As the world looks ahead to the 2026 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17) in Armenia, the European Union is taking a bold step: it’s calling for oil-rich countries to put their money where their mouth is and help bankroll global biodiversity efforts. The move comes amid mounting evidence that traditional funding models—largely reliant on developed nations—are falling short of the ambitious conservation targets set by the international community.
At a recent preparatory conference hosted by the Armenian ambassador to the EU and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Hans Stielstra, an adviser at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment, didn’t mince words. According to reporting from Bloomberg and other sources, Stielstra declared, “The world is divided in developing and developed countries where it’s the developed countries that are looked at to contribute to a lot of these financial initiatives. The global financing model was realistic 30 years ago but that is no longer realistic.” His point was clear: the old ways simply aren’t cutting it anymore.
Stielstra went on to highlight the need for a paradigm shift in how resources are mobilized. “We are having these endless discussions on resource mobilisation. There is a small shift happening, but usually outside the strict UN context,” he said, pointing to Brazil’s recent efforts as an example. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), which Brazil has been championing, has garnered support from 53 countries and secured over $5.5 billion (€4.75 billion) in funding. This facility channels contributions from oil-producing nations into forest preservation, aligning finance with both climate and biodiversity goals. It’s a model that, in Stielstra’s view, could serve as a blueprint for future initiatives.
Armenia, as the host of COP17, is framing the event as a platform to unite global efforts and ensure that every voice is heard. Robert Abisoghomonyan, Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, put it succinctly: “Who hosts COP 17 in 2026, we are reminded that biodiversity is not just about nature, it is about people. Protecting it requires partnership, vision, and action across borders. Governments, indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth, academia, civil society and the private sector, all have a role to play.” He added, “Together, we believe that we can turn ambition into action, and that is what COP 17 in Armenia will be about. Armenia is committed to making COP 17 a platform where all voices are heard, ideas are shared, and solutions are closed.”
Yet, the EU’s push for oil-rich countries to step up comes at a time of palpable tension between fossil fuel production and climate commitments. According to Bloomberg, Brazil—fresh off hosting COP30 in November 2025—is moving a giant drillship off the Amazon coast to maintain oil output. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defended this strategy, stating, “We can’t have knowledge of this wealth underneath us and not exploit it. It’s from this wealth that we’ll have the money to build the energy transition we dream of.”
But environmentalists aren’t buying it. They point out that from 2018 to early 2025, Brazil allocated a mere 0.06 percent of its oil revenue to the energy transition. That’s hardly the kind of commitment needed to pivot away from fossil fuels and toward a more sustainable future. The tension isn’t unique to Brazil, either. Past COP events hosted by oil-producing nations such as the UAE and Azerbaijan have sparked concerns that fossil fuel interests are wielding outsized influence over climate negotiations.
Backstage at COP30, a different kind of drama was unfolding. A delegation of 20 Brazilian senators attended the conference, using the event—and their official social media channels—to tout Brazil’s environmental leadership. Yet, a closer look at funding records reveals a more complicated story. According to data from the transparency platform TransfereGov and the Siga Brasil portal, only five of these senators directed any funds to the Ministry of Climate Change over the past decade. The total? Just R$2.5 million, out of R$21.9 million received by the department as a whole.
Some senators, such as Fabiano Contarato (ES), did allocate significant sums—Contarato directed R$1.3 million to recycling and environmental actions. Others, like Leila Barros (DF), Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), and Marcelo Castro (MDB-PI), contributed smaller amounts for ecotourism, environmental education, and conservation unit maintenance, respectively. But the majority of their colleagues either contributed nothing or funneled much larger sums to heavy equipment purchases for municipalities in the Amazon, a move that has been linked by inspectors and environmentalists to deforestation and illegal road construction.
Senator Alcolumbre (AP), president of the delegation, is a case in point. He was front and center at COP30, sitting next to the first lady at the opening ceremony and posing for photos with dignitaries. In a statement released by Agência Senado, he boasted, “Without a doubt, Brazil is an example for the world: we have reduced deforestation in the Amazon by 50% in the last three years, we have expanded the use of biofuels, solar energy and wind energy and we have launched the Tropical Forests Forever Fund.” However, records show that his last individual amendment to the environmental ministry was a paltry R$50,000 back in 2015—a drop in the bucket compared to the R$364 million in amendments he’s overseen during his political career.
Other senators, such as Wellington Fagundes (PL-MT), allocated millions for heavy equipment—R$8.8 million between 2016 and 2024 for loaders, motor graders, and compactor rollers in Mato Grosso. Senator Beto Faro (PT-PA) financed machines in the Amazon with R$2.3 million in amendments and advocated for sustainable development and climate justice during COP30. Senator Jader Barbalho (MDB-PA) allocated R$7.8 million and promoted regenerative agriculture at the conference. Senator Chico Rodrigues (PSB-RR) sent R$2.8 million to the Ministry of Defense for agricultural equipment.
Some senators did propose larger-scale initiatives: Eduardo Braga (MDB-AM) advocated for a R$200 million amendment to support green economy and environmental preservation projects, while Ângelo Coronel (PSB-BA) allocated funds for basic sanitation and environmental care in Bahia. Still, the overarching trend is clear—Brazilian lawmakers have directed far more money toward infrastructure and equipment than to actual environmental protection in the Amazon.
Hans Stielstra, reflecting on these dynamics, stressed the urgency of finding new ways to mobilize resources. “Unfortunately, the dynamics we are usually in in these UN meetings … are no longer realistic. We need new approaches to mobilise resources beyond traditional donors. Oil-rich countries have a role to play if COP 17 is to succeed.”
Analysts argue that the EU’s push is a recognition that relying solely on traditional donors will not meet the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework. COP17 in Armenia, they say, will be a litmus test for whether the international community can bridge political divides and unlock finance from unconventional sources—especially those with deep pockets from fossil fuel revenues.
“Biodiversity is not only about protecting nature — it’s about people. Every voice matters, every idea counts, and practical solutions must follow,” Abisoghomonyan reminded attendees. With the stakes higher than ever, the world will be watching to see if rhetoric finally translates into real, tangible action—and if oil-rich nations step up to the plate.