Biodiversity and Development Finance 2015-2022

Annex A. Data coverage and sources

Official development assistance, other official flows and official development finance

The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Secretariat collects individual aid activities on official development assistance (ODA) and other official flows (OOF) in the Creditor Reporting System (CRS). ODA is defined as flows to countries on the DAC List of ODA Recipients and core contributions to multilateral development institutions provided by official or executive agencies on the List of ODA-eligible international organisations (OECD, 2021[1]). ODA must have the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective and be concessional in character - either flowing as grants or concessional loans (i.e. softer than market terms). In turn, OOF comprises transactions from governments to developing countries that do not qualify as ODA, e.g. non-concessional sovereign loans (OECD, 2021[1]). This definition of OOF excludes official direct export credits. Together, the sum of bilateral ODA flows, bilateral OOF (except OOF grants and loans for commercial purposes), and all finance (grants and loans) by multilateral development institutions, define official development finance (ODF). As such, ODF is a broader measure of developing countries’ official receipts for development purposes (OECD, 2021[1]).

Countries and institutions reporting to the OECD on their ODF flows include biodiversity-related information through the biodiversity Rio marker, as well as through two Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) tags (for marine and terrestrial biodiversity), and two biodiversity-related purpose codes (see below). In other cases, biodiversity-related information needs to be searched and verified manually in the CRS (e.g. through data mining).

Data sources: The biodiversity Rio marker, SDGs 14 and 15, biodiversity purpose codes, and keywords

The Rio marker on biodiversity

To date, the Rio markers represent the most comprehensive, publicly available activity-level data on biodiversity-related development finance from bilateral donors. Since 1998, the DAC monitors development finance targeting the objectives of the Rio Conventions, including the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), through four “Rio markers” [biodiversity, desertification, climate change mitigation and adaptation (the latter introduced in 2009); for more information on the markers, see OECD (2016[2]). The Rio markers were designed to track the degree to which members integrate environmental considerations into their development co-operation activities, and to support members in preparing their national reports to the Conventions. Reporting on the Rio markers is mandatory for ODA from DAC members (but not for OOF or for multilateral and bilateral providers beyond the DAC members reporting to the OECD). Coverage of OOF with the Rio markers for bilateral providers is limited (Casado-Asensio, Blaquier and Gualberti, 2024[3]).

For DAC members and countries and institutions voluntarily using the Rio markers, biodiversity-related activities ought to be screened and marked as either (i) targeting the objectives of the CBD, with a “principal objective” or a “significant objective”; or (ii) not targeting the objective (the activity has no relation with the marker). Activities marked as “principal” would not have been funded but for that objective; activities marked as “significant” have other primary objectives but have been formulated or adjusted to help meet biodiversity concerns.

The activities identified with the marker should promote at least one of the three objectives of the CBD, namely: 1) the conservation of biodiversity; 2) the sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources); and 3) fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. The Rio marker methodology includes biodiversity-related finance from all sectors, not just the environmental sector. As such, an activity can be marked with the biodiversity Marker if it contributes to any of the following:

a) protecting or enhancing ecosystems, species or genetic resources through in-situ or ex-situ conservation, or remedying existing environmental damage;

b) integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services concerns within recipient countries’ development objectives and economic decision making, through institution building, capacity development, strengthening the regulatory and policy framework, or research;

c) developing countries’ efforts to meet their obligations under the Convention (OECD, 2019[4]).

As mentioned above, an activity scores “principal” if it directly and explicitly aims to achieve one or more of the above three criteria. Alternatively, the marker identifies projects that can have “significant” co-benefits for biodiversity but for which biodiversity is not the primary focus (e.g. a project focused on enhancing agricultural production, while training smallholder farmers to combine native vegetation with crops for higher outputs and biodiversity protection). For a project to be identified as “significant” it must also comply with the eligibility criteria for the biodiversity marker, even if it is not the project’s primary focus.

It should be noted that much of the project-level ODF delivered with the biodiversity marker can contribute to one or more of the other Rio markers (e.g. aid to biodiversity often creates positive impacts for desertification and/or for climate change mitigation and adaptation) and/or other areas (e.g. governance, gender, disaster risk reduction). Thus, the presentation of more than one marker allows for the possibility of overlaps across them. For the purpose of doing deep-dive analyses into cross-cutting issues, the other markers used in this report are the climate change Rio markers [i.e. climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation (OECD, n.d.[5])] and the gender equality policy marker [i.e. aid activities targeting gender equality and women’s empowerment (OECD, 2016[6])].

