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

Country-Specific Resource Mobilization Strategies

Basis for action:
“The strategy for resource mobilization is intended to assist Parties in establishing national targets, goals and objectives as well as actions and timeframes, and in considering the establishment of financial mechanisms and other options, to implement the financial provisions of the Convention at all levels, based on success stories and good practices… National implementation should include, as appropriate, the design and dissemination of a country-specific resource mobilization strategy, with the involvement of key stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities, environmental funds, businesses and donors, in the frame of updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans” -- Strategy for resource mobilization, paragraph 12
"In support of the targets set in paragraph 7, encourages Parties and relevant organizations to improve existing financial information by enhancing accuracy, consistency and delivery of information on biodiversity financing and improving reporting on funding needs and shortfalls; and encourages Parties to integrate national resource mobilization strategies, including existing needs assessments, into the decision-making process on their funding targets in order to address the funding gap as soon as possible, and to develop, as appropriate, country-specific resource mobilization strategies, including assessment of resource needs, as part of their updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans, as a matter of priority"... Decision XI/4, paragraph 25

Experiences from the past national financial planning (before 2010)

Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Eastern and Northern Africa: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
Financial Planning in Middle Africa: Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Sao Tome and Principe
Financial Planning in North Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Southern Africa: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Western Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo
Financial planning for biodiversity in the Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago
Biodiversity financial planning in Central and North Americas: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Canada
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Eastern Asia: China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan, Mongolia, and Republic of Korea
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Southern Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka
Biodiversity Financial Planning in South-East Asia: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, People's Democratic Republic of Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Western Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria Arab Republic, Turkey and Yemen
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Eastern Europe: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, and Ukraine
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Northern Europe: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Southern Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Financial Planning for Biodiversity for Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, and European Union
Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Oceania: Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, and Tonga

Status and Trends

To promote the sharing of information and experience, a single compilation has been prepared of the funding information gathered from the revised/updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans up to 2020 which have been made available by 21 countries. No African country has made a submission. The distribution of the 21 countries is as follows:
Western Europe and Others (11) Australia, European Union, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Asia (4) Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Timor-Leste
Eastern Europe (2) Belarus, Serbia
Latin America and the Caribbean (4) Colombia; Dominican Republic, Suriname, Venezuela

All the planning documents have considered financing but in varied details and approaches. The following points may be highlighted:

Get organized
Bangladesh indicated that a consultative process involving not only scientists or policy makers but also the community peoples conserving biodiversity at the grassroots should be followed in the development and implementation phases of the project items under its programme of action. Belarus identified organizations in charge of funding-related provisions. Timor-Leste planned to establish an inter-agency committee to develop sustainable financing mechanisms. Venezuela indicated that a working group is to strengthen the physical, financial and technological capabilities.

Establish Financial baseline
Colombia conducted a comprehensive assessment of domestic investment and external assistance. Dominican Republic undertook an assessment of budget expenditure and investment. Myanmar presented the annual expenditure of forest department. Serbia reviewed its financial framework for biodiversity protection.
Ireland reviewed the status of funding for biodiversity conservation. Italy had an annex on the current funding instruments to its national biodiversity strategy and action plan. Spain conducted a diagnosis of resource mobilization.

Cost estimation
Bangladesh developed a ten-year programme of action involving nine focal areas and eighty projects along with indicative cost involvement. China presented a list of priority projects. Suriname gave a summary of the financial funds necessary for the various objectives and sub-objectives.
Spain conducted an estimation of budget requirements by objectives. Switzerland indicated that the detailed ascertainment of the actual requirements for all participating partners and the definition of the nature of the financing will only be possible in the context of the development of the action plan and any necessary legislative amendments.

Targets
Australia set a target to achieve, by 2015, a doubling of the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services, to be achieved through increased use of markets, private expenditure and public-private partnership. Finland has developed a target that is similar to the one from the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. France has presented a strategic goal to invest in a common good: our ecological capital with four targets: include preservation of biodiversity in economic decisions, develop innovations for and through biodiversity, develop and perpetuate resources for biodiversity, and turn biodiversity into a driver for development and for regional cooperation in the overseas entities. Ireland provided a target for substantially strengthened support for biodiversity and ecosystem services in external assistance. Dominican Republic has a target to undertake, by 2016, a national campaign for financial support to the implementation of its national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Country-specific resource mobilization strategy
Bangladesh advocates that Government of Bangladesh should incorporate BPA 2020 into its development planning systems. The relevant departments or agencies like the Department of Environment, Forest Department, Department of Fisheries, and Department of Animal Resources have to incorporate relevant activities of BPA 2020 into the Sixth Five Year Plan as well as in the Annual Development Budgets of upcoming years. China planned to establish economic policies, increase resource input from all sources, seek to foster a diversified investment mechanism, and improve the use efficiency. Serbia developed three relevant objectives on protected areas system financing, financial framework, and financing the Strategy. Suriname presented a strategic objective for adequate financing via targeted budgeting and subsidies, project-based and programme financing by bilateral and multilateral agreements and donor funds, sustainable international financing. Timor-Leste provided a partnership strategy.
European Union planned to ensure a better uptake and distribution of existing funds for biodiversity, rationalize available resources and maximize co-benefits of various funding sources, and diversify and scale up various sources of funding. Italy discussed funding mechanisms for the implementation of the Strategy as well as Italy and biodiversity. Spain developed three related strategic goals: conserve global biodiversity and contribute to poverty alleviation in the world, contribute to green growth in Spain, and mobilize financial resources from all sources to achieve the objectives of biodiversity conservation. Switzerland proposed strategic goals to evaluate financial incentives, and strengthen international commitments.

National financial plans
Dominican Republic developed a two-point action plan to achieve its national funding target. Serbia intended to develop a strategic financial plan to fund the implementation of the Strategy, and several activities were already proposed in the planning document. Timor-Leste indicated four actions to implement target 20 of the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
European Union presented several points of action, such as to ensure adequate financing of Natura sites, mobilize additional resources for global biodiversity conservation, and “biodiversity proof” EU development cooperation. Japan discussed its support for and cooperation with developing countries, including promoting cooperation under comprehensive frameworks, and Japan’s contribution to the conservation of the global environment in the fields of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Malta had two themes related to resource mobilization: financing biodiversity (two actions), and pro-biodiversity business and a green economy (three actions). Spain developed nine action points under the objective to ensure adequate funding for biodiversity conservation policy. Switzerland discussed the action fields under its strategic goals to evaluate financial incentives, and strengthen international commitments. United Kingdom had two priority actions: develop new and innovative financing mechanisms to direct more funding towards the achievement of biodiversity outcomes, and establish a new, voluntary approach to biodiversity offsets and test our approach in pilot areas.

  • United Nations
  • United Nations Environment Programme