A Decade of Development Finance for Biodiversity

4. Towards more strategic and effective development finance for biodiversity

Abstract

Development finance will continue to play a key role during the years to come under the Global Biodiversity Framework, both in terms of quantity (for example, to cover essential domestic contributions to biodiversity) and quality (for example, supporting effective capacity development). However, it will not be able to fill the biodiversity funding gap. It will therefore need to evolve to support domestic policy reforms that unlock additional public and private financial flows, or seek co-benefits with other development co-operation areas, notably climate change. This chapter draws on the trends outlined in the analysis in Chapters 2 and 3, and an extensive review of the literature, to highlight opportunities for development finance to evolve and to become more strategic, coherent and effective in achieving biodiversity goals.

Development finance for biodiversity can become more strategic

As development finance is a minor part of total biodiversity finance, it needs to be used strategically and effectively. In accordance with the provisions of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, development co-operation is increasingly expected to unlock, catalyse and leverage multiple sources of finance, including from the private sector (United Nations, 2015[1]). These expectations are also echoed in CBD assessments (CBD, 2020[2]). The literature reviewed for this report sees a more strategic role for development finance for biodiversity, whereby it contributes to:

• Helping developing countries reassign expenditures towards biodiversity-related purposes (CBD, 2020[2]) and reduce additional restoration efforts, e.g. by reforming and removing environmentally harmful incentives, including subsidies (e.g. for fossil fuels or in nature-depleting activities) (OECD, 2022[3]); mainstreaming biodiversity into government financial planning processes (Milner-Gulland et al., 2021[4]; Zoi Network, 2022[5]; Dufief et al., 2022[6]), searching for biodiversity-related co-benefits, notably through investments in nature-based solutions; and supporting other mainstreaming approaches across policy frameworks and in specific sector policies, plans and projects (OECD, 2018[7]; Djomo Nana et al., 2022[8]). Generating domestic revenues that promote biodiversity protection (CBD, 2020[2]), e.g. through environmental fiscal reforms and other incentives that promote the sustainable use of biodiversity (OECD, 2021[9]; OECD, 2021[10]; Miller, Agrawal and Roberts, 2013[11]), including well-designed green taxes (Mpofu, 2022[12]). Table 4.1 summarises the finance generated or mobilised by biodiversity-relevant economic incentives.

• Improving standards and regulations to achieve efficiency, and helping to align incentives among actors (CBD, 2020[2]). In their engagement with partner countries, donors can also support the development of biodiversity mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services (Miller, Agrawal and Roberts, 2013[11]; Börner et al., 2020[13]; CIFOR, 2021[14]; Schroeder et al., 2020[15]); biodiversity offsets (OECD, 2016[16]); and corporate social responsibility principles and safeguards (Duchelle et al., 2017[17]).

• Catalysing additional public and private finance for biodiversity by supporting access to public international development finance and leveraging partnerships by developing countries, e.g. between bilateral and international funding instruments, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF; see Box 4.1), the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Land Degradation Neutrality Fund and other environmental financing instruments to mobilise resources for biodiversity (IPBES, 2018[18]).

• Helping to unlock private finance by lifting market and regulatory barriers and information gaps, promoting the role of the private sector in NBSAPs and Biodiversity Finance Plans, and creating a supportive enabling environment for investment. Creating domestic and international opportunities for private investment in biodiversity can quickly raise finance for conservation (UNEP, 2021[19]).

Table 4.1. Finance generated annually for biodiversity by economic incentive instruments

Finance mechanism	Finance	Coverage	Source
Biodiversity-relevant taxes	USD 7.7 billion per year in tax revenue in OECD countries USD 8.9 billion per year in all countries (2017-19  average)	> 120 countries reporting	OECD PINE database
Payments for ecosystem services	USD 10.1 billion per year (2017-19 average)	Across 10 countries that provided data on finance	OECD questionnaire (circulated to > 50 countries)
Biodiversity offsets	USD 6.9 billion per year	Global	(Deutz et al., 2020[20])

Source: OECD (2021[9]), Tracking Economic Instruments and Finance for Biodiversity, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/tracking-economic-instruments-and-finance-for-biodiversity-2021.pdf.

Developing countries are often leading the way in creating and delivering innovative finance solutions and the UNDP has identified over 150 biodiversity finance solutions (including instruments, tools and strategies) that can be used to finance the preservation and restoration of nature in a country (UNDP-BIOFIN, n.d.[21]), seeking to go beyond mobilising new revenues towards realigning expenditures, reducing future costs and delivery (in line with the strategic role of development finance for biodiversity mentioned in bullets above). An efficient way for donors to use development co-operation finance is to focus on these solutions when deploying their traditional financing modalities. First, donors could continue using grants, notably for capacity development activities such as technical assistance, support for policy design, advocacy, and awareness raising, developing organisational and institutional capacity (e.g. setting up funds and facilities dedicated to conservation); promoting effective governance arrangements; and improving biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural capital data (OECD, 2021[10]). This would enable donors to address immediate priorities, such as ensuring the effective management of protected areas, supporting local communities that depend on ecotourism revenues, or maintaining monitoring and enforcement activities (World Bank Group, 2021[22]); as well as reducing food waste, promoting community-based forest management and forest certification, addressing illegal logging and wildlife trade, improving water quality or promoting sustainable fishing practices (IPBES, 2019[23]).

Second, development finance can also be creative in how it uses concessionary, “soft” loans for ecosystem protection or ecosystem-friendly activities. Concessional loans can finance a biodiversity-related activity, or the terms of the loan can be used as a condition to derive biodiversity benefits (e.g. lower interest rates would be the reward for the conservation or sustainable use of natural capital). Increasingly, some donors also resort to results-based or conditional payments to ensure that investments reach their desired outcomes, e.g. (UNDP, 2021[24]). Concessional loans for development are most suitable for investments that have a relatively direct relationship to economic returns. Their use has been suggested e.g. for projects in nascent biodiversity and ecosystem service markets where financial returns are low (Parker et al., 2012[25]). For example, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI, n.d.[26]) was launched in 2008 pledging up to 3 billion NOK annually to help save the world’s tropical forests while improving local livelihoods. NICFI is well known for its results-based bilateral partnership with key forest partner countries (e.g. Brazil, Colombia, Congo, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guyana, Indonesia, Liberia and Peru) disbursing payments for reduced deforestation verified by satellite imagery (Planet, 2023[27]). Beyond using ODA to create payments for results schemes, NICFI also supports capacity development and improving land use and forest governance efforts.

Box 4.1. The Global Environment Facility is playing a growing role in biodiversity

Since the adoption of the CBD, Parties have relied on the GEF as its financial mechanism, meaning it serves as the principal multilateral mechanism through which bilateral donors programme their ODF for biodiversity. The GEF’s recent Programming Directions includes a biodiversity strategy which pursues three objectives: improve conservation, sustainable use and restoration of natural ecosystems; effectively implement the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols; and, increase mobilisation of domestic resources for biodiversity (GEF, 2022[28]). The GEF funding model runs on four-year replenishment cycles, which have increased over time. During the GEF-7 cycle (2018-22), donor pledges reached USD 4.1 billion, of which USD 1.3 billion programmed for biodiversity. During the current 8^th cycle (2022-26), a record USD 5.33 billion has been pledged (GEF, 2022[29]).

Biodiversity was already the largest focal area in the GEF portfolio (i.e. accounting for 36 percent), but the proportion of funds directly or indirectly related to biodiversity for the next four years has risen to at least 60 percent (IISD, 2022[30]). The GEF will focus on innovative mechanisms to narrow the finance gap, improve efficiency, and catalyse policy alignment with nature (CBD, 2022[31]). In the context of the GBF, the GEF is asked to continue being an important mechanism for biodiversity-related resource allocation, given its role in mainstreaming biodiversity into development efforts, and ensuring the effective use of resources; to strengthen the focus on CBD Protocols; and to strengthen the linkages with the GCF to catalyse additional financing for biodiversity (CBD, 2021[32]). Moreover, the GBF resource mobilisation strategy calls on the GEF to establish, in 2023, and until 2030 unless the Conference of the Parties decides otherwise, a Special Trust Fund to support the implementation of the GBF (“GBF Fund”), to complement existing support and scale up financing from all sources to ensure its timely implementation (CBD, 2022[33]).

Finally, other development co-operation instruments enable investments in biodiversity conservation by de-risking investments in this area. For example, donors support the development, scaling, and innovative application of financial instruments which blend commercial and concessional finance (Tobin-de la Puente and Mitchell, 2021[34]); support environmental or conservation trust funds (Parker et al., 2012[25]; Berghöfer et al., 2017[35]); co-finance collaborative management partnerships for protected areas, including with private philanthropy and impact investors (World Bank, 2021[36]; Zoi Network, 2022[5]); use a range of other financial instruments such as green, blue, resilience or conservation bonds, credit guarantees or policy insurance and catastrophe bonds (OECD, 2020[37]; Standing, 2021[38]); design sovereign debt restructuring schemes and debt-for-nature swaps that reduce a country’s debt and deliver biodiversity objectives (Box 4.2); as well as facilitate exchanges to promote a deeper understanding on access and benefit-sharing from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources.