The Rio markers were designed to track the degree to which members are integrating and mainstreaming environmental considerations into their development co-operation activities, and thus apply to the entirety of an activity reported – not to the allocation of finance associated with the biodiversity-specific component of that activity. Alternatively, in reporting against quantified international finance goals [such as the CBD’s Aichi Target 20 on development finance and Target 19a of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)], many DAC members report only a proportion of their ODF targeting biodiversity as a “significant” objective, estimating this through applying coefficients to adjust the share of finance reported (Casado-Asensio, Blaquier and Gualberti, 2024[3]). A coefficient is applied because the Rio marker data applies to the entire activity reported by the provider, not the finance associated with the biodiversity-specific component of that activity. There is no agreed definition or common approach for this practice, but the most common coefficient applied is 40% to countries’ “significant” flows (Casado-Asensio, Blaquier and Gualberti, 2024[3]), which will be used to present progress against the contribution of development finance to KMGBF Target 19a, along with the full account of “principal” flows.

Reporting on biodiversity-related SDGs

A specific field for reporting on the SDGs exists in the CRS [for more information see OECD (2020[7])]. This includes data on SDG 14 “Life below water” and SDG 15 “Life on land”, including their targets. SDG 14 aims to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources” by, for example, reducing marine pollution, sustainably managing and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems, and ending overfishing. SDG 15 aims to “sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss” by, for example, reducing the degradation of natural habitats, preventing the loss of biodiversity, supporting efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, and scaling up financial resources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems. Reporting on the SDG focus in the CRS1 is recent (introduced in 2018), experimental and voluntary (and can be done at the goal or target level) (OECD, 2021[1]); the heterogeneity in reporting quality of this field implies that data extracted from this field may be inconsistent across donors.

Moreover, reporting on SDG focus areas often includes SDGs 14 and 15 along with many other SDGs, thus limiting the precision of estimates derived from this field. Notwithstanding, they still help fill missing data gaps and provide additional information (e.g. to identify non-biodiversity-marked projects and for countries and institutions that do not use the marker). For the purpose of this analysis, fields with either SDG 14 or 15 were verified manually and retained, and when considered as “significant-like”, a coefficient was applied when counting these numbers. For the analysis on climate change, moreover, information reported on the SDG 13 was also included in this analysis; as was SDG 5 used for the analysis on gender equality.

To ensure the data added are robust, a manual revision of the data reported against the SDGs ensured consistency with reported elements and the definition of the Rio marker on biodiversity (i.e. the objective or description of the activity relates to the objectives of the CBD) and following the guidance described in OECD (2019[4]). Following this logic, estimates mainly considered allocable flows (notably those targeting the ODA-eligible co-operation modalities, i.e. A02, B01, B03, B04, C01, D01, D02, E01).

Biodiversity-related purpose codes

The CRS has a taxonomy of purpose codes which identifies the sector that the activity intends to support (OECD, n.d.[8]). In the case of biodiversity, the CRS has two purpose codes that target biodiversity under 410 (general environmental protection), namely 41020 (biosphere protection, which includes air pollution control, ozone layer preservation, marine pollution control); and 41030 (biodiversity, includes natural reserves and actions in the surrounding areas, other measures to protect endangered or protected species and their habitats, e.g. wetland preservation). For multilateral institutions, flows available under the biodiversity purpose code were assimilated to “principal-like” activities (and flows were counted in their entirety) while those under the biosphere purpose codes depended on a case-by-case approach.

Keyword searches

Beyond the use of the biodiversity Rio marker, purpose codes and SDGs, biodiversity-related information was also searched manually in the CRS by applying a keyword search on merged descriptive data fields, such as project titles and descriptions (in English, French and Spanish). This was primarily used for multilateral institutions, which helps make use of the full informative content in the database and increase the likelihood that all projects relevant for biodiversity are captured, while maintaining the integrity of the CRS database and information contained therein (see Table A A.1. ).

