Charles Oduor By Irene Nasimiyu
As COP17 discussions in Yerevan, Armenia, bring biodiversity conservation into focus, new international funding pledges offer hope. But from rescued bears in the Caucasus to dogs dying on Kenyan roads, the real test is whether global commitments translate into protection for every living creature.
Behind the protective boundaries of the Caucasus Wildlife Refuge, rescued bears and other animals tell stories of survival, vulnerability and second chances. Some have endured circumstances that threatened their lives. Now, under the care of wildlife attendants, they have an opportunity to recover before returning to the wild.
For COP17 fellows from Informed Earth visiting the wildlife rescue centre during the ongoing COP17 discussions in Yerevan, the encounter offered more than an opportunity to see rescued animals. It raised a fundamental question at the heart of conservation: does nature have a right to exist beyond its usefulness to human beings?
As delegates and conservationists discuss the future of biodiversity, the answer is becoming harder to ignore. Nature is not simply a resource to be exploited. It is a living system upon which humanity depends and whose survival deserves protection in its own right.
Beyond rescue: Giving wildlife a second chance
At the Caucasus Wildlife Refuge, conservation is not an abstract concept discussed in conference halls. It is a daily responsibility involving care, patience and difficult decisions.
During a one-on-one discussion, an attendant explained that rescued bears may remain under care for as long as two years. During this period, their health and recovery are monitored and they receive necessary medical attention before being considered for release.
The ultimate goal is not to keep wildlife in captivity indefinitely, but to return animals to nature when they are healthy and suitable for release, giving them the opportunity to live in their natural environment and contribute to future generations.
“We believe they too have a right,” the attendant said, emphasizing the principle that animals deserve the opportunity to live beyond the threats that brought them into human care.
The work demonstrates that conservation requires more than rescuing animals after harm has occurred. It demands sustained investment in rehabilitation, responsible release programmes and the protection of habitats where wildlife can survive independently.
Every rescued animal is a reminder that human actions can threaten nature, but deliberate human intervention can also help restore what has been lost.
A financial boost for nature: Turning promises into protection
Beyond the rescue centre, COP17’s broader conservation agenda highlights another essential requirement. Money to turn commitments into meaningful action.
The United Nations Biodiversity Conference has received a significant financial boost, with $500 million in additional pledges to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF). The resources are intended to provide targeted support to countries and communities working to conserve and restore nature and ensure the long-term health and sustainability of wild species and ecosystems.
The announcement signals recognition that biodiversity protection requires more than political declarations. Countries need resources to restore degraded habitats, strengthen conservation programmes, protect threatened species and empower communities living alongside wildlife.
For a refuge caring for rescued bears, this global financial commitment speaks to a fundamental reality that conservation comes at a cost. Veterinary care, rehabilitation, trained personnel, habitat restoration and measures to prevent human-wildlife conflict all require sustained funding.
However, the announcement also raises an important question. How effectively will these resources reach the communities and conservation programmes that need them most?
Funding pledges are an important starting point, but their value depends on implementation, accountability and measurable results. Communities must be able to access appropriate support, while conservation organizations need the capacity to turn resources into lasting improvements for wildlife.
Nature is wealth, not a burden
For Maryam Tashchyan the lead team from Armenia, protecting wildlife is also an investment in prosperity.
“Saving nature is a way of wealth,” she explained, linking conservation to healthier communities, tourism and opportunities for learning.
The argument challenges the perception that protecting wildlife competes with economic development. Healthy ecosystems support human well-being, while wildlife and natural landscapes can attract tourists, create livelihoods and provide educational opportunities for local communities.
For residents, the value extends beyond financial returns. Living alongside thriving wildlife and having opportunities to understand the natural world can bring pride, enjoyment and a stronger sense of responsibility towards the environment.
Yet conservation cannot depend on goodwill alone. It requires practical measures that allow people and wildlife to coexist safely.
The other wildlife attendant highlighted electric fencing as one intervention that can help reduce human-wildlife conflict when appropriately designed and managed. Such measures can protect communities while reducing the likelihood that animals will be harmed in retaliation for entering human settlements.
Kenya’s conservation question: Who protects the animals on our roads?
Thousands of kilometres away, Kenya faces a related challenge. Wildlife conservation is supported by conservationists, institutions and community initiatives. Yet the broader question of how society treats animals remains visible on ordinary roads.
In towns and residential areas, the sight of dead dogs lying along roadsides can be a distressing reminder of how easily animal lives are overlooked.
Why does this happen? Are roads adequately marked to warn drivers about animals crossing? Are motorists sufficiently aware of the need to slow down where animals are likely to appear? And where dogs depend on human owners, are their welfare and safety being adequately considered?
These questions demand evidence. Road deaths may result from speeding, poor visibility, inadequate road design, animals wandering unsupervised. Neglect and inadequate access to food may raise separate animal welfare concerns, but they cannot automatically explain road fatalities.
During a panel discussion, Paul Matiku, executive director of Nature Kenya, emphasized the need for road signs warning motorists about animal crossings, particularly in areas near forests. He also highlighted ecological knowledge and community empowerment through media platforms as important elements of conservation. He urged media organizations to set up funds specifically for conservation reporting.
His observations point towards a more comprehensive approach. Infrastructure must reflect the presence of wildlife, scientific knowledge must inform decisions and communities must have the information and means to participate in protecting nature.
Road signs, appropriate speed limits, wildlife crossings where feasible and public education can contribute to safer shared spaces. For domestic animals, responsible ownership, secure confinement and accessible veterinary services are equally important.
From COP17 commitments to everyday action
The conservation discussions taking place at COP17 must translate into action beyond conference halls. The additional $500 million in pledges offers an opportunity to strengthen conservation efforts, but financial commitments must be matched by effective implementation and community participation.
The experience at the Caucasus Wildlife Refuge offers one lesson; Kenya’s conservation challenges offer another. One demonstrates the value of rescuing and rehabilitating animals. The other highlights the need to prevent harm before it happens.
Both point to the same responsibility: conservation cannot begin and end with charismatic wildlife or protected reserves. It must extend to habitats, roads, domestic animals and the communities whose choices shape the natural world.
Nature’s right to exist should not depend solely on whether an animal attracts tourists, generates income or offers humans pleasure. Those benefits are important, but they are not the only justification for protection.
The rescued bears in Armenia deserve the chance to return to the wild. Animals crossing Kenyan roads deserve safer environments. Communities deserve healthy ecosystems and practical solutions to the conflicts that arise when human development encroaches on nature.
The measure of COP17 will not be how many promises are made or how much funding is announced alone. It will be whether those commitments prevent suffering, restore habitats and allow other living beings to continue their existence.