Box 4.2. Recent bond schemes with biodiversity objectives

Green and sustainability-linked bonds have increased exponentially in recent years. Indebted countries are provided with more favourable loan-repayment terms if they commit to spending the cash saved on conservation efforts. Although biodiversity had not been primarily targeted by such bonds, the situation has started to change thanks to the support of the UN, multilateral donors and civil society. For example, in 2019, under 0.7% of the total green bond issuance was allocated to biodiversity conservation; this had increased to 4% in 2021 (World Bank, 2021[39]; Tobin-de la Puente and Mitchell, 2021[34]; Standing, 2021[38]). Guidance to support partner countries in using these financial instruments has also been produced recently, e.g. through the International Finance Corporation’s Green Bond Technical Assistance Programme (IFC, 2022[40]).

Several recent bond schemes with biodiversity objectives show the potential of these instruments. This is the case for the first sovereign blue bond, issued in 2018 by the Seychelles to support sustainable marine and fisheries projects (World Bank, 2018[41]). It raised USD 15 million with the support of the World Bank, and the experience has now been replicated by the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, 2021[42]). Another example is the Rhino Impact Investment Project, which aims to mobilise new private capital for conservation. The project is supported by the GEF, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Kingdom and private philanthropy. In addition, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) raised USD 150 million for a 'pay-for-success' Wildlife Conservation Bond (also known as the Rhino Bond) to support sustainable development projects. Unusually, this five-year bond will not pay a coupon to investors. Instead, IBRD will make a payment of USD 10 million to two South African conservation areas with meaningful populations of the endangered black rhino. If rhino conservation is successful, investors will receive the equivalent to the bond principal in addition to a 'conservation success payment', which is linked to the growth rate of rhino populations, funded by grants from the GEF, alongside co-financing (e.g. by the Zoological Society of London, Oak Foundation, UK Aid through the IWT Challenge Fund, and Fauna and Flora International) to support management, technical, political, legal and administrative support throughout the implementation of the project. The GEF acts as the outcome payer in this transaction, providing financial backing and enhancing the risk/return profile to attract further investors. This structure transfers the outcome risk to private investors, who receive nothing if the rhino population does not grow (World Bank, 2022[43]).

Donors have also engaged in developing insurance policies, also known as catastrophic or CAT-bonds (Standing, 2021[38]), which are a form of debt issued by a country through a special purpose entity to transfer risks to capital market investors. If a climate hazard happens, some portions of the funds are placed in a special purpose entity available to the country and the bond defaults (OECD, 2021[44]). CAT-bonds have been used to conserve marine ecosystems and adapt to climate change through nature-based solutions, e.g. most recently in Jamaica (World Bank, 2021[45]).

Finally, donors also target biodiversity conservation as a co-benefit on other government issuance. For example, in 2016 the Seychelles negotiated a partial buyback of debt through a debt-for-nature swap, which offered Paris Club creditors a discount in exchange for a commitment to improve marine conservation and climate change adaptation efforts (OECD, 2020[46]). More recently, Belize, with support of The Nature Conservancy and Credit Suisse, issued a 20-year USD 364 million bond to repurchase existing debt and committing USD 23.5 million towards marine conservation and coastal conservation projects. The country also committed to protecting 30% of its waters by 2026 through the bond deal. As a result, the transaction unlocked USD 180 million over a 20-year period for conservation projects in Belize, quadrupling the country’s pre-existing ocean conservation budget (IMF, 2022[47]). Another recent example is provided by the Fiji Blue Bond, promoted by Fiji, the UNDP, the UN Capital Development Fund and the UK, which will help to support marginalised groups such as fishers and micro-marine businesses, promote disaster risk management, climate change adaptation and resilience efforts, including through ecosystem-based approaches and establishing marine protected areas over 2022-32. Further examples in (Thompson, 2022[48]) highlight the importance of donor de-risking instruments, provided they are carefully designed. Donors should also consider their high transaction costs and long timeframes, as well as broader debt sustainability issues on the part of recipient countries (Tobin-de la Puente and Mitchell, 2021[34]).

Overall, donor financing remains essential to ensure the effective implementation of biodiversity policies in developing countries (IPBES, 2018[18]). If well designed, donor activities – whether grants, loans or other instruments – can protect biodiversity while simultaneously reducing poverty, helping to tackle climate change (Berghöfer et al., 2017[35]) and supporting actions with multiple benefits for societal goals (Förster, 2022[49]). To achieve this, donors may need to increase their ODF and the range of modalities deployed for biodiversity, and also enhance the effectiveness of their investments (CBD, 2020[50]).

More Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members can mainstream biodiversity in their development co-operation strategies

As seen, DAC members individually and collectively have committed to supporting biodiversity through their development co-operation activities. To what extent are these commitments reflected in current DAC member policy frameworks? Table 4.2 provides an overview of DAC member frameworks for biodiversity, noting whether they seek for co-benefits with climate change (see Box 3.1 in Chapter 3), and listing recent development finance pledges and announcements made in support of biodiversity and nature. This overview gives a first, high-level approximation of how DAC members undertake biodiversity-related activities – and provides several preliminary conclusions.

In terms of biodiversity frameworks, the overview shows that although DAC members often mention biodiversity as an overarching strategic direction of their development co-operation, only Canada, the EU, France and the United Kingdom have dedicated biodiversity policies. One good example is the European Union’s Biodiversity for Life initiative, which brings together all EU-funded development co-operation projects and programmes that target biodiversity under the same umbrella framework, with the aim of ensuring better coherence and co-ordination (CBD, 2020[2]). The UK’s International Development Strategy includes a high-level commitment to ensure that its ODA becomes “nature positive”, aligning it with the international goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, and with the GBF.

The integration of biodiversity into development co-operation is limited according to (OECD, 2021[51]). Notwithstanding, several DAC members have started looking at how biodiversity and nature can be reconciled and integrated with broader development co-operation efforts, including those linked to climate change. Sweden’s recent experience, for example, shows that additional work was needed even in a country where biodiversity was relatively well mainstreamed. Sweden’s Special Government Assignment on Biodiversity and Ecosystems aims at strengthening and deepening work related to biodiversity and ecosystems throughout Sida’s operations over 2020-23, by seeking coherence and synergies with climate change and other thematic areas (e.g. governance and gender equality); strengthening on-going biodiversity interventions to learn from operations that deliver results, while exploring opportunities for co-financing, notably to support Africa (e.g. through the Africa 100 Initiative); intensifying dialogue with multilateral and European partners and other actors; and mobilising funding, notably through the use of guarantees (Sida, 2021[52]).

Table 4.2. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member biodiversity frameworks are not always backed up by official development finance (ODF) pledges

