and the increased effectiveness of our protected areas. In May 2026, we successfully adopted a new law on protected areas. As part of that legislative package, we now officially recognize Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), which is a big step forward in how we calculate protected areas.
One challenging topic is the valuation of ecosystem services and integrating natural capital into policymaking. How much has Armenia actually used these tools for real decisions, and why does that matter for the biodiversity-finance debate during COP17?
— This is a very sensitive topic but, once again, it is not an issue specific only to Armenia. First, you need to have the legislative basis for this, without which it is very difficult to have the right tools or to report on it correctly. We have a few ongoing projects in this area. We will be presenting one of them, financed by Germany, in the Green Zone during COP17 and it will feature the first prototype of ecosystem service accounting in Armenia, which can then be used by the Government in the National Accounting System for the valuation of ecosystem services. On the topic of natural capital, Armenia has had the chance to pilot a project with Stanford University, financed by the Asian Development Bank. As part of this effort, the project team mapped current and future contributions of nature for replenishing water resources using the InVEST Seasonal Water Yield Model on a national scale and in a changing climate. This can also be integrated with other management plans, like the ones developed for forests or protected areas. There is a lot of work to do in this area, but we have already planted the first seeds.
One of your topics of research is invasive species management. What are the most pressing invasive threats facing Armenia’s ecosystems right now, and how prepared is the country to respond?
— Again, a hot topic worldwide, and there is a dedicated target related to this in KMGBF, which aims to reduce invasive species and their distribution by 50%. Our national target is focused more on management, control and distribution because we first need to have a database of all the invasive species in the country. Once more, we need legislative changes here. Currently, we only have a list of animal invasive species that have been officially approved. Strangely enough, we have more research on invasive plant species, but no legislative approval for them. We need modifications to the law on flora, the next steps in this area will only be possible after that.
When it comes to the scientific side, we need to divide invasive species into different groups. For example, there are invasive species which damage urban green areas and forest ecosystems, like Robinia pseudoacacia. Then, there are those that are harmful for human health, like Ambrosia artemisiifolia. But there can be no mechanisms for preparedness if there is no legislative basis for control and management. Our forest management plans from the last 3-4 years have maps with the distribution of the most dangerous invasive species. The term “invasive species” has become more popular of late, but that does not mean that we have achieved the right level of awareness. For example, if you pluck these plants from the soil, you may think that you are removing them. In fact, you may actually be helping them spread more during this process. There are very few experts on this topic, which is a big problem.
Ms. Aleksanyan, tell us more about your work UNCCD’s Science-Policy Interface (SPI) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IGPBES)? What makes this work important?
— UNCCD SPI and IGPBES do similar work – scientists like me go beyond our usual focus of work and try to transfer our scientific knowledge into language that policymakers understand. As part of that work, I was in a team that developed Global Land Outlook 3 this year, which focuses on land stewardship and transforming financial pathways for land restoration worldwide. Globally, a hot topic we are all discussing is how to find synergies between all three COPs this year – UNCCD COP17 which took place in Ulaanbaatar in August, CBD COP17 in Yerevan in October, and Climate COP31 in Antalya. The focus areas for these events are land degradation, biodiversity, and climate change respectively, and these are all clearly interconnected topics. A lot depends on our policymakers, which makes it crucial that we efficiently “translate” the latest research into the kinds of documents with which they can work.
Speaking of land degradation, what are the issues we have on this topic in Armenia? What changes are you currently seeing in Armenia’s forests, grasslands or wetlands?
— These are all very relevant topics for Armenia. There is a lot of degraded land, which is a direct influencing factor for biodiversity loss. It gives an opportunity for invasive species to become dominant, which causes changes in the ecosystem. Traditional, uncontrolled agricultural practices are a leading cause of this. In the early 1990s, we damaged our ecosystems because of the socioeconomic crisis. People logged forests and nature conservation took a back seat. Farmers allowed uncontrolled grazing or overgrazing in grasslands. We did not understand how important wetlands were in terms of ecosystems, especially in a mountainous country like Armenia.
Now, we are seeing a lot of afforestation and reforestation. I know that this does not always mean that you will reach your targets and it will take 50-60 years to have a full, healthy, new forest. But at least there is some action in the right direction. There are also initiatives to restore wetlands. Perhaps the biggest challenge lies with grasslands, where we are not yet using the right approach.
Finally, your work also includes training the next generation of Armenian biodiversity researchers. With global attention focusing on Yerevan for two weeks, what do you hope will be different after COP17? Do you think the biggest impact on the context in Armenia will be in funding, policy, or public understanding?
— COP17 is the biggest event in the history of Armenia in terms of nature conservation, and I am extremely happy that Armenia has taken the commitment to host it. In terms of general public awareness, there has been tremendous impact. Before COP17, nobody gave a thought to nature conservation. Now, even small children in our country know that this is a big event that is all about the environment, and they are asking questions on this topic.
When it comes to decision making, there will be higher level impact in the near future. COP17 is just the beginning of Armenia’s presidency, which will last the next two years. This means that Armenia can bring more money into the country for nature conservation, and we also get more global attention. We need to work hard, of course, but there can be lots of benefits.
In terms of educating the next generation, we used to have faculties of biology in various universities, but no specific programs related to biodiversity or nature conservation. In 2024, the International Scientific Education Center of Armenia launched a new master’s program in biodiversity research and conservation. This year, our first cohort graduated and we completed our third year of admissions. These specialists are really unique because they are familiar with modern methodologies, the current literature, and their education has been based on real research. Almost all of them are already working in various organizations in the fields, from non-profits and research institutes to the government and even private consulting. Most of them started to work there after completing the master’s program. This is just a small step, but it is very important to maintain this and push forward. We should focus not only on formal education but also promote non-formal environmental education. For a country like Armenia, which is small but has a high level of biodiversity, we need all our stakeholders to have a high level of education and awareness on this topic.
In this sense, COP17 provides a unique opportunity. The agenda is huge and very diverse. There is a focus on synergies, like biodiversity and health, biodiversity and climate, and so on. There are all kinds of sessions, negotiations, side events, and informal meetings bringing a very diverse group of stakeholders together. I look forward to seeing Armenia grab this opportunity and the consequent presidency to usher in a new era of biodiversity and nature conservation in the country!