Country-specific financial strategies/plans

Basis for action: "To prepare national financial plans in the context of national biodiversity strategies and action plans that can be implemented by local, national, regional and international stakeholders"...Strategy for resource mobilization, objective 2.2

Indicator:
Number of countries that have developed national financial plans for biodiversity

Target: "Endeavour for 100 per cent, but at least 75 per cent, of Parties provided with adequate financial resources to have prepared national financial plans for biodiversity by 2015"... Decision XI/4, paragraph 7(d)

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. National implementation should include, as appropriate, the design and dissemination of a country-specific resource mobilization strategy, with the involvement of key stakeholders.

In decision X/3 the Conference of the Parties requested the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources, to organize regional and subregional workshops to assist with the development of country-specific resource mobilization strategies, including for indigenous and local communities, as part of the process of updating national biodiversity strategy and action plans, to promote exchange of experience and good practice in financing for biological diversity, and to facilitate the national monitoring of the outcomes of country specific resource mobilization strategies. In response to this request a number of workshops have been conducted to support Parties in the development of country specific resource mobilization strategies. In addition to these workshops, issues related to financial resources have also been addressed during the course of several of the Regional and Sub-Regional Capacity-building Workshops for implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 through National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans.

Relevant documents
Indicative guidelines for country-specific resource mobilization strategies (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/13) (ar, en, es, fr, ru, zh)

In broad sense, nearly 90 countries have some elements of funding strategies in their existing national biodiversity strategies, and only several countries have developed detailed, though one-time, national financial plans for biodiversity. In general, national financial plans for biodiversity are not synchronized with national budgetary cycles or with international funding processes.
A total of 148 countries received financial support of over $36.6 million from the financial mechanism of the Convention to the formulation of their national biodiversity strategies and action plans at a cost of $41.9 million in the past two decades, mostly in 1997-1998. The Global Environment Facility also developed a capacity development initiative in advancing capacity needs assessments and capacity building projects.
GEF makes available funding for 145 countries to undertake national planning processes, and about 70% of GEF-eligible countries have received financial support to revise their national biodiversity strategies and action plans (GEF2012). The Japan Biodiversity Fund executed by the Convention Secretariat supports sharing and transfer of knowledge and know-how on financial planning.

The following information digests have been compiled using the information from national reports, and will be updated appropriately for purposes of monitoring:

Eastern Africa
Burundi Plan Stratégique d’Investissement et de Mobilisation des Ressources Financières dans le domaine de la Biodiversité 2013-2020
NBSAP2000

Comoros NBSAP2000

Djibouti NBSAP2000

Eritrea NBSAP2000

Ethiopia NBSAP2005

Kenya NBSAP2000

Madagascar 1. NBSAP1996, Madagascar submission on funding needs
2. Slowing Tropical Forest Biodiversity Losses: Cost and Compensation Considerations

Malawi chapter on environmental sustainability in 2014/15 budget guidelines. Estimated 5.3% of GDP loss due to unsustainable use of natural resources in 2011
NBSAP2006

Mauritius NBSAP2005

Mozambique NBSAP2003

Rwanda NBSAP2003

Seychelles NBSAP2001

Uganda Financing gap for biodiversity conservation related investments estimated at $455 million/year (current financing $216 million vs $671 million required), financial resources increase by at least 5% by 2017
Guidelines and Action Plans for financing biodiversity conservation (Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development)
1. NBSAP2002
2. Guidelines and Action Plan for Financing Biodiversity Conservation in Uganda, national resource mobilization strategy (March 2014)

Tanzania NBSAP2001

Zimbabwe NBSAP1998

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Eastern and Northern Africa
Middle Africa
Angola Indicativecosts2006

Cameroon NBSAP1999

Central African Republic NBSAP2000

Chad projectcosts1999

Congo projectcosting2001

DR Congo (2014) Accroissement des moyens affectés à la biodiversité: D’ici à 2020, la part du budget national alloué aux activités de conservation et d’utilisation durable de la biodiversité est augmentée graduellement pour atteindre 5%. D’ici à 2015, les ressources humaines, financières, techniques et technologiques sont mobilisées pour mettre en oeuvre la Stratégie et le Plan d’Action Nationaux de la Biodiversité (SPANB)
(2002) Total cost of NBSAP was estimated at US$189 million

Equatorial Guinea (2014)Aim for establishment of a financial plan for the implementation of the Strategy (National target 14. by 2020, at the latest, have increased funding opportunities and mobilizing resources for the implementation of the Conservation Strategy.
(2005)Financing for biodiversity in petroleum sector national programme.