	Framework to address biodiversity	Climate and biodiversity co-benefits	Biodiversity-related development finance announcements
Australia	Biodiversity is part of Climate Change Action Strategy (2020-25), which is underpinned by biodiversity protection, through nature-based solutions.	Yes	Australia plans to increase its international public finance for nature through 2030. This builds on Australia’s existing commitment to provide AUD 2 billion in climate finance over 2020-25 period, including for environment and biodiversity projects.
Austria	The Austrian Development Policy (2019-21) lists protecting and preserving the environment, including biodiversity and ecosystems, as one of five thematic priorities. The new Policy has biodiversity at its core. In addition, Austria’s Biodiversity Strategy 2030+ also refers to development co-operation for biodiversity.	Yes, aims at co-benefits for climate change and biodiversity	The Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs has set a goal of 50% for the environment in projects and programmes under the country and regional funding instruments for 2021, which will increase to 55% in 2022 and 60% from 2023 onward; discussions are on-going to increase the share of biodiversity-related funds in development co-operation.
Belgium	The Law on Belgian Development Cooperation (2013) stipulates that the protection of the environment and natural resources, including the battle against climate change, drought and global deforestation, is one of Belgium’s priority themes. Belgium’s Capacities for Biodiversity and Sustainable Development programme follows a 10-year strategy (2014-2023) focusing on capacity development in the field of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, linked to poverty reduction.	Yes	No, as Belgium has no sector, thematic or country envelopes.
Canada	Biodiversity is part of Canada’s climate change policy and Global Affairs Canada’s Environmental Integration Process.	Yes	Doubling of international climate finance commitment to CAD 5.3 billion over 2021-26, including a commitment to dedicate 20% of this funding to projects that leverage nature-based climate solutions and projects with biodiversity co-benefits. Canada will provide a new contribution of CAD 350 million to support developing countries – home to the vast majority of the world’s biodiversity – to advance conservation efforts.
Czech Republic	The Development Co-operation Strategy (2018-30) includes biodiversity as a cross-cutting priority.	No	No
Denmark	Denmark’s Strategy for Development Cooperation 2021-25 refers to biodiversity as a key priority and aims to promote nature-based solutions.	Yes	The Danish government has decided that 30% of its ODA will be allocated to green initiatives, of which 5% will go to biodiversity and the environment.
European Union	Biodiversity is part of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy 2030, with implications for biodiversity-related development co-operation. In addition, biodiversity is part of other frameworks and mainstreamed across development co-operation, e.g. the Neighbourhood, Development and International Co-operation Instrument (2021-27), and the Biodiversity for Life Initiative.	Yes	The EU is doubling its ODA funding and has pledged EUR 7 billion for biodiversity over 2021-27, especially for the most vulnerable countries.
Finland	The Report on Development Policy across Parliamentary Terms includes “climate change, biodiversity and the sustainable management and use of natural resources:” as one of five priority thematic areas.	No	No commitment, but an acknowledgment of the need to do more for biodiversity in the future.
France	AFD’s Strategy for Territorial and Ecological Transition for 2020-24 includes a Biodiversity Roadmap 2019-22. In addition, the French Global Environment Facility supports climate, environment and biodiversity projects in developing countries.	Yes	France announced it would double its bilateral ODA funding for biodiversity to reach EUR 1 billion per year by 2025, and to dedicate 30% of its climate-related development finance to be nature positive.
Germany	Biodiversity is a priority as well as a cross-cutting issue in Germany’s Development Co-operation, according to its Strategic Plan 2011-20. Germany’s International Climate Initiative also aims, inter alia, at finding comprehensive solutions for climate change and biodiversity loss; while GIZ and KfW also have integrated biodiversity into their frameworks.	Yes	Germany will increase its biodiversity funding to EUR 1.5 billion by 2025, as part of the increase of its international climate budget to 6 billion euro annually by 2025 at the latest.
Greece	Greece’s National Biodiversity Strategy (2014-29) includes development co-operation. Biodiversity is also part of other frameworks, e.g. Greece’s National Adaptation Strategy (2016), which refers to ecosystem-based adaptation.	Yes	No
Hungary	Hungary’s International Development Cooperation Strategy for 2020-25 mentions environmental and climate action (but not biodiversity).	No	No
Iceland	Iceland´s Policy for International Development Cooperation 2019-23 defines the environment as both a specific and cross-cutting issue (but does not mention biodiversity).	No	No
Ireland	Ireland’s National Biodiversity Action Plan notes that biodiversity will be a component of Ireland's development co-operation programme; and that support to, and co-operation with, developing countries will take into account biological diversity and the CBD objectives.	No	No, but Ireland's climate target (of spending at least EUR 225 million by 2025) is likely to include consideration of biodiversity co-benefits and potential opportunities for increasing funding to biodiversity through bilateral and multilateral channels.
Italy	Italy’s triennium development programme 2021-23 includes biodiversity, while Italy’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme also refers to nature-based solutions.	Yes	No
Japan	JICA's climate change co-operation strategy highlights the importance of enhancing conservation and the management of forests and other ecosystems. JICA also highlights ecosystem-based disaster risk resilience in the Strategic Plan 2014-20, under the Nature Conservation Sector. Finally, the Japan Biodiversity Fund supports the implementation of NBSAPs and other capacity development activities in the area of biodiversity.	Yes	Japan has pledged JPY 71.4 billion to the GEF 8 and JPY 1.8 billion to the second phase of the Japan Biodiversity Fund. Furthermore, Japan will pledge JPY 117 billion for biodiversity over fiscal year 2023 to 2025. Concerning global forestry conservation, Japan will provide financial assistance worth approximately USD 240 million, utilising advanced technologies and working in collaboration with the international organisations.
Korea	Korea’s Green New Deal ODA Strategy, Post-COVID-19 Strategy and Green Economic Development Cooperation Fund Strategy all emphasise biodiversity and co-ordination across issues, including climate change.	Yes	Korea is committed to raising the share of its ODA for green activities above the average of DAC countries by 2025. As for loans, Korea will triple the amount of its loans for green projects by 2025 and double the share of green loans by 2025.
Luxembourg	Luxembourg’s Nature Protection National Plan (2022-30) includes a strategy for biodiversity-related international collaboration (2022-26). Luxembourg’s General Co-operation Strategy, its Environment and Climate Change Strategy, and the International Climate Finance Strategy (2021-25), as a key pillar and through nature-based solutions.	Yes	Luxembourg will double international finance investments for biodiversity by 2026.
The Netherlands	The Netherlands’ policy for Foreign Trade and International Co-operation, adopted in 2018, addresses the integration of gender and biodiversity considerations in activities focused on climate, water and food security.	Yes	In line with the 50% increase of its annual contribution to GEF-8, the Netherlands announced its commitment to increase its total biodiversity-related development finance by 50% in 2025, resulting in a target of EUR 150 million for 2025.
New Zealand	New Zealand’s Strategic Intentions (2020–24) refer to promoting the GBF and marine biodiversity.	Yes	No
Norway	Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative aims at the reduction and reversal of tropical forest loss to enable a stable climate, preserve biodiversity and achieve sustainable development.	Yes	Norway currently provides NOK 3.5 bn annually in development assistance through our international forest and climate initiative. Norway will significantly increase its nature finance from all sources towards 2025.
Poland	The Polish Multi-annual Development Co-operation Programme (2021-30) and the Polish Multilateral Development Co-operation Programme (2021-30) both mention biodiversity and its links with climate change.	Yes	No
Portugal	Portugal’s National Strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity 2030 includes a development co-operation component. The new Strategy for Development Co-operation (2021-30) also includes priorities on biodiversity and makes biodiversity a key cross-cutting issue.	Yes	No
Slovak Republic	The Slovak Development Co-operation Strategy has a cross-cutting theme on the “Environment and climate change” and which includes the sustainable use of natural resources, reversing land degradation and desertification, halting biodiversity loss, protection and restoring ecosystems and their services, and the rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems.	No	No
Slovenia	The thematic priorities of Slovenia’s development co-operation include combating climate change, particularly through the sustainable management of natural and energy resources.	Yes	No
Spain	Spain’s External Action Strategy (2021-24) highlights biodiversity and the Spanish International Development Co-operation Agency’s Action Plan 2021 launched an Ecological Transition Fund to centralise Spain’s efforts around environmental sustainability.	Yes	Spain intends to double its international funding for biodiversity, aiming to dedicate at least EUR 550 million of its ODA for biodiversity over the period 2021-2025.
Sweden	The Swedish International Development Agency’s Environmental Policy (2020) includes integrating biodiversity throughout all its activities, e.g. through the multilateral system, funding of bilateral partners, and financing of organisations. In 2021, a Special Government Assignment on Biodiversity and Ecosystems aims at strengthening and deepening the work related to biodiversity and ecosystems throughout the agency (2020-23).	Yes	No, but increased financing in 2022 and beyond is expected for biodiversity.
Switzerland	Switzerland's International Cooperation Strategy 2021–24 highlights biodiversity action. At the operational level, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation considers biodiversity as a cross-cutting issue.	Yes, notably ecosystem-based adaptation and eco-DRR.	No
United Kingdom	The UK's International Development Strategy prioritises work on climate change and nature, putting it at the heart of its international development offer. The Strategy also commits to take steps to ensure UK bilateral ODA becomes 'nature positive', aligning with the international goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and the Global Biodiversity Framework.	Yes	The UK will spend at least GBP 3 billion over 2021/22 to 2025/26 on climate change solutions that protect, restore, and sustainably manage nature.
United States	USAID’s Biodiversity Policy guides the agency’s work in this area; while biodiversity is mainstreamed across other areas, notably climate change work, including through the agency’s Climate Strategy (2022-30) and the Environment and Natural Resources Management Framework.	Yes	The United States has pledged USD 600.8 million to GEF-8. No global commitment, but new activities announced in this area, e.g. a programme to address the drivers of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the Pacific Islands region and a new Sustainable Fish Asia project.

Source: (OECD, 2021[51]; Kingdom of Belgium, 2022[53]; Government of Canada, n.d.[54]; Government of Canada, n.d.[55]; Government of Canada, n.d.[56]; European Union, 2021[57]; European Commission, 2022[58]; BMZ, 2022[59]; BMZ, 2021[60]; BMZ, 2021[61]) (BMZ and BMU, 2018[62]; Berghöfer et al., 2017[35]; Sida, 2021[52]; UK Government, 2021[63]; COP26 Presidency, 2021[64]; UK Government, 2022[65]; USAID, 2022[66]; AECID, 2022[67]; AECID, 2021[68]; Gobierno de España, 2021[69]) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2021[70]; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, n.d.[71]; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2021[72]; Finnish Government, 2021[73]; AFD, n.d.[74]; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2020[75]; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019[76]; Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, 2017[77]; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2021[78]; Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, 2021[79]) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy, 2021[80]; Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, 2019[81]; Republic of Slovenia, n.d.[82]; JICA, n.d.[83]; JICA, 2021[84]; JICA, 2014[85]; Government of Portugal, 2022[86]; Gilbert, 2022[87]; Luxembourg, 2022[88]; Joint Donor Statement, 2022[89]) (Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie, Mobilität, Innovation und Technologie, 2022[90]).

As regards biodiversity-climate links, biodiversity objectives are part of all DAC members’ climate change and environment strategies or action plans, in one way or another. For instance, the UK’s International Development Strategy prioritises work on climate change and nature, putting it at the heart of its international development offer. The UK 2030 Strategic Framework on International Climate and Nature Action will further define the UK Government’s vision and long-term role on these issues (UK Government, 2022[65]). Canada also recognises that urgent action is needed to address the interconnected crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, which disproportionally affect the poorest and most vulnerable, and intends to increase supporting nature-based solutions to climate change and to support sustainable development objectives more broadly (OECD, 2021[51]). Norway has also been integrating biodiversity as a key component of its REDD+ programme from the start in 2008, becoming one of the three overall goals in the revised strategy of 2019. At the same time, the growing interest among donors has yet to be matched with concrete action, practical tools or training, including in mobilising resources at scale through nature-based solutions. Moreover, caution will be needed to ensure that the increasing interest in nature-based solutions does not end up “climatising” the biodiversity agenda (see Box 3.1 in Chapter 3), thus diverting attention away from broader biodiversity values (Parrotta et al., 2022[91]).