There are inherent limitations when using keyword searches on text descriptions of the CRS. Due to missing words, incomplete or erroneous reporting, and lack of consistency in the project description, the procedure cannot guarantee that all biodiversity-related projects are detected. The selection of keywords aims at accuracy, as well as granularity. In the case of multilateral institutions, keywords were separated into two categories: a first category of keywords related closely with “principal-like” biodiversity-related activities (e.g. activities related to conservation, protection and restoration of biodiversity, or illegal wildlife trade). A second category of keywords aimed at capturing “significant-like” biodiversity-related activities; that is, activities where biodiversity aspects are mainstreamed into other sectors (and a coefficient was applied when counting these numbers). The aim of applying this two-category keyword approach was to maximise data disaggregation while balancing the risk of capturing projects that are not beneficial or related to biodiversity, with the risk of discarding actual biodiversity-related projects. To ensure the robustness of this methodology, moreover, activities identified through the keyword search were individually assessed to verify their fit with the definition of the Rio marker on biodiversity and also referred to the marker indicative tables. When an activity did not fit with this definition, or when information was missing or partial, it was excluded from the analysis.

Table A A.1. Biodiversity-related keywords applied to identify biodiversity-related activities

Classification	Biodiversity-related keywords
English “principal-like”	30BY30, Amazon conservation, antelope conservation, anti-poaching, biodiversity, bio-diversity, biosphere, Bird Conservation, Cartagena protocol, CBD, CCAMLR, oceans conservation, CITES, coastal protected areas, coastal protection, coastal wetlands protection, combat IUU, combating fish crimes, combating wildlife, combatting IUU, combatting wildlife, Community conservation, Community Marine Park, Community-based conservation, conflict management of elephants, conservation and Sustainable Use of the Threatened Savanna Woodland, conservation area, conservation forests, conservation landscape, conservation of animal genetic resources, Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, conservation of aquatic ecosystems, Conservation of Endemic Flora, conservation of habitats and species, Conservation of Land Resources, conservation of mangroves, Conservation of Nature, conservation of orangutans, conservation of the Asiatic Cheetah, conservation of wildcats, conservation project, conservation-commerce model , conserve orangutans, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Biological Diversity, coral bleaching, coral reef protection, coral reef rehabilitation, coral reef rescue, critically endangered, destructive fishing, ecological connectivity, ecological conservation, ecological protection, ecological restoration, ecosystem conservation, Ecosystem Landscape Approach, ecosystem rehabilitation, ecosystems protection, elephant conservation, elimination of mercury, endangered flora, Endangered Species, endemic land-birds, Endangered species, fauna corridor, forest and landscape restoration, forest conservation, forest ecosystem, forest friendly livelihood, forest landscape restoration, forest restoration, genetic resources strengthening, gibbon conservation, goal 14, goal 15, grassland conservation, habitat corridor, habitat protection, habitat restoration, hornbill conservation, human wildlife, human-animal, human-elephant coexistence, human-elephant conflict, human-wildlife, illegal deforestation, illegal fish, illegal fishing, illegal hunting, illegal trafficking of wildlife, illegal wildlife, IUCN, IUU fishing, IWT, jaguar, Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, lake conservation, Land Degradation Neutrality, landscape conservation, landscape restoration, leopard, mangrove, Marine Conservation, Marine park, Minamata Convention, MPA , Nagoya Protocol, national park, native forest, natural forest, natural habitat, natural heritage, natural resource conservation, nature conservation, nature conservation, nature protection, nature reserve, NBSAPs, payment for environmental services, payments for ecosystem services, peatland restoration, pet trade, plant conservation, poaching, pollinator, preservation of the environment, preventing forest loss, protected area, protection of its natural resources, Ramsar, recovery of natural capital, reef restoration, resource conservation, restoration of coral, restoring forest, rhino, sdg 14, sdg 15, sdg14, sdg15, sea turtle, Secure Wetland Ecosystems, Shorebird Conservation, soil conservation, Solutions based on nature, species conservation, Strengthening natural reserve, sustainably manage natural resources and ecosystems, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), tiger, trafficking of wildlife, unreported and unregulated fishing, Watershed Conservation, watershed rehabilitation, wetland protected, wetland protection, wetland resilience, Wetlands International, wilderness, wildlife, WWF
English “significant-like”	adequate management of irrigation water, agri-environmental, agrobiology, agroecology, anti-poaching, bioeconomy, blue action fund, blue spaces, bushmeat, Caribbean Biodiversity Fund, conservation agriculture, conservation and use of plant, CZM, decreasing erosion, deforestation, degradation of forests, degraded ecosystems, degraded forest, degraded landscape, dryland sustainable, Earth Observation, EbA, ecological footprint, ecological integrity, ecosystem approach, ecosystem functions and services, ecosystem services, ecosystem values, ecosystem-based, Ecotourism, ecotourism, EMEC, enhancement of natural, environment improvement, environment protection, environment rehabilitation, environmental conservation, environmental crime, environmental degradation, environmental pollution, environmental protection, environmentally sensitive areas, environmentally sustainable, farmland sustainable utilisation, fisheries intelligence, forest fragmentation, forest