Progress during the UN environmental summit - alongside the tough negotiations

The geopolitical tensions continue to throw gravel in the negotiating machinery at the UN environmental summit in Armenia. On Tuesday, in overtime, for example, the Russian representative threatened that "Russia will respond quickly and adequately" to countries that direct unfounded criticism of the country's environmental policy.

It came after Moldova criticized pollution in the Dniester river, which it shares with the Russian-backed breakaway region of Transnistria.

That type of marking not infrequently leads to the main task – developing a road map to reach the goals of the conservation plan for nature that the countries have agreed on – going more slowly. In the end, all countries must agree. Decisions are made by consensus.

At the time of writing, two days of the meeting remain. In the corridors outside the negotiation rooms, there is concern that the final document risks being watered down.

But at the same time, some progress has been made on the side.

Perhaps the most significant thing is that representatives of a coalition of finance ministers have had talks with environment ministers on site. The meeting is described as positive and it has been decided to continue the dialogue on a large scale when the World Bank has its spring meeting next year.

- Nature issues have long been seen as niche. And that's a big problem. It is absolutely crucial that they are integrated into the economy. Today's financial flows contribute to destroying the environment, while the market is dependent on living nature. This can give a completely different weight to the work, says Guido Broekhoven, head of policy at WWF International.

The second breakthrough concerns the fact that the world's countries give more money in support of environmentally dangerous activities in a single month than they spend on protecting nature in a whole year.

Astrid Schomaker, head of the secretariat at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, likens it to trying to fix your house while paying a bunch of people to destroy it.

State subsidies to harmful activities in, for example, agriculture and forestry must therefore instead be directed towards farming methods that favor biological diversity. It is a clear goal in the global framework for biological diversity that the countries have agreed on, the rescue plan for nature. But it goes very slowly.

In order to increase the momentum, Finland and Colombia have, alongside the negotiations, initiated a group they call Friends of Target 18 – the target in the framework that deals with harmful subsidies. Several countries have subsequently joined and many observers believe that this can lead to inspiring examples and that the issue receives greater attention.

- It is an initiative that needs to get more flesh on its legs, but we are hopeful. And the question is so important, because it can have a snowball effect in environmental work. You get rid of harmful activities while freeing up money to benefit environmental work, says Guido Broekhoven.

The third breakthrough concerns a network that will help countries protect natural areas without having to shut down all activities. It is described as a necessity to meet the goal of protecting 30 percent of land and sea by 2030. And in UN language, it is called OECM, or "other effective area-based conservation measures" (other effective area-based conservation measures). The idea is that expert organizations such as the International Environmental Protection Union IUCN and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization FAO should contribute knowledge about how such areas can be designed.

It is crucial so that, for example, indigenous peoples and local communities do not end up in a pinch - and to be able to reach the UN convention's goal by 2050 that "man should live in harmony with nature".

- These are important initiatives and signals. But they cannot replace negotiations. Hopefully they can stir the water and seep into the negotiation rooms, says Guido Broekhoven.