Finally, 10 DAC members (e.g. Canada, Denmark, EU, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom) have put forward biodiversity-related development finance pledges to support developing countries in their action on biodiversity and in the implementation of the GBF Table 4.2, in line with CBD Article 20 on Financial Resources (CBD, 2006[92]), as well as previous UNFCCC COP26 announcements made to implement the Paris Agreement on climate change (COP26 Presidency, 2021[64]) including USD 1.7 billion, from 2021 to 2025, to secure forest tenure rights and the role as guardians of nature of IPLC’s and other forest dependent communities (COP26 Presidency, 2021[93]) In addition, four DAC members have announced synergistic pledges for climate and biodiversity, notably emphasising the role of nature-based solutions (e.g. Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom).

Furthermore, at CBD COP15, 14 DAC members issued a Joint Donor Statement on International Finance for Biodiversity and Nature (Joint Donor Statement, 2022[89]). The Statement notes these members’ intention to continue to collectively increase international biodiversity finance (and includes a number of pledges as in Table 4.2, as well as contributions to the GEF) and align relevant international development flows, commensurate with the ambition of the GBF. The Statement is in part a response to the 10 Point Plan for Financing Biodiversity, an initiative launched by Ecuador, Gabon, the Maldives and the UK to provide a blueprint for bridging the current biodiversity financing gap (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2022[94]) and which also specifies the role donor finance must play and has also been endorsed by 10 DAC members.

Further work would be needed to understand how DAC members use safeguards or Strategic Environmental Assessments in their work, and how they mainstream biodiversity across their portfolios, as well as to review how DAC members are structured to deliver on these frameworks and their commitments, including the Joint Donor Statement and the DAC Declaration, more generally. While there are indications that members with large impacts on biodiversity tended to have high positive contributions to conservation through funding, there is room for members to be more ambitious and to improve their budget allocation processes based on their negative impacts on biodiversity (Tomoi et al., 2022[95]). Moreover, as DAC members seek to mainstream biodiversity into their development co-operation strategies, additional attention should be taken to assess whether further mainstreaming can be positively derived from and linked to more funding.

Beyond the DAC, other donors and South-South and triangular co-operation providers also have a role to consider biodiversity in their development activities as well as how to align such co-operation with the recently adopted GBF. Since the CBD was agreed in 1992, 11 countries moved from a low- or middle-income group to a high-income group, according to the World Bank classification. While this classification includes DAC members such as Greece, Portugal, Poland or Korea – it also includes other providers such as Chile, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates. Further, another 24 countries moved from a low-income group to a middle-income group over that same period, including China, Peru or Turkey, all of which have development or South-South Co-operation programmes. While national capabilities need to be considered, halting biodiversity loss will require the contribution from these other countries (Tomoi et al., 2022[95]), which could use the OECD database to report or enhance their reporting (e.g. using the Rio markers).

Support to biodiversity can be systemic and coherent

ODF can be used to support developing countries in aligning incentives and finance towards biodiversity-related goals and objectives. Moreover, development finance providers can support partner countries to scale up the use and ambition of economic instruments (i.e. positive incentives) that promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. These instruments (including biodiversity-relevant taxes, fees and charges, tradable permits, biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, with environmental and social safeguards (CBD, 2022[96])) serve to reflect the true value of biodiversity in economic decision making, provide continuous incentives for more environmentally-sustainable patterns and are able to generate revenue or mobilise finance for biodiversity (OECD, 2021[97]). Failure to address biodiversity from a systemic, whole-of-government perspective could significantly undermine developing countries’ efforts to implement their biodiversity objectives, as well as sustainable development at national and global levels.

It is of high priority to identify and reform potentially environmentally harmful support across a range of sectors, including development co-operation for energy, agriculture and fisheries, averting the most detrimental and market distorting types of support, so that government-funded actions to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity are not undermined by government incentives that lead to environmentally harmful activities. Global government support that is potentially harmful to biodiversity is estimated to be at least USD 800 billion annually, including fossil fuels (OECD, 2021[10]).

Multilateral institutions can do more to embed nature into their analysis, policy dialogue and operations

Momentum is building for further multilateral action on biodiversity in the future. Collectively, multilateral development banks issued a joint statement at COP26 on Nature, People and Planet (Box 4.3). As noted, a core commitment of the Statement is to create institutional strategies to mainstream nature and biodiversity across MDB investments, operations, and advisory services. Some MDBs have taken steps to flesh out nature-based solutions in their operations (Finance for Biodiversity Initiative, 2021[98]). For example, the Asian Development Bank (AsDB) has developed internal guidance as part of a larger, systematic and operational commitment to scaling up nature-based solutions (Matthews and Ocampo Dela Cruz, 2022[99]). It is rolling out these solutions within its disaster risk and climate adaptation investment programmes in the water, urban infrastructure and transport sectors. Other multilaterals are reviewing their policies to ensure they are aligned with nature. For example, the Inter-American Development Bank mainstreams nature and biodiversity considerations into its Country Strategies, which help define development and investment priorities for four-to-five year periods (IDB, n.d.[100]); while the Bank creates an institution-wide plan to mainstream natural capital and biodiversity. The African Development Bank has also published a report that explores ways to mobilise finance for African countries effectively, while advancing climate and nature goals to support Africa’s “nature-positive development agenda” (AfDB, 2022[101]). Finally, MDBs are setting targets on biodiversity and nature (WWF and The Biodiversity Consultancy, 2021[102]; Multilateral Development Banks, 2021[103]). For example, the Inter-American Development Bank has set a 40% target for climate and green finance for 2025 (IDB, 2022[104]); and the EBRD a green finance target ratio of 50% by 2025 (EBRD, 2020[105]; EBRD, 2020[106]).

Multilateral institutions are also assessing the extent to which their finance has been promoting biodiversity objectives. For instance, IFAD has conducted a stocktake of recent projects to understand the impact on biodiversity of its funding. Out of 66 projects surveyed, one-third were directly relevant to biodiversity, while another 40% had at least some activities linked to biodiversity (IFAD, 2021[107]).

Box 4.3. The Joint Statement on Nature, People and Planet commits multilateral development banks to greater action

Multilateral development banks committed at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) to mainstream nature further into policies, analysis, assessments, advice, investments, and operations, in line with their mandates and operating models (Multilateral Development Banks, 2021[103]). They committed to do this through:

1. Greater leadership.

2. Tackling the drivers of nature loss by fostering and making “nature positive” investments and greening finance.

3. Fostering national and regional synergies.

4. Looking for opportunities to step up nature financing and to mobilise or leverage private finance for investments in nature, including nature-based solutions for mitigation and adaptation with co-benefits for nature and people; support countries and the private sector to identify and access appropriate forms of finance from multilateral climate and environment funds; and leverage additional ordinary capital and private sector finance for nature-positive investments.

5. Valuing nature to guide decision making.

6. Enhancing public reporting on efforts and initiatives to mainstream nature in analysis and operations.

Several initiatives have evolved to support the delivery of the Joint Nature Statement. For example, the creation of a MDB Biodiversity and Nature Working Group was announced at COP27 (EIB, 2022[108]) to step up action on protecting nature and reversing biodiversity loss, as well as discussions to develop a joint methodology for tracking and reporting ‘nature positive’ investments in line with the new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) (IISD, 2022[109]). In addition, during COP15, MDBs have also communicated individual commitments to further support the implementation of the GBF. In particular, the Inter-American Development Bank has committed to increase nature positive finance and to set a green finance target (IADB, 2022[110]), while the EIB has committed to align its operations with the goals of the GBF, scale up nature positive investments, and announce concrete initiatives, programmes and partnerships with commitments to supporting biodiversity investments and/or biodiversity co-benefits (EIB, 2022[111]).

All multilateral institutions also have safeguards to ensure no harm is done to biodiversity through their operations. Institutions such as the World Bank, the EBRD and the GCF have adopted International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards, or else developed their own standards based on them (Rode et al., 2019[112]). These standards provide detailed guidance on avoiding or reducing adverse impacts on biodiversity and living natural resources. Yet, while that IFC Performance Standards sets the global standard, there is limited evidence on how institutions implement it. For example, research has shown that safeguards often take the form of a checklist to prevent detrimental actions, rather than to help uncover nature-related risks in institutions’ portfolios, including impacts and dependencies on nature (WWF and The Biodiversity Consultancy, 2021[102]). Moreover, they do not systematically collect information on the implementation of required offsets. Reviews also conclude that institutions could make greater use of strategic environmental assessments and apply integrated spatial planning (CBD, 2020[50]).

Despite the progress outlined in this report, there are growing calls for multilateral institutions to review their mandates, capitalisation and governance so they can protect nature further, fulfil their core purpose of sustainable development (Finance for Biodiversity Initiative, 2021[98]), and align with the goals of the CBD (CBD, 2020[50]; Finance Watch, 2019[113]). Multilateral institutions could look at further mainstreaming biodiversity into their overall strategies, by “embedding nature into their analysis, policy dialogue and operations”, as recommended by the G7 (G7 2030 Nature Compact, 2021[114]). Implementing such changes needs to build upon the added value of multilateral donors – yet progress is partially hampered by the limited information on multilateral donor biodiversity-related ODF volumes, trends and priorities. Multilateral institutions could also do more to mobilise private finance for biodiversity. For example, they could boost the pipeline of investment opportunities for nature in credit market segments in which commercial banks are not fully engaged, as well as mainstreaming biodiversity into risk assessments of private sector actors (CBD, 2020[50]). In this regard, the World Bank Group’s Mobilizing Private Finance for Nature report notes how MDBs are in a position to create new mechanisms for biodiversity finance, promote blended finance solutions for biodiversity and develop accountability and reporting standards for biodiversity (World Bank Group, 2020[115]).