Gabon NBSAP1999

Sao Tome and Principe Finance Strategies 2005

Subregion Financial Planning in Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Algeria NBSAP1997
Egypt NBSAP1998
Morocco NBSAP2004
Sudan NBSAP2000
Tunisia projectcosts1998
Subregion Financial Planning in North Africa

Southern Africa
Botswana NBSAP2004, 2007
Lesotho NBSAP2000
Namibia NBSAP2001
South Africa 1. NBSAP2005
2. Biodiversity for Development: South Africa’s landscape approach to conserving biodiversity and promoting ecosystem resilience (2010)
Swaziland NBSAP2001
Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Southern Africa
Western Africa
Benin Costs2002
Burkina Faso NBSAP1999
Cape Verde No1999
Cote d’Ivoire NBSAP2002

Gambia (2014) By 2020, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all sources should increase substantially by 35%
(1998) A vigorous funding strategy for biodiversity conservation would be developed.

Ghana NBSAP2002
Guinea NBSAP2002
Guinea-Bissau NBSAP2000
Liberia NBSAP2004
Mali NBSAP2000
Mauritania NBSAP1999
Niger NBSAP2003
Nigeria NBSAP1998
Senegal NBSAP1997
Sierra Leone NBSAP2004
Togo NBSAP2003
Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Western Africa
Caribbean
Antigua and Barbuda NBSAP2001
Bahamas NBSAP1999
Barbados NBSAP2002
Cuba NBSAP2002, 2005
Dominica NBSAP2000
Dominican Republic NBSAP2012
Grenada projectconcepts2000, Grenada submission on funding needs
Haiti NBSAP2000
Jamaica NBSAP2003
Saint Kitts and Nevis NBSAP2004
Saint Lucia NBSAP2000
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines NBSAP2000
Trinidad and Tobago NBSAP2006
Subregion Financial planning for biodiversity in the Caribbean
North and Central Americas
Belize NBSAP1998
Costa Rica NBSAP2000
El Salvador NBSAP2000
Guatemala NBSAP1999
Honduras NBSAP1998
Mexico NBSAP2000
Nicaragua NBSAP2000
Panama NBSAP2000
Canada NBSAP1995, Canada submission on funding needs
USA 1. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines
2. Funding Opportunities for Pollinator Protection in North America (2003)
3. Innovating Environmental Finance, March 20, 2001
4. The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration (2005)
5. The Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation
6. Sustainable Watershed Finance, Environmental Financial Advisory Board (2007)
7. Mitigation of Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Estimating Costs and Identifying Opportunities (2007)
8. Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience (and Related Research)? (2003)
9. Developing the Financial Strategy for an Indo-Pacific MPA Network (2002)
10. Analysis on the Sustainable Financing of a Network of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia (2003)

Subregion Biodiversity financial planning in Central and North Americas

South America
Argentina NBSAP2003

Bolivia NBSAP2001, National Conservation Finance Strategy

Brazil Brazil submission on funding needs

Chile NBSAP2003

Colombia Programa de Sostenibilidad Financiera para la Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico
NBSAP1996, 2012, Colombia submission on funding needs

Ecuador Análisis de las Necesidades de Financiamiento del SNAP": Al finalizar el año 2012, el gasto total en el SNAP continental fue de 22,6 millones de dólares, que equivale al monto total gastado durante todo el período 2003-2010; una meta financiera estimada en 21,5 millones de dólares para alcanzar un escenario de consolidación y 44 millones de dólares para lograr un escenario de manejo ideal
NBSAP2001, Financial Needs of Protected Areas, Ecuador submission on funding needs