resource development, fragile lands, freshwater ecosystems, GEF, global biodiversity framework, Global Environment Facility, green space, green wall, healthy forest, hunting practices, hunting the hunters, illegal charcoal, illegal crop, integrated coastal management, integrated coastal zone management, integrated ecosystem, integrated forest, integrated land water, integrated river basin management, land and ecosystem management, land degradation, land protect, land restoration, land use and restoration, management of forests, management of landscapes, management of peat-swamp, marine ecosystem, marine environment, mercury, natural resource management, nature based tourism, nature-based solutions, nature-based tourism, organic agriculture, organic cereal, organic certification, organic coffee, organic farm, organic farming, ozone depletion, REDD, reducing vulnerability of natural resource, reduction of soil erosion, reforestation, resilience of fisheries, resilience of wetlands, resilient agroforestry, resilient fisheries, resilient landscape, responsible fishing, seas sustainable management, SLM, smart agriculture, sustainability of mangrove, sustainable agriculture, sustainable and socially acceptable fish, sustainable aqua, sustainable bio-energy, sustainable biomass, sustainable coastal, sustainable cropland, sustainable development of natural resources, sustainable dryland, sustainable environment, sustainable fish, sustainable forest, sustainable fuelwood management, sustainable game management, sustainable harvest, sustainable land, sustainable landscape, sustainable livestock, sustainable management of bycatch, sustainable management of fisheries, sustainable management of lakes, sustainable management of natural resources, sustainable management of peatland, sustainable management of tuna, sustainable management of wildlife, sustainable mangrove management, sustainable marine, sustainable natural, sustainable supply chains for marine commodities, sustainable timber, sustainable use of medicinal plants, sustainable use of natural resource, sustainable use of peatland, sustainable use of PGRFA, sustainable utilisation of plant genetic resources, sustainable watershed, sustainable wildlife management, sustainably managing the natural, United Nations Development Programme’s Biodiversity Finance, vulnerable ecosystems, water conservation, water resources conservation, watershed conservation, watershed management, wetland ecosystem, wildfire management,
Spanish “principal-like”	área protegida, áreas protegida, biodiversidad, conectividad ecológica, conservación de anfibios, conservación de la biodiversidad, conservación forestal, conservar la biodiversidad, Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, corredores biologicos, ecoturismo, en peligro de extinción, humedales protegidos, murciélago, patrimonio natural, pesca ilegal, protección del medio ambiente, vida silvestre
Spanish “significant-like”	Agricultura de conservación, agricultura orgánica, agroambiental, agroecología, agrosilvicultura resiliente, animales confiscados, bioandes, bioeconomía, bosque degradado, bosque integrado, bosque saludable, bosque sostenible, café orgánico, capital natural, carbono azul, carne de animales silvestres, cereal orgánico, certificación orgánica, conservación de cuencas hidrográficas, conservación de recursos, conservación del agua, Convención de las Naciones Unidas para Combatir la Desertificación, cosecha sostenible, deforestación, degradación ambiental, degradación de la tierra, degradación de los bosques, delitos ambientales, desarrollo de ecosistemas integrados de montañas, diversidad biológica, diversidad genética, economía azul, ecosistema de humedales, ecosistema marino, ecosistemas de agua dulce, ecosistemas de bosques de montaña, ecosistemas degradados, ecosistemas vulnerables, enfoque basado en ecosistemas, enfoque ecosistémico, evaluaciones de impacto ambiental, fondo de acción azul, fondo de biodiversidad del caribe, Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial, funciones y servicios ecosistémicos, gestión ambiental sostenible, gestión integral de tierras, gestión sostenible de la tierra, gestión sostenible de la vida silvestre, gestión sostenible de las turberas, horticultura sostenible, huella ecológica, intercambio de información y datos oceanográficos, inundaciones costeras, madera sostenible, manejo costero integrado, manejo de incendios forestales, medio ambiente sostenible, mejorar la tierra, natural sostenible, no maderable, pago por servicios de cuencas, paisaje sostenible, pérdida de biodiversidad, pérdida de hábitat, plantas medicinales, prácticas de gestión de recursos naturales, reducción del riesgo de desastres, restauración de hábitat cosecha, servicios ecosistémicos, silvicultura sostenible, silvicultura y conservación, solución basada en la naturaleza, tierra sostenible, tierra y conservación del agua, tierras frágiles tigre, uso y restauración de la tierra
French “principal-like”	aires marines, aires marines protégées, aire protégé, aires protégées, Biodiversité, conservation des écosystèmes, conservation des écosystèmes forestiers, conservation de la biodiversité, conservation de la forêt primaire, conservation des espèces migratrices, conservation des petits cétacés, conservation des sols, conservation des éléphants, conservation des terres, conservation du paysage, contre le braconnage, exploitation illégale des ressources naturelles, faune sauvage, Parc National, Parcs nationaux, perte de la nature, préservation forêt, protection de l'environnement, réhabilitation du parc national, réhabilitation parc, UICN, Union International pour la Conservation de la Nature, utilisation durable du parc national, zones protégées
French “significant-like”	adaptation basée sur les écosystèmes (AbE), agriculture durable, agroécologiques, aménagement durable du territoire, secteur de l'environnement, crédit de nature, crédit environnement, crédit verte, gestion durables des terres, gestion intégrée des forêts, muraille verte, pastorales durables, performance environnementale, ressources naturelles, restauration écologique, sols dégradés, utilisation durable des forêts

