Developed Nations Falling Short on Biodiversity Funding Commitments

The majority of developed countries are contributing less than 50% of their "fair share" towards biodiversity finance, according to a new analysis. These nations contributed less than $11 billion in total in 2022, the year that a landmark global nature deal, known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), was agreed at COP15. The analysis highlights the urgent need for these countries to step up their financial commitments to protect the planet's rapidly declining biodiversity.

Holding Wealthy Nations Accountable for Nature Conservation

Calculating a "Fair Share" for Biodiversity Finance

The London-based development think tank ODI has calculated a "fair share" for each country towards a minimum collective target agreed in 2022 aimed at raising $20 billion annually by 2025 for biodiversity conservation. This calculation is based on each developed country's specific ecological footprint between 1960 and 2021, taking into account their consumption patterns and impact on global biodiversity. It also incorporates each country's capacity to pay, measured by gross national income, and its population in 2022.The analysis reveals that in 2022, only Norway, Sweden, and Germany contributed their "fair share" towards this target. The UK, Italy, and Canada – the host of the COP15 biodiversity summit where the deal was struck – each contributed less than 40% of their share. Japan was the "worst performer in absolute terms," falling short of its fair share by $2.4 billion in 2022 and will need to at least triple its biodiversity finance by 2025, according to the ODI.

Critiques of the $20 Billion Target

The $20 billion target has attracted criticism from developing countries, who argue that it is insufficient to address the biodiversity "finance gap" – the shortfall between current funding for conservation globally and what is needed, estimated at $700 billion per year. Developing countries had demanded that developed countries increase their financial contribution to $100 billion per year, mirroring the floor of climate-finance commitments up to 2025.Another criticism is the collective nature of the target, along with little clarity on how it will be met. According to ODI, this approach "often shields wealthy nations from individual responsibility." Instead, apportioning individual responsibility can mitigate that risk and increase accountability and transparency, the authors say.

Tracking Biodiversity Finance Flows

There is no internationally agreed-upon definition of biodiversity finance, which can lead to confusing and sometimes inflated estimates of how much countries have contributed to protect nature. The main channels of international public finance that developed countries can use to meet their biodiversity finance commitments under the GBF are official development finance (ODF) and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF).The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is one of the main sources of biodiversity finance data, but it acknowledges its own limitations and assumptions around what it counts as biodiversity finance. The OECD data shows that developed countries, including the US, contributed $12.1 billion towards biodiversity finance in 2022, an increase of 3% from 2021. However, biodiversity-specific funding – with the principal objective of reducing biodiversity loss – declined from $4.6 billion in 2015 to $3.8 billion in 2022.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund: A Promising but Underutilized Mechanism

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) was established at COP15 in 2022 as another channel for countries and companies to contribute to the biodiversity finance target. Despite an initial flurry of pledges, rich nations have contributed less than $250 million to the fund as of August 2024. Japan has yet to pay any of the ¥650 million ($4.4 million) it has pledged, while Luxembourg has so far paid only $1.1 million of the $7.7 million it has pledged.The GBFF has already allocated more than half of the $244 million it has received, with almost $40 million going to four projects in Brazil, Gabon, and Mexico. However, new analysis by Indigenous rights campaign group Survival International points out that the fund is falling "far short" of its "aspiration" to allocate 20% of its resources to Indigenous peoples and local communities, with more than 50% of the money allocated so far going through global-north environmental charities.

The Role of Private Finance in Biodiversity Conservation

Target 19 of the GBF also refers to "leveraging private finance" and "innovative schemes," such as biodiversity offsets and credits, that will see an increased push and pushback at COP16. According to the OECD, private philanthropic flows for biodiversity grew from $501 million in 2017 to $932 million in 2021 and then decreased to $700 million in 2022. However, private finance flows that have a direct negative impact on nature amount to $5 trillion a year, according to the State of Finance for Nature report.Maelle Pelisson, the advocacy director for Business for Nature, argues that while it's positive to see a growth in private philanthropies contributing to biodiversity finance, private philanthropy alone is not sufficient to address nature loss. Governments should adopt and implement measures to ensure businesses include the value of nature in their decision-making, including requirements on disclosure and transition plans.

Developing Countries' Expectations for COP16

Discussions on biodiversity finance in the run-up to COP16 have been "difficult" and "polarised," with developing countries urging rich countries to fulfill their commitments to close the biodiversity finance gap. Many country groups continue to demand a separate global fund for biodiversity finance under the COP, distinct from the GBFF. Developing countries have also called for a panel of experts to analyze "all financial flows" and "determine the extent to which parties have met their obligations under target 19."Nicky Kingunia Ineet, the DRC negotiator who had raised an objection before the gavel went down in Montreal, argues that the creation of a special fund dedicated to biodiversity remains a "sine qua non" in the search for solutions linked to the mobilization of resources in favor of biodiversity. The existing mechanism, he says, is "provisional [and unfortunately] has not mobilized [the] resources as hoped."As the world prepares for COP16 in Cali, Colombia, the pressure is on for developed countries to step up their financial commitments to protect the planet's rapidly declining biodiversity. The success of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will depend on whether these nations can be held accountable for their fair share of the responsibility.