The resource mobilisation strategy for the GBF calls for a reform of multilateral development banks and international finance institutions, including investment banks, to make them fit for purpose in supporting implementation of the Framework (CBD, 2022[33]). In that sense, the strategy also calls for these organisations to identify and report investments in their portfolio that contribute to achieving the objectives of the Convention, and the goals and targets of the GBF, taking into account relevant international guidance and good international practice, among other elements (i.e. aligning their portfolios and flows with the GBF, simplifying access to finance, increasing biodiversity-related funding).

Efforts to engage the private sector in conserving and sustainably using nature are still insufficient

The international community aims to increase the mobilisation of private finance through official interventions (CBD, 2020[2]; Berghöfer et al., 2017[35]) – although such approaches may also have limits (Finance Watch, 2019[113]) and there are concerns about the ‘financialisation’ or ‘commodification’ of the biodiversity agenda (Rode et al., 2019[112]).

Through the use of the approaches described in Chapter 1 (“The private sector could become a vital source”), blending public and private finance can be used, for example, to finance small-scale conservation or restoration projects that may not be readily profitable, as well as larger or more bankable projects that need to be scaled up. For example, the recently created Land Degradation Fund was initiated by the UNCCD and Mirova, a management company that offers sustainable investment solutions to its clients, to invest in sustainable agriculture, forestry, infrastructure and ecotourism (UNCCD, 2022[116]). Mirova’s Sustainable Ocean Fund includes EIB, IADB and USAID, and uses a public guarantee to secure substantial commitments of private capital for biodiversity conservation. Another example is the Collaborative Management Partnerships approach (Box 4.4), as well as the Global Fund for Coral Reefs (GFCR, n.d.[117]), the Global Fund for Coral Reefs Investment Window (GCF, n.d.[118]) and the Coalition of Private Investment in Conservation (CPIC, 2023[119]).

Box 4.4. The World Bank’s Collaborative Management Partnerships

Collaborative Management Partnerships (CMPs) are a type of public-private partnership used in the conservation sector to improve protected area management, in addition to facilitating inclusive rural development and green growth. They involve a protected area authority (government, private, community) entering a contractual arrangement with a partner (private or NGO) for the management of a protected area. Through this public-private partnership, the protected area authority devolves certain management responsibilities – and in most cases funding obligations – to the partner. Funding from CMPs comes from bilateral and multilateral donors, private foundations, lotteries, foundations associated with zoos, philanthropists and individual donors, and the private sector through corporate foundations and corporate social responsibility programmes.

The development or improvement of a governance structure as part of the CMP creates additional oversight and a layer of accountability that provides assurance to donors about proper budget management. Some donors increasingly require a CMP to be in place before providing funding for protected area management. In Africa, 15 governments have established 40 co-management and delegated CMPs with 13 NGOs, covering approximately 11.5% of Africa’s protected areas. An analysis of these 40 CMPs shows that they help fund protected area management, enabling the delivery of positive conservation, social, and economic outcomes. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, the CMPs documented successfully maintained operations, did not reduce staff or salaries, and in most cases, provided additional support to help communities withstand the impact of the pandemic. For CMPs to succeed, they require sustained political commitment, long-term financial resources, effective local engagement, and an enabling environment that supports a transparent and clear process for establishing the partnerships.

Source: World Bank Group (2021[22]), Collaborative Management Partnership Toolkit. A resource guide to support partnerships that conserve protected areas and promote sustainable and inclusive development, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/a1cd419e5367b17b8598269b796a585d-0320052021/original/GWP-Collaborative-Management-Partnerships-Toolkit-low-res.pdf.

However, significant challenges to scaling up private finance remain. Attracting private capital into biodiversity requires breaking down investment barriers and originating bankable projects that create sustainable and inclusive opportunities for investors, both private and public (World Bank Group, 2020[115]; Rode et al., 2019[112]). These challenges have to do with the lack of understanding of the value of biodiversity (which leads to it being under priced) and the basic public good nature of biodiversity; in addition, they relate to the small scale and localised nature of biodiversity-related projects; lack of data, measurement, and reporting standards; the fact that these projects often involve no, or limited, cashflow; financial returns that tend to be below market terms (which means that pipelines of investment-grade projects and programmes are limited); as well as the lack of enforceable collateral in conservation projects (Rode et al., 2019[112]; Finance Watch, 2019[113]; FAO, 2022[120]). Not surprisingly, private capital has invested the least in SDGs 14 and 15 (Finance Watch, 2019[113]). A better understanding of the role of the private sector is needed so that it can contribute at scale, building on progress observed in other areas, such as climate change (Berghöfer et al., 2017[35]).

How do we know if biodiversity-related development finance is effective?

The focus on resource mobilisation for biodiversity, including from ODF, is occurring against a backdrop of rapid loss of biodiversity. Consequently, the pressure on biodiversity may also put pressure on ODF budgets, as a constant and growing flow of spending is needed to counterbalance biodiversity loss or to finance REDD+ schemes (Carrilho et al., 2022[121]; Parrotta et al., 2022[91]). This begs the question of whether and how to ensure that existing policy interventions, including those supported by ODF, are effective at ensuring the necessary protection of biodiversity, so that future ODF can help alleviate the pressure placed on biodiversity elsewhere. Yet, there is a lack of shared learning on the effectiveness of biodiversity approaches that also limits the sustainability of efforts (Santy et al., 2022[122]).

Effectiveness assessments measure the extent to which a development co-operation activity achieves (or is likely to achieve) its objectives. As in other areas of development co-operation, assessing the effectiveness of biodiversity ODF is faced with several methodological and practical challenges (Drutschinin et al., 2015[123]). Currently, as with most interventions targeting environmental change, the link between ODF and changes in the status of biodiversity are difficult to establish, mainly given by the complex functioning of ecosystems, the many factors influencing its status, the time lag before changes in biodiversity are observed and measurable, the small proportion of ODF relative to other financial flows that impact upon biodiversity (Richerzhagen, Rodríguez and Stepping, 2016[124]), as well as effectiveness being measured at broader levels of ODA committed (e.g. effect measured at project/programme level instead of by objective). In addition, ODF financial inputs would need to be related to indicators that measure biodiversity aspects at a country level in a consistent and comparative way – yet these are difficult to obtain or, at best, partial (Richerzhagen, Rodríguez and Stepping, 2016[124]).

As a result, the literature has not yet reached conclusions on what constitutes effective development co-operation in biodiversity (Law, 2016[125]; Stepping and Meijer, 2018[126]). While (Bare, Kauffman and Miller, 2015[127]) find higher rates of forest loss correlated with aid, others such as (Waldron et al., 2017[128]) find that biodiversity-related funding ODA reduces biodiversity loss by 29% on average. Other studies also find positive outcomes linked to biodiversity-related ODF (Lee et al., 2022[129]; IFAD, 2021[107]), although the long-term impact of ODF on conservation, as well as the socio-economic impacts of this financing, is not well understood (Drutschinin and Ockenden, 2015[130]; Drutschinin et al., 2015[123]; Dufief et al., 2022[6]; OECD, 2019[131]; Erbaugh, 2022[132]). Biodiversity-related ODF may have positive impacts at a project level (Dublin, Volonte and Brann, 2004[133]), but this impact may get lost when one measures overall country-level biodiversity trends (Morrison-Métois and Lundgren, 2016[134]), especially when mediating factors, such as governance and institutional capacity, are deficient or missing (Bare, Kauffman and Miller, 2015[135]; Moreira-Dantas and Söder, 2022[136]). In addition, many activities are not designed with sufficient time scales to have an impact: some suggest that 5 to 20 years are needed for finance to have an impact (Richerzhagen, Rodríguez and Stepping, 2016[124]). Austria’s engagement in Moldova is a good example of effective long-term donor engagement for biodiversity (Box 4.5), as well as Norway’s EAF-Nansen programme supporting the application of ecosystem approaches to fisheries management while considering climate change and environmental pollution (FAO, 2018[137]) and Norway’s ongoing REDD+ programme to strengthen global forest governance while reduce illegality in the forest sector (Norad, n.d.[138]).

Box 4.5. Austria’s long-term engagement in Moldova has been beneficial for biodiversity conservation

Austria’s Development Agency has been supporting the establishment of a protected area in the Lower Dniester Ramsar Site in Moldova for over a decade. The agency worked with two local NGOs and with local authorities to develop the legislative package to set up this protected area (Ministerul Mediului Al Republicii Moldova, 2022[139]), which was approved after 20 years of political and administrative stalemate. The fact that the legislation did not slide off the agenda over this period displayed Moldova’s ownership of the issue (Biotica Ecological Society, n.d.[140]). This outcome was helped by Austria’s long-term commitment, its focus on working through local partners (which helped with awareness raising on the importance of healthy ecosystems and their services, institutional capacity development, or to mobilise local partners and decision-makers), and its delivery of several consecutive projects aiming at sustainable water management, biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation in the region.