Guyana NBSAP1999, 2007

Paraguay NBSAP2007

Peru NBSAP2001

Suriname NBSAP2006

Uruguay NBSAP1999

Venezuela NBSAP2001, 2010

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in South America

Central Asia
Kazakhstan NBSAP1999
Kyrgyz Republic NBSAP1998
Tajikistan NBSAP2003
Turkmenistan NBSAP2002
Uzbekistan NBSAP1997
Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Central Asia
Eastern Asia
China 1. Funding needs for each strategic goal
2. Financing in NBSAP1994, 2010
3. Cost and benefit analysis of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in China 1998: estimated costs of conservation and sustainable use, full incremental costs of implementing the Convention’s obligations, as well as economic, social and ecological benefits of implementing the Convention.
4. cost of protecting pandas, invasive alien species
Democratic People's Republic of Korea Financing in NBSAP1998, 2007
Japan Financing in NBSAP2010
Mongolia Financing in NBSAP1996
Republic of Korea Financing in NBSAP1997
Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Eastern Asia

Southern Asia
Bangladesh 1. NBSAP2010, Bangladesh submission on funding needs
2. Millennium Development Goals Needs Assessment & Costing 2009-2015: Bangladesh (2009)

Bhutan NBSAP1997, 2002, 2009

India NBSAP1999, 2008, India submission on funding needs

Iran NBSAP2001

Maldives NBSAP2002

Nepal Estimated USD 1,019 million required for implementation of the NBSAP (eight specific cost categories); 65.7%, 20.6%, 6.9%, 0.8% and 6% of the cost for the government, ODA, INGO, private sector and community based users’ groups respectively; establishment and operationalization of a National Biodiversity Trust Fund by 2016
NBSAP2002, 2006

Pakistan NBSAP1999

Sri Lanka NBSAP1998, 2007

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Southern Asia
South-Eastern Asia
Cambodia NBSAP2002

Indonesia NBSAP1993, 2003

People's Democratic Republic of Lao NBSAP2004

Malaysia NBSAP1998

Myanmar Myanmar Biodiversity Conservation Investment Vision 2013, Myanmar: Investment Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation 2005
NBSAP2011, Myanmar submission on funding needs

Philippines NBSAP1997, 2002

Singapore NBSAP2009

Thailand NBSAP1997, 2002, 2008

Timor-Leste NBSAP2011

Vietnam NBSAP1995, 2007

Subregion Biodiversity Financial Planning in South-East Asia
Western Asia
Armenia NBSAP1999
Azerbaijan NBSAP2006
Georgia NBSAP2005
Israel No2010
Jordan No2003
Kuwait NBSAP1998
Lebanon NBSAP1998
Oman NBSAP2001
Qatar NBSAP2004
Saudi Arabia NBSAP2005
Syria Arab Republic NBSAP2002
Turkey NBSAP2001, 2007
Yemen NBSAP2005
Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Western Asia
Eastern Europe
Belarus NBSAP1998, 2010

Bulgaria (2014) Based on the National Plan for Development (2007–2013) and the related National Strategic Referent Framework, the Operational programmes have been elaborated. Biodiversity issues have been integrated specifically in three of them: OP “Environment”, Rural Development Program and OP for development of the Fishery sector.
(1999) National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan is a set of 96 activities to be carried out during the 1999-2003 period (five year), with the total cost of Lev 44.355 million, and Lev. 21.274 million has yet to be secured.

Czech Republic NBSAP2005

Hungary NBSAP2004

Poland 1. 2007-2013 funding needs: 281.1 million PLN 2. Funding in NBSAP2003, 2006

Republic of Moldova NBSAP2002

Romania NBSAP1996

Russian Federation NBSAP2001

Slovakia NBSAP1997

Ukraine NBSAP1997

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Eastern Europe
Northern Europe
Denmark 1. 2009 Agreement on Green Growth - public expenses and financing sources
2. Costs of the management measures
3. NBSAP2004

Estonia State Budget Strategy 2011–2014. State Budget Strategy 2014–2017 (approved 25.04.2013) and principles for using the EU structure Funds. With regard to the nature conservation, the state budget prioritizes the protection of natural habitats and valuable landscapes and ecosystems as a whole. Protection of natural values, preservation and restoration of endangered species and habitats, management of semi-natural communities and control of alien and problematic species has to be ensured. The goal of 2014 is the preservation and improving of the status and getting a complete overview of the status of all species and habitats.
NBSAP1999

Finland NBSAP1997, 2007

Ireland NBSAP2002

Latvia NBSAP2000

Lithuania NBSAP1998

Norway (2014) National budget contains sustainability indicators, including biodiversity indicