العربية  |  English  |  Español  |  Français  |  Русский
Advancing More, Better and Faster Financing for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

International financial flows

Indicator:
"(11) Amount of financial resources from all sources from developed countries to developing countries to contribute to achieving the Convention’s objectives;
(12)Amount of financial resources from all sources from developed countries to developing countries towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;"
--- Decision X/3, paragraph 7

Target:

"Double total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows to developing countries, in particular least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, by 2015 and at least maintaining this level until 2020, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, to contribute to the achievement of the Convention’s three objectives, including through a country-driven prioritization of biodiversity within development plans in recipient countries". Decision XI/4, paragraph 7(a)

2008 Strategy for Resource Mobilization

Strategic objective 3.2 - "To strive to increase official development assistance associated with biological diversity, where biodiversity is identified as a priority by developing country Parties in poverty reduction strategies, national development strategies, United Nations development assistance frameworks and other development assistance strategies and in accordance with priorities identified in national biodiversity strategies and action plans."

Reference
OECD/DAC Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System 2007, including the Rio Markers in its annex 7

OECD Rio Marker presentation, by Christina van Winkle and Anna Drutschinin, WGRI-5 Panel Discussion: Success and Challenges in Tracking and Reporting on CBD-Related Resource Mobilization, 19 June 2014, Montreal

Outflow of financial resources

Australia (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012
(2014) Bilateral ODA and other public funds (2006-2010)

Austria (2014) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Belgium (2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Bulgaria (2014) Bilateral official development assistance (2013)
(2012) Submission

Canada (2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Croatia (2014) Multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)

Czech Republic (2014) Bilateral and multilateral development assistance, other public funds (2006-2012)
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012
(2014) Concept of Foreign Development Cooperation of the Czech Republic in 2010 - 2017: mentioned biodiversity conservation

Denmark (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012), Annual contribution of DKK 2.3 billion, equivalent to USD 390 million p.a. (average for 2006-2010). This amount corresponds to approx. DKK 410 per person per year, or 0.13% of GNP
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Estonia (2014) Bilateral official development assistance (2010-2011)
(2012) Submission

European Union (2014) Bilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Finland (2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

France (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Germany (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Greece (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Hungary (2014) In March 2014 the Government adopted the International Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Strategy of Hungary for the period of 2014-2020.

Iceland (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Ireland (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Italy (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance, international flows from private and market, not-for-profit organizations (2006)
(2012) Submission 2012
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Japan (2014) bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2010)
(2012) Submission 2012
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Luxembourg (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Netherlands (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2010)
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

New Zealand Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance, other public funds (2006-2012)
Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Norway (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Poland (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2010)
(2012) Submission 2012

Portugal (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Republic of Korea (2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Slovenia (2014) Multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)

Spain (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2006-2012)
(2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Sweden (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2011); Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (2012)
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

Switzerland (2012) Submission
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

United Kingdom (2014) Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance, other public funds (2006-2011)
(2014) expenditure on biodiversity in the UK and internationally. The indicator shows increases in the long term (since 2000-01), but decreases in the last five years. In 2012-13, £471 million of UK public sector funding was spent on UK biodiversity; this value has remained stable since 2011-12, having fallen from a peak in 2008-09. In the longer term, between 2000-01 and 2012-13, public sector spending on UK biodiversity increased by 76 per cent in real terms.
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

United States of America (2013) USAID Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Programs annual report 2013
(2012) Rio marker (bio) 2002-2012

State and trends
There has been no organized global statistics on biodiversity-related international financial resources flows. The best available statistical information on biodiversity-related international financial resources flows is about official development assistance for biodiversity that has been compiled regularly by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, using the OECD/DAC Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System, including the Rio Markers in its annex 7 . The information generated from the Rio Markers has been used to inform the deliberations of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention.

According to the latest available data updated by the OECD Secretariat on 13 January 2014, biodiversity-related official development assistance reached US$6 billion in 2010. Using the 2011 price, average annual biodiversity-related official development assistance for the years 2006-2010 stands at US$5.02 billion.

Biodiversity-related official development assistance experienced a steady growth during the last decade, from US$1.35 billion in 2002. Using the constant prices, official development assistance marked for biodiversity was more than tripled from 2002 to 2010.

However, biodiversity-related official development assistance slipped by 7% in 2011 and another 15% in 2012. Fifteen percent of the decline is due to the overall constraints on official development assistance, and the remaining eighty-five percent is explained by the decrease in bio-intensity, measured by the ratio of biodiversity-related funding to official development assistance, from 6.61% in 2010 to 5.57% in 2012.

Among the sectors that have been marked for biodiversity, general environmental protection accounts for one third of biodiversity-related official development assistance, water supply and sanitation a little bit over a quarter, forestry thirteen percent, and agriculture ten percent. Multisector/cross-cutting includes rural development, non-agricultural alternative development, urban development and management, contributes to six percent of biodiversity-related official development assistance. Fishing, energy, government and civil society each explain roughly two percent of marked official development assistance. Others refer to Commodity Assistance, Education, Industry, Transport & Storage, Trade Policies & Regulations, Social Infrastructure & Services, General Budget Support, Health, Business & Other Services, Tourism, Disaster Prevention & Preparedness, Reconstruction Relief & Rehabilitation, Emergency Response, Banking & Financial Services, Conflict, Peace & Security, Action Relating to Debt, Mineral Resources & Mining, Communications, Construction.

The declining trend in biodiversity-related official development assistance is not distributed evenly among geographical regions. Latin America and the Caribbean was hit hardest, with the received biodiversity-related official development assistance decreasing by thirty one percent in the period 2010-2012. The assistance to Africa and Asia was reduced by nineteen percent respectively. There are also some silver linings: the assistance to Africa recovered by ten percent from its 2011 deep, and the assistance to Eastern Europe went up by twenty four percent between 2010-2012, with a peak in 2011.

Biodiversity-related official development assistance is determined by two factors: overall official development assistance, and bio-intensity. As the overall movement of official development assistance is hardly impacted by the efforts of the biodiversity sector alone, the projections forward to 2020 need to take as given the scenarios of overall official development assistance, and pay more attention to mobilizing the given official development assistance.

The average annual growth rate of overall official development assistance during the period 2002-2010 was between 5% and 7%, despite the considerable fluctuations. The projections on official development assistance thus assume two scenarios: 5% and 7% average annual growth rates of overall official development assistance during the current decade.

The bio-intensity of official development assistance in 2010 was 6.61%. If the biodiversity efforts within official development assistance sector remain at this level, for instance 6%, there will be no chance to achieve the international target (US$10.04 at 2011 price) to double financial resources flows under scenario I during this decade, but the target might be achieved towards the end of this decade under scenario II. If the target year of 2015 is used as reference, the international community will miss the target of doubling financial resources flows when the bio-intensity of official development assistance is lower than 9% under scenario I or lower than 8% under scenario II.

The chances to double biodiversity-related official development assistance by 2015 are as follows:
  • Bio-intensity is no less than 9% if the average annual official development assistance will be around 5%
  • Bio-intensity is no less than 8% if the average annual official development assistance will be around 7%
This means that business as usual is not an option for achieving the agreed target to double international financial resources flows. The target can only be achieved by substantially increasing bio-intensity of official development assistance, increasing overall level of official development assistance, or both.

  • United Nations
  • United Nations Environment Programme