Above these biodiversity-specific factors, the principles of effective development co-operation are also relevant to the biodiversity field and should guide DAC donors’ development co-operation practice. These principles include country ownership, a focus on results, inclusive partnerships and transparency and mutual accountability (GPEDC, n.d.[141]). For example, donor contributions in a given partner country ought to be co-ordinated, in as far as possible, to ensure that international development finance intended for biodiversity is targeted strategically, seeking to achieve complementary synergies across donor contributions to achieve biodiversity-positive outcomes (CBD, 2020[50]). However, research shows that (as in other areas of development co-operation) biodiversity-related action tends to be uncoordinated, or at best is country-specific or occurs through bilateral meetings among donors (Hoover El Rashidy, 2021[142]), which limits ownership and thus impacts on the success of these activities to address biodiversity loss (Berghöfer et al., 2017[35]; Milner-Gulland et al., 2021[4]). Research also shows that the engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in biodiversity-related action also tends to be overlooked (Milner-Gulland et al., 2021[4]), again with impacts on the long-term effectiveness of biodiversity-related ODF.

References

[67] AECID (2022), La AECID financiará con 9 millones de euros 30 intervenciones para impulsar la igualdad de género, la sostenibilidad ambiental y la reducción de la brecha digital en educación en países socios de la Cooperación Española, https://www.aecid.es/ES/Paginas/Sala%20de%20Prensa/Noticias/2022/2022_04/Ellas-FontecE-duca.aspx.

[68] AECID (2021), Plan de Acción AECID 2021, la transición hacia el nuevo sistema de la Cooperación Española, https://www.aecid.es/ES/Paginas/Sala%20de%20Prensa/Noticias/2021/2021_04/plandeacci%C3%B3naecid2021.aspx.

[144] AFD (2020), Territorial and Ecological Transition 2020-2024 Strategy, https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/territorial-and-ecological-transition-2020-2024-strategy.

[74] AFD (n.d.), Biodiversity, https://www.afd.fr/en/page-thematique-axe/biodiversity.

[101] AfDB (2022), Debt-for-Nature-Swaps: Feasibility and Policy Significance in Africa’s Natural Resources Sector, https://d1bf23g64f8xve.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/debt-for-nature-swaps.pdf.

[127] Bare, M., C. Kauffman and D. Miller (2015), “Assessing the impact of international conservation aid on deforestation in sub Saharan Africa”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10/12, p. 125010, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125010.

[135] Bare, M., C. Kauffman and D. Miller (2015), “Assessing the impact of international conservation aid on deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10/12, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125010/meta.

[35] Berghöfer, A. et al. (2017), Sustainable financing for biodiversity conservation – a review of experiences in German development cooperation, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/168029/1/896004457.pdf.

[140] Biotica Ecological Society (n.d.), Guardians Of Moldovan Nature: Enforcing The Rights Of The Communities On Both Banks Of The Dnieste, https://www.bioticamoldova.org/project/1.

[59] BMZ (2022), German Development Minister Schulze commits 100 million euros for the world’s most valuable protected areas, https://www.bmz.de/en/news/press-releases/schulze-commits-100-millionen-euros-for-protected-areas-109296.

[60] BMZ (2021), Biological diversity - our common responsibility, https://www.international-climate-initiative.com/legacy/Dokumente/2021/20211014_Factsheet_Committed-Brochure_EN.pdf.

[61] BMZ (2021), Responsibility for Our Planet – Climate and Energy, https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/97122/e9238c4d429fb9c7074c83f85aa3dfb3/bmz-core-area-strategy-climate-and-energy-data.pdf.

[143] BMZ (n.d.), Biodiversität erhalten – Überleben sichern, https://www.bmz.de/de/entwicklungspolitik/biodiversitaet#/en.

[62] BMZ and BMU (2018), Committed to Biodiversity. Germany’s Cooperation with Developing Countries and Emerging Economies in Support of the Convention on Biological Diversity for Sustainable Development, https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/23644/2c0436d6d429bda8c0f3084bddf58a61/materialie238-biodiversity-data.pdf.

[13] Börner, J. et al. (2020), “The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs”, Annual Review of Resource Economics, Vol. 12/1, pp. 45-64, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703.

[90] Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie, Mobilität, Innovation und Technologie (2022), Biodiversitäts-Strategie Österreich 2030+, https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmk.gv.at%2Fthemen%2Fklima_umwelt%2Fnaturschutz%2Fbiol_vielfalt%2Fbiodiversitaetsstrategie_2030.html&data=05%7C01%7CJuan.CASADOASENSIO%40oecd.org%7C1af133e1d2494b777ef408daf30441e8%7Cac.

[121] Carrilho, C. et al. (2022), “Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil)”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107568.

[96] CBD (2022), Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf.

[31] CBD (2022), Report of the Full Assessment of Funds needed for the Implementation of the Convention and its Protocols during the 8th Replenishment Period of the Global Environment Facility (July 2022 to June 2026), https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/6741/7fe5/780f6a856bcf9bc7ad3e65d5/sbi-03-06-add2-rev1-en.pdf.

[33] CBD (2022), Resource Mobilization, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/22fb/be2c/02e31154c4d4429de03caefe/cop-15-l-29-en.pdf.

[32] CBD (2021), Estimation of resources needed for implementing the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Second report of the Panel of Experts on Resource Mobilization: Final Report, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/b858/143f/c58220e9a61c4b5fc2dfeed3/sbi-03-05-add2-rev1-en.pdf.

[50] CBD (2020), Contribution to a draft resource mobilization component of the post-2020 biodiversity framework as a follow-up to the current strategy for resource mobilization. Third report of the panel of experts on resource mobilization., https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/5c03/865b/7332bd747198f8256e9e555b/sbi-03-05-add3-en.pdf.

[2] CBD (2020), Evaluation and review of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization and Aichi Biodiversity Target 20. Summary of the first report of the Panel of Experts on Resource Mobilization., https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/4c88/dbb1/e264eaae72b86747416e0d8c/sbi-03-05-add1-en.pdf.

[92] CBD (2006), Article 20. Financial Resources, https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-20.

[14] CIFOR (2021), Global Comparative Study on REDD+ Phase 4. Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights, https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/flyer/GCS-Phase4-Flyer.pdf.

[93] COP26 Presidency (2021), COP26 IPLC forest tenure joint donor statement, https://ukcop26.org/cop26-iplc-forest-tenure-joint-donor-statement/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[64] COP26 Presidency (2021), COP26 Presidency compilation of 2021-2025 climate finance commitments, https://ukcop26.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/Table-of-climate-finance-commitments-November-2021.pdf.

[119] CPIC (2023), Coalition for Private Investment in Conservation, http://cpicfinance.com/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[94] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2022), The 10 Point Plan for financing biodiversity, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-vision-the-10-point-plan-for-financing-biodiversity/the-10-point-plan-for-financing-biodiversity.

[77] Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (2017), National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2021, https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/National%20Biodiversity%20Action%20Plan%20English.pdf.

[79] Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2021), National Development Plan 2021-2030, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/774e2-national-development-plan-2021-2030/.

[20] Deutz, A. et al. (2020), Financing Nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap, https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FINANCING-NATURE_Full-Report_Final-with-endorsements_101420.pdf.

[8] Djomo Nana, E. et al. (2022), “Putting conservation efforts in Central Africa on the right track for interventions that last”, Conservation Letters, https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12913.

[123] Drutschinin, A. et al. (2015), “Biodiversity and development co-operation”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, Vol. 21, https://doi.org/10.1787/5js1sqkvts0v-en.

[130] Drutschinin, A. and S. Ockenden (2015), Financing for Development in Support of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, http://oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5js03h0nwxmq-en.pdf?expires=1638122323&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=88ACD466E11E82205B78808A347A2EDF.

[133] Dublin, H., C. Volonte and J. Brann (2004), GEF Biodiversity Program Study.

[17] Duchelle, A. et al. (2017), “Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: implications for social safeguards”, Ecology and Society 22, Vol. 22/3, https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss3/art2/.

[6] Dufief, E. et al. (2022), Towards a European leadership on biodiversity for development, https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/PDF/Publications/Catalogue%20Iddri/Autre%20Publication/202204_NOTE%20financing%20bioversity%20EU_0.pdf.

[105] EBRD (2020), EBRD to aim for a majority of green investments by 2025, https://www.ebrd.com/news/2020/ebrd-to-aim-for-a-majority-of-green-investments-by-2025-.html.

[106] EBRD (2020), What is the EBRD’s Green Economy Transition approach?, https://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/get.html.

[111] EIB (2022), Financing nature and biodiversity, https://www.eib.org/en/stories/nature-biodiversity-finance (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[108] EIB (2022), MDBs are stepping up action on protecting nature and reversing biodiversity loss, https://www.eib.org/en/press/speeches/cop27-hoyer-joint-mdb-statement-nature (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[132] Erbaugh, J. (2022), “Impermanence and failure: the legacy of conservation-based payments in Sumatra, Indonesia”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 17/5, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6437.

[58] European Commission (2022), Statement of Estimates of the European Commission. Preparation of the 2023 draft budget, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/about_the_european_commission/eu_budget/wd_0_final_web_v4_kvao22002enn.pdf.