Notes: The keywords enumerated were ran within strings of a same formula. As such, some keywords within the list might not have captured activities. Most multilateral institutions report to the OECD CRS dataset in English or Spanish. This analysis found some relevant activities reported in French, and thus included French keywords when potentially suitable.

Source: The list of keywords was derived from a literature review and through the review of common words used in the CRS database of biodiversity-marked projects.

Other remarks on the data sources used

Reporting on the biodiversity Rio marker is mandatory for DAC members, further agreeing that any activity reported with the biodiversity purpose code (41030) must also be reported with the biodiversity Rio marker for coherence. Data from 2015-20 reflect an accurate use of both markers, with less than 1% inconsistency starting from 2020 – although further efforts are needed to address inconsistencies in how countries apply and interpret the Rio markers and the SDGs. Indeed, it is important to note that these estimates only provide an approximation of total “principal” and “significant” objective shares – as a portion of biodiversity-related ODA is reported against the SDGs and not the Rio markers over 2018-21. This, in turn, means that DAC members reporting on the SDGs could explore whether projects targeting SDGs 14 and 15 could also be reported against the biodiversity Rio marker, and then assigned a “principal” or “significant” score.

However, this is not the case for multilateral institutions. For multilateral institutions, the use of the biodiversity Rio marker is voluntary, resulting in inconsistent and incomparable reporting. As such, activities marked with the biodiversity purpose code are not necessarily marked with the biodiversity Rio marker, resulting in 17% and 39% (in 2015 and 2021, respectively) of activities marked with the biodiversity purpose code not being marked with the biodiversity Rio marker.

Finally, some of these data sources are insufficient to track elements of relevance for biodiversity (e.g. marine and terrestrial biodiversity) or promote further disaggregation (e.g. exploring whether certain sector codes, such as forestry or general environmental protection, could be revised to improve granularity).

Time range of analysis

This report provides a quantitative analysis of recent trends of biodiversity-related development finance (2015-22). The analysis could be provided on a disbursement or commitment basis. A commitment is a firm written obligation by a government or official agency, backed by the appropriation or availability of the necessary funds to provide resources of a specified amount under specified financial terms and conditions, and for specified purposes for the benefit of a recipient country or multilateral agency. The estimates presented in this report are based on a commitment basis both for bilateral DAC members and multilateral institution providers and over the period 2015-22.

There are additional caveats regarding the time range applied in this analysis:

• OOF data reported to the CRS is still limited to a few donors, compared to ODA data.

• CRS data for SDGs 14 and 15 were only introduced in 2019 for 2018 activities (OECD, 2018[9]), hence data will only be available for the 2018-22 period.

• On the mobilisation of private finance by ODF, data are available from 2012, although quality and coverage improved significantly after 2017 (e.g. sector, marker and other descriptive fields) when related data collections were integrated into regular CRS reporting. In addition, reporting for the biodiversity Rio marker is not mandatory for mobilisation data.

• For philanthropic foundations, data are collected and published at the level of individual grants and programme-related investments, and - for most private providers - screened annually by the OECD Secretariat using the Rio marker methodology and on the SDG focus. While the dataset used for this analysis includes statistics for 2015-22, coverage for the period 2015-16 is limited compared to 2017-22. In fact, prior to 2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was the only foundation reporting financial flows to the CRS.

Countries and institutions reporting to the OECD on biodiversity

The analysis looks at available data on bilateral donors (DAC and non-DAC), multilateral providers, mobilisation data and private philanthropies that report to the OECD:

• The CRS includes data on 32 DAC members (OECD, 2024[10]) that are mandated to use the biodiversity marker on ODA reported: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, EU institutions (excluding the European Investment Bank from 2021), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In particular, in 2021, Estonia and Lithuania were not yet DAC members, given that they provided 2021 data before the reporting deadline while already being DAC members, their 2021 data are reflected as DAC members. Additionally, 30 DAC members also report to the Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) database.

• In addition, 21 other countries and territories also report to the OECD using the CRS, of which only 8 have used the biodiversity marker to date: Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Estonia (until 2020), Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania (until 2020), Monaco, Romania, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries captured as contributing to biodiversity-related activities include: Bulgaria, Croatia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malta, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Thailand. In addition, 27 countries report to the TOSSD, of which 9 contributed to biodiversity-related activities over 2019-22: Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico and Peru.

• For OOF, to date, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States have reported biodiversity-related activities. In addition, 26 countries have reported their activities with SDGs 14 and 15 to date.

• More than 60 multilateral institutions have been reporting to the OECD-DAC CRS, of which 42 are reflected as providing biodiversity-related contributions. In particular, 16 have used the biodiversity marker, namely: Adaptation Fund (AF), Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD), Asian Forest Cooperation Organisation, Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Green Climate Fund (GCF), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), IDB Invest, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Development Association (IDA), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Nordic Development Fund (NDF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and World Tourism Organisation (WTO). Other multilateral institutions retained as providing biodiversity-related data (biodiversity purpose codes, SDG 14 and/or 15, key words) include: African Development Bank (AfDB), African Development Fund (ADF), Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA), Asian Development Bank (AsDB), Asian Forest Cooperation Organisation, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), European Investment Bank (EIB), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), International Finance Corporation (IFC), International Labour Organisation (ILO), Joint Sustainable Development Goals Fund (JSDGF), OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), UN Peacebuilding Fund (UPF), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Food Programme (WFP), WTO - International Trade Centre (WTO-ITC). Additional contributions were captured from multilateral institutions reporting to the TOSSD database (paying attention to avoid double counting): CABEI, CAF, GGGI, IFAD and Interpol, out of 64 institutions reporting to this database.

• The CRS includes data on finance flows reported by 47 philanthropic foundations, of which 40 provided data on biodiversity-related flows (biodiversity purpose codes or biodiversity marker or SDG 14 or 15), namely: Arcadia Fund, Arcus Foundation, BBVA Microfinance Foundation, Bernard van Leer Foundation, Bezos Earth Fund, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Family Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Charity Projects Ltd (Comic Relief), Children's Investment Fund Foundation, Citi Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Fondation Botnar, Ford Foundation, Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, German Postcode Lottery, Grameen Crédit Agricole Foundation, H&M Foundation, Howard G. Buffett Foundation, IKEA Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, La Caixa Banking Foundation, Laudes Foundation, Margaret A. Cargill Foundation, Mastercard Foundation, MAVA Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Norwegian Postcode Lottery, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, Oak Foundation, Omidyar Network Fund, Inc., Open Society Foundations, Postcode Lottery Group (Dutch Postcode Lottery), People's Postcode Lottery, Swedish Postcode Lottery, Rockefeller Foundation, UBS Optimus Foundation, Wellcome Trust and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. For more information on private philanthropy for sustainable development see OECD (2023[11]).

Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) data

TOSSD is an international standard for measuring the full array of resources to promote sustainable development in developing countries. It is designed to monitor both cross-border resources (Pillar I) and regional and global expenditures in support of sustainable development (Pillar II). TOSSD includes both concessional and non-concessional support, from multilateral and bilateral providers, including DAC members, South-South and triangular co-operation providers (TOSSD, 2024[12]). Importantly, some providers submit data both to the CRS and TOSSD through a single data submission. From 2024 onwards, the TOSSD standard is maintained and improved by the International Forum on TOSSD (IFT), hosted by the OECD.

TOSSD was adopted in March 2022 as a data source for the SDG global indicator framework (i.e. SDG indicator 17.3.1) to measure sustainable development support for “Additional financial resources mobilised for developing countries from multiple sources”, increasing the visibility and transparency of official resources and private finance mobilised by official interventions.

The first comprehensive set of TOSSD data, for 2019, was published in 2021. As TOSSD consists exclusively of finance that contributes to enhancing sustainability defined as contributing to one or more SDGs, the reporting standard includes mandatory reporting on areas of SDG focus for reported projects. This requirement implies that TOSSD data are useful in evaluating contributions towards SDGs 14 and 15. However, data remain available only for the most recent years of analysis. Furthermore, the practice of reporting on SDG focus areas also leads to large projects being reported to be relevant for SDG 14 along other SDGs. TOSSD data are, therefore, not equivalent in scope and applicability to the methodology presented earlier but can provide complementary information. This report provides data on Pillar I from providers beyond the DAC (e.g. South-South and triangular co-operation).

In 2024, the International Forum on TOSSD agreed on the inclusion of a keyword to better track biodiversity-related support. The keyword aims to “to identify activities that promote one or more objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources) and/or the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources including by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and technologies, and by appropriate funding.” [Paragraph 92 of the TOSSD reporting instructions (TOSSD, 2024[13])].

Private finance mobilised by DAC countries’ official development finance interventions

In the OECD-DAC statistics, mobilisation reflects the principles of causality between private finance made available for a specific project and an official intervention (OECD, 2021[14]). Data on the amounts of finance mobilised by DAC countries’ ODF interventions are collected through regular CRS data collection for syndicated loans, guarantees, shares in collective investment vehicles, direct investment in companies, credit lines, project finance and simple co-financing arrangements (for further details see Table A A.2. ). The methodologies for reporting on amounts mobilised are instrument-specific (OECD, 2021[1]), and include a pro-rated attribution as to avoid double counting in cases where more than one official provider is involved in a project mobilising private finance. The amounts mobilised from the private sector cover all private finance mobilised by ODF interventions regardless of the origin of the private funds (provider country, recipient country, third country). Private finance mobilised for biodiversity is identified when the DAC member reporting used the biodiversity marker, biodiversity purpose codes and keywords found in project descriptions and specific channels (e.g. Biodiversity International, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy).

Table A A.2. Role and use of leveraging mechanisms

Leveraging mechanism	Definition	Underlying financial instruments used by public finance providers	Typical mobilised private finance
Syndicated loans	Syndicated loans are defined as loans provided by a group of lenders (a syndicate) which works together to provide funds to a single borrower.	Standard loans, subordinated loans	Private lenders participating in the loan syndication.
Guarantees	Guarantees are legally binding agreements under which the guarantor agrees to pay part of or the entire amount due on a loan, equity or other instrument in the event of non-payment by the obligor or loss of value in case of investment.	Guarantees and other unfunded contingent liabilities	Private equity investments and loans to special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and companies as well as portfolios of private local finance institutions.
Shares in collective investment vehicles (CIVs)	Shares in CIVs represent investments in pooling vehicles, such as investment funds and facilities, which typically use such finance to foster local small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) development.	Equity investments, loans and mezzanine finance (rarely)	Private equity investments in CIVs.
Direct investments in companies and SPVs	In the context of project finance, these mechanisms refer to mobilising private investments in SPVs, which are neither covered by official guarantors nor part of a syndicated loan. Beyond project finance, direct investment in companies refers to loans, mezzanine finance and equity investments in enterprises alongside with private investors to provide liquidity for expansion purposes.	Equity investments, mezzanine finance, standard loans, bonds and other debt instruments	In the context of project finance: private equity investments or private debt financing in SPVs (if not through syndicated loans). Beyond project finance: private debt financing (not syndicated) and equities invested in enterprises.
Credit lines	Credit lines refer to a standing credit amount which can be drawn upon by borrowers (typically local finance institutions) for on-lending purposes, mainly to SMEs.	Standard loans, subordinated loans	Top-up funds by private local finance institutions and in certain cases also equity investments in the end borrowers (if required).
Simple co-financing arrangements	Simple co-financing arrangements refer to various business partnerships, business-to-business programmes, business surveys, matching programmes, co-financing of specific projects and similar arrangements where official providers extend finance in co-financing with the private sector.	Standard grants, standard loans	Private co-finance of specific projects in the field or in the context of business partnerships.