[57] European Union (2021), 2021 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_21_4701.

[120] FAO (2022), The State of the World’s Forests 2022. Forest pathways for green recovery and building inclusive, resilient and sustainable economies, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9360en.

[137] FAO (2018), The EAF-Nansen Programme (2017-2021): Supporting the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management considering Climate and Pollution Impacts, https://www.fao.org/publications/card/fr/c/I9543EN/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[98] Finance for Biodiversity Initiative (2021), Aligning Development Finance with Nature’s Needs. Estimating the Nature-related Risks of Development Bank Investments, https://www.f4b-initiative.net/publications-1/aligning-development-finance-with-nature%E2%80%99s-needs%3A-estimating-the-nature-related-risks-of-development-bank-investments.

[113] Finance Watch (2019), Making Finance Serve Nature. From the niche of Conservation finance to the mainstreaming of Natural Capital approaches in financial systems. A Finance Watch report, https://www.finance-watch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Making-Finance-Serve-Nature_Finance-Watch-Report_24May2019_web.pdf.

[73] Finnish Government (2021), Development Policy Committee: Safeguarding biodiversity in development policy, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/development-policy-committee-safeguarding-biodiversity-in-development-policy.

[49] Förster, J. (2022), Linkages Between Biodiversity and Climate Change and the Role of Science-Policy Practice Interfaces for Ensuring Coherent Policies and Actions, https://www.adaptationcommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/02-thematic-paper-linkages-biodiv-climate-science-policy-practice-giz-iisd-ufz.pdf.

[114] G7 2030 Nature Compact (2021), G7 2030 Nature Compact, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50363/g7-2030-nature-compact-pdf-120kb-4-pages-1.pdf.

[118] GCF (n.d.), FP18: Global Fund for Coral Reefs Investment Window, https://globalfundcoralreefs.org/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[28] GEF (2022), GEF-8 PROGRAMMING DIRECTIONS, https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-04/GEF_R.08_29_Rev.01_GEF8_Programming_Directions.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[29] GEF (2022), How the GEF is targeting biodiversity and habitat loss, https://www.thegef.org/newsroom/feature-stories/how-gef-targeting-biodiversity-and-habitat-loss.

[117] GFCR (n.d.), Global Fund for Coral Reefs, https://globalfundcoralreefs.org/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[87] Gilbert, N. (2022), “Troubled biodiversity plan gets billion-dollar funding boost. But urgent progress is needed to secure the global deal to save the environment.”, Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03047-2?WT.ec_id=NATURE-202209&sap-outbound-id=A24E83D347CCEAE5B53BF635CC5DDE3412108E7E.

[69] Gobierno de España (2021), Estrategia de Acción Exterior 2021-2024, https://www.exteriores.gob.es/es/Comunicacion/Noticias/Documents/ESTRATEGIA%20ACCION%20EXTERIOR%20ESP.pdf.

[54] Government of Canada (n.d.), Canada’s approach to international climate finance, https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/canada-international-action/climate-finance/approach.html.

[55] Government of Canada (n.d.), Canada’s climate finance for developing countries, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/climate-developing-countries-climatique-pays-developpement.aspx?lang=eng.

[56] Government of Canada (n.d.), Environmental Integration Process – Screening Tool, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/screening_tool-outil_examen_prealable.aspx?lang=eng.

[86] Government of Portugal (2022), A Estratégia da Cooperação Portuguesa 2030.

[141] GPEDC (n.d.), The Effectiveness Principles, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/landing-page/effectiveness-principles.

[142] Hoover El Rashidy, N. (2021), International Funding for Amazon Conservation and Sustainable Management. A Continued Analysis of Grant Funding across the Basin, https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/515541615843979595/International-Funding-for-Amazon-Conservation-and-Sustainable-Management-A-Continued-Analysis-of-Grant-Funding-Across-the-Basin.pdf.

[110] IADB (2022), IDB to Support the Region in Implementing the New Global Biodiversity Framework, https://www.iadb.org/en/news/idb-support-region-implementing-new-global-biodiversity-framework (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[104] IDB (2022), IDB Group Reaffirms Climate Leadership, Signs $50 Billion Accord with Other Institutions, https://www.iadb.org/en/news/idb-group-reaffirms-climate-leadership-signs-50-billion-accord-other-institutions#:~:text=The%20IDB's%20ambitious%20target%20of,leader%20among%20regional%20development%20banks.

[100] IDB (n.d.), Country Strategies, https://www.iadb.org/en/about-us/country-strategies?_gl=1*12ah0di*_ga*OTY0MjUxNzUuMTY3MzI1Njk0Ng..*_ga_9CQ7ER9V3F*MTY3MzI1Njk0Ni4xLjAuMTY3MzI1Njk0OC41OC4wLjA.

[107] IFAD (2021), The Biodiversity Advantage. Thriving with nature: biodiversity for sustainable livelihoods and food systems, https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/43873939/biodiversity_advantage_2021.pdf/73876231-652f-f55e-3286-eda9f89dcae1?t=1633526569762.

[40] IFC (2022), Green Bond Technical Assistance Program: Delivering Global Public Goods. Stimulating the Supply of Green Bonds in Emerging Markets, https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/a40d7cec-439b-4a4c-8eb5-3edab24c0836/13520+IFC+GB-TAP+Brochure+%28final%29.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=nudEjo8.

[30] IISD (2022), Global Environment Facility (GEF)-8 Support to the Global Biodiversity Framework, https://enb.iisd.org/gef-cbd-cop15-16dec2022 (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[109] IISD (2022), The Role of the MDBs in Taking Forward the Global Biodiversity Framework: Following Up on the Joint MDB Nature Statement, https://enb.iisd.org/role-multilateral-development-banks-mdbs-global-biodiversity-framework (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[47] IMF (2022), Belize: Swapping Debt for Nature, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/05/03/CF-Belize-swapping-debt-for-nature.

[23] IPBES (2019), Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment.

[18] IPBES (2018), Summary for policy makers. of the IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/spm_africa_2018_digital.pdf.

[84] JICA (2021), Cooperation on Climate Change. Towards a sustainable and zero-carbon society, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/climate_change/c8h0vm00005rzelb-att/cooperation_01_en.pdf.

[85] JICA (2014), Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR). JICA’s Eco-DRR Cooperation in Developing Countries, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/disaster/c8h0vm0000bvqtv9-att/Ecosystem-basedDisasterRiskReduction.pdf.

[83] JICA (n.d.), Climate Change. JICA’s Cooperation Strategy, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/climate_change/strategy.html.

[89] Joint Donor Statement (2022), Joint Donor Statement on International Finance for Biodiversity and Nature, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Joint_Statement_on_Nature_Finance_Final_version_for_Publication.pdf.

[53] Kingdom of Belgium (2022), International cooperation for the protection of biological diversity and ecosystems, https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/policy-areas/striving-global-solidarity/environment/international-cooperation-protection-biological-diversity.

[125] Law, E. (2016), “Is international conservation aid enough?”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11/02, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/021001/pdf.

[129] Lee, C. et al. (2022), “The contribution of climate finance toward environmental sustainability: New global evidence”, Energy Economics, Vol. 111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106072.

[88] Luxembourg (2022), Plan National concernant la Protection de la Nature, Strategie 2022-2030, https://environnement.public.lu/content/dam/environnement/actualites/2022/10/pnpn3/20220909-pnpn3-strategie.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2022).

[99] Matthews, J. and E. Ocampo Dela Cruz (2022), Integrating Nature-based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management. A Practicioner’s Guide, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/801226/nature-based-solutions-cca-drm.pdf.

[11] Miller, D., A. Agrawal and J. Roberts (2013), “Biodiversity, Governance and the Allocation of International Aid for Conservation”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 6/1, pp. 12-20, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00270.x.

[4] Milner-Gulland, E. et al. (2021), “Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework”, One Earth, Vol. 4/1, pp. 75-87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.011.

[139] Ministerul Mediului Al Republicii Moldova (2022), Parcul național ”Nistrul de Jos” – vis realizat după 20 de ani, https://www.mediu.gov.md/ro/content/3853.

[76] Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019), Parliamentary Resolution on Iceland’s policy for international development cooperation for 2019-2023, https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-for-Foreign-Affairs/Int.-Dev.-Coop/Publications/Parliamentary%20Resolution%20on%20Iceland%e2%80%99s%20policy%20for%20international%20development%20cooperation.pdf.

[75] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2020), Strategy, https://nefe.kormany.hu/strategy.

[70] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (2021), Strategies and Priorities, https://um.dk/en/danida/strategies-and-priorities.

[72] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland (2021), Report on Development Policy Across Parliamentary Terms, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163218/VN_2021_29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

[71] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland (n.d.), Climate change and sustainable use of natural resources, https://um.fi/development-policy-climate-change-and-sustainable-use-of-natural-resources.

[80] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy (2021), International Development Cooperation. Three-year programming and policy planning document 2021 – 2023, https://www.esteri.it/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Programming-and-policy-planning-document-2021-2023.pdf.

[78] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2021), Prime Minister KISHIDA Fumio Attends the COP26 Summit Meeting, https://www.mofa.go.jp/ic/ch/page6e_000257.html.

[81] Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic (2019), Medium-Term Strategy for Development Cooperation of the Slovak Republic for 2019-2023, https://slovakaid.sk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/strednodoba_strategia_rozvojovej_spoluprace_eng_2019-2023_644_stran_final.pdf.