Source: OECD (2023[15]), Scaling Up the Mobilisation of Private Finance for Climate Action in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities for International Providers, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/17a88681-en.

Recipient country analyses

The DAC list of ODA recipients for 2015-22 can be found in the DAC List of ODA Recipients (OECD, n.d.[16]).

Small island developing states country coverage

A total of 35 small island developing states (SIDS) are included in this report. In 2022, 32 SIDS were categorised as eligible in the DAC List of ODA Recipients (OECD, 2024[17]). These are Belize, Cabo Verde, the Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Montserrat, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Solomon Islands, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. As the analysis covers the period 2015-22, some results include data from the Seychelles, the Cook Islands, and Antigua and Barbuda, which graduated from the list in 2018, 2020 and 2022, respectively.

References

[3] Casado-Asensio, J., D. Blaquier and G. Gualberti (2024), “Stock Take Report on Members’ Reporting Practices on Biodiversity-related Development Finance and Reporting against International Obligations”, DCD/DAC/ENV(2024)1/REV1/FINAL, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/ENV(2024)1/REV1/FINAL/en/pdf.

[10] OECD (2024), Development Assistance Committee (DAC), https://www.oecd.org/dac/development-assistance-committee/ (accessed on 19 June 2024).

[17] OECD (2024), History of DAC Lists of aid recipient countries, https://web-archive.oecd.org/temp/2024-02-12/75435-historyofdaclistsofaidrecipientcountries.htm (accessed on 10 July 2024).

[11] OECD (2023), Private philanthropy for sustainable development, 2018-20: Data and analysis, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/dac/private-philanthropy-sustainable-development.pdf.

[15] OECD (2023), Scaling Up the Mobilisation of Private Finance for Climate Action in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities for International Providers, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/17a88681-en.

[1] OECD (2021), Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System and the Annual DAC Questionnaire, DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)44/FINAL, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)44/FINAL/en/pdf (accessed on 1 July 2024).

[14] OECD (2021), Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[7] OECD (2020), Draft Handbook for reporting the SDG focus of development co-operation activities, https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/STAT(20 (accessed on 15 June 2024).

[4] OECD (2019), Indicative table for the Rio Marker for Biodiversity, https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)26/REV1&docLanguage=En (accessed on 1 September 2022).

[9] OECD (2018), Revision of the reporting directives: selections relating ot the approved SDG focus field and changes to policy markers and types of aid, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)52/en/pdf.

[6] OECD (2016), Handbook on the OECD-DAC Gender Equality Policy Marker, https://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-development/Handbook-OECD-DAC-Gender-Equality-Policy-Marker.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2024).

[2] OECD (2016), Questions & Answers: Rio Marker Climate and Environment-Related Development Finance Statistics, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/FAQ_Tracking%20climate%20finance%20and%20Rio%20markers_February%202.

[8] OECD (n.d.), DAC and CRS code lists, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/dacandcrscodelists.htm (accessed on 16 September 2022).

[16] OECD (n.d.), DAC List of ODA Recipients, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/daclist.htm (accessed on 31 October 2023).

[5] OECD (n.d.), OECD DAC Rio Markers for Climate: Handbook, https://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/Revised%20climate%20marker%20handbook_FINAL.pdf.

[13] TOSSD (2024), TOSSD Reporting Instructions, https://tossd.org/docs/2024_Reporting_Instructions.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2024).

[12] TOSSD (2024), Total Official Support for Sustainable Development, https://www.tossd.org/.

Note

← 1.  Yet, reporting on the SDG focus in the TOSSD is a mandatory field.