[136] Moreira-Dantas, I. and M. Söder (2022), “Global deforestation revisited: The role of weak institutions”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106383.

[134] Morrison-Métois, S. and H. Lundgren (2016), Forests and Sustainable Forest Management. Evaluation evidence on addressing deforestation to reduce CO2 emissions., https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/Evaluation-Insights-Forests-Final.pdf.

[12] Mpofu, F. (2022), “Green Taxes in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges for Environmental Protection, Sustainability, and the Attainment of Sustainable Development Goals”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/16, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610239.

[103] Multilateral Development Banks (2021), Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks: Nature, People and Planet, https://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=EZSHARE-1729984378-40.

[26] NICFI (n.d.), Securing Tropical Forests for the Future, https://www.nicfi.no/ (accessed on 30 January 2023).

[138] Norad (n.d.), The Norwegian Climate and Forest funding to civil society, https://www.norad.no/en/front/funding/climate-and-forest-initiative-support-scheme/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).

[3] OECD (2022), Identifying and assessing incentives, including susbsidies harmful to biodiversity at national level.

[10] OECD (2021), “Biodiversity, Natural Capital and the Economy: A Policy Guide for Finance, Economic and Environment Ministers. Prepared by the OECD for the G7 Presidency of the United Kingdom, 2021”, OECD Environment Policy Paper, Vol. Policy Perspectives/26, https://www.oecd.org/environment/biodiversity-natural-capital-and-the-economy-1a1ae114-en.htm.

[51] OECD (2021), Integrating environmental and climate action into development co-operation. Reporting on DAC Members’ 2020 High Level Meeting commitments.

[44] OECD (2021), Managing Climate Risks, Facing up to Losses and Damages, https://www.oecd.org/publications/managing-climate-risks-facing-up-to-losses-and-damages-55ea1cc9-en.htm.

[9] OECD (2021), Tracking Economic Instruments and Finance for Biodiversity, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/tracking-economic-instruments-and-finance-for-biodiversity-2021.pdf.

[97] OECD (2021), Tracking Economic Instruments and Finance for Biodiversity - 2021, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/tracking-economic-instruments-and-finance-for-biodiversity-2021.pdf.

[37] OECD (2020), A Comprehensive Overview of Global Biodiversity Finance, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/report-a-comprehensive-overview-of-global-biodiversity-finance.pdf.

[46] OECD (2020), Sustainable Ocean for All: Harnessing the Benefits of Sustainable Ocean Economies for Developing Countries, https://www.oecd.org/environment/sustainable-ocean-for-all-bede6513-en.htm.

[131] OECD (2019), The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: Targets, Indicators and Measurability Implications at Global and National Level, http://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/report-the-post-2020-biodiversity-framework-targets-indicators-and-measurability-implications-at-global-and-national-level.pdf.

[7] OECD (2018), Mainstreaming Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, https://www.oecd.org/environment/mainstreaming-biodiversity-for-sustainable-development-9789264303201-en.htm.

[16] OECD (2016), Biodiversity Offsets. Effective design and implementation. Policy Highlights, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/Policy-Highlights-Biodiversity-Offsets-web.pdf.

[25] Parker, C. et al. (2012), The Little Biodiversity Finance Book. A Guide to Proactive Investment in Natural Capital (PINC), https://www.globalcanopy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/LittleBiodiversityFinanceBook_3rd-edition.pdf.

[91] Parrotta, J. et al. (2022), Forests, Climate, Biodiversity and People: Assessing a Decade of REDD+, https://www.iufro.org/fileadmin/material/publications/iufro-series/ws40/ws40.pdf.

[27] Planet (2023), Norway’s International Climate and Forests Initiative Satellite Data Program, https://www.planet.com/nicfi/ (accessed on 30 January 2023).

[82] Republic of Slovenia (n.d.), Thematic and geographic priorities of Slovenia’s development cooperation, https://www.gov.si/en/topics/thematic-and-geographic-priorities-of-slovenias-development-cooperation/.

[124] Richerzhagen, C., J. Rodríguez and K. Stepping (2016), Why We Need More and Better Biodiversity Aid, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), pp. 1-4, https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/BP_13.2016.neu.pdf.

[112] Rode, J. et al. (2019), “Why ‘blended finance’ could help transitions to sustainable landscapes: Lessons from the Unlocking Forest Finance project”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100917.

[122] Santy, A. et al. (2022), “Donor perspectives on strengthening capacity development for conservation”, Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation, Vol. 56/5, pp. 740-743, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605322000746.

[15] Schroeder, H. et al. (2020), “Policy learning in REDD+ donor countries: Norway, Germany and the UK”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 63, pp. 102-106.

[52] Sida (2021), Sida’s biodiversity-related support 2020.

[38] Standing, A. (2021), Financialisation and the blue economy #1. Understanding the conservation finance industry., https://www.cffacape.org/publications-blog/understanding-the-conservation-finance-industry.

[126] Stepping, K. and K. Meijer (2018), “The Challenges of Assessing the Effectiveness of Biodiversity-Related Development Aid”, Tropical Conservation Science, Vol. 11, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918770995.

[48] Thompson, B. (2022), “Blue bonds for marine conservation and a sustainable ocean economy: Status, trends, and insights from green bonds”, Marine Policy, Vol. 144, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X22002664?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email#bib1.

[34] Tobin-de la Puente, J. and A. Mitchell (2021), The Little Book of Investing in Nature, https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/knowledge_products/LBIN_2020_RGB_ENG.pdf.

[95] Tomoi, H. et al. (2022), “Is “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities” principle applicable in biodiversity? – Towards approaches for shared responsibilities based on updated capabilities and data”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109628.

[65] UK Government (2022), The UK Government’s Strategy for International Development, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1075328/uk-governments-strategy-international-development.pdf.

[63] UK Government (2021), UK International Climate Finance. A UK Government commitment to building resilience and accelerating transition, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029990/icf-brochure-2021.pdf.

[116] UNCCD (2022), Global Land Outlook. Second Edition. Land Restoration for Recovery and Resilience, https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-04/UNCCD_GLO2_low-res_2.pdf.

[24] UNDP (2021), Brazil REDD+ Results Based Payments Use of Proceeds towards Floresta+ Pilot Program and ENREDD+ Implementation +. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Study, https://www.florestamaisamazonia.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FINAL-ESIA-CLEAN-NOV-11-2021.pdf.

[21] UNDP-BIOFIN (n.d.), BIOFIN Catalogue of Finance Solutions, https://www.biofin.org/finance-solutions.

[19] UNEP (2021), State of Finance for Nature 2021, https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature.

[1] United Nations (2015), Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AAAA_Outcome.pdf.

[42] United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (2021), Turning the Tide: How to finance a sustainable ocean recovery—A practical guide for financial institutions, https://www.unepfi.org/publications/turning-the-tide/.

[66] USAID (2022), USAID announces new programs to protect our ocean, https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/apr-14-2022-usaid-announces-new-programs-protect-our-ocean.

[128] Waldron, A. et al. (2017), “Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending”, Nature, Vol. 551, pp. 364–367, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24295.

[43] World Bank (2022), Wildlife Conservation Bond Boosts South Africa’s Efforts to Protect Black Rhinos and Support Local Communities, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/03/23/wildlife-conservation-bond-boosts-south-africa-s-efforts-to-protect-black-rhinos-and-support-local-communities.

[36] World Bank (2021), Banking on Protected Areas : Promoting Sustainable Protected Area Tourism to Benefit Local Economies, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35737.

[39] World Bank (2021), Fiera Capital Invests in World Bank Sustainable Development Bonds and Raises Awareness for the Importance of Water and Ocean Resources, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/05/27/fiera-capital-invests-in-world-bank-sustainable-development-bonds-and-raises-awareness-for-the-importance-of-water-and-o.

[45] World Bank (2021), World Bank catastrophe bond provides Jamaica USD185 million in storm protection, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/07/19/world-bank-catastrophe-bondprovides-jamaica-185-million-in-storm-protection?mc_cid=c29830e8a7&mc_eid=2adb4feb83.

[41] World Bank (2018), Seychelles: Introducing the World’s First Sovereign Blue Bond - Mobilizing Private Sector Investment to Support the Ocean Economy, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/242151559930961454-0340022019/original/CasestudyBlueBondSeychellesfinal6.7.2019.pdf.

[22] World Bank Group (2021), Collaborative Management Partnership Toolkit. A resource guide to support partnerships that conserve protected areas and promote sustainable and inclusive development, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/a1cd419e5367b17b8598269b796a585d-0320052021/original/GWP-Collaborative-Management-Partnerships-Toolkit-low-res.pdf.

[115] World Bank Group (2020), Mobilizing private finance for nature. A World Bank Group paper on private finance for biodiversity and ecosystem services., https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/916781601304630850-0120022020/original/FinanceforNature28Sepwebversion.pdf.

[102] WWF and The Biodiversity Consultancy (2021), Public development banks and biodiversity. How PDBs can align with the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, https://www.wwf.fr/sites/default/files/doc-2021-06/20210621_Summary_Public-development-banks-and-biodiversity_WWF-The-Biodiversity-Consultancy-min.pdf.

[5] Zoi Network (2022), Biodiversity and Sustainable Development, https://zoinet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NexusBrief-Biodiversity-EN.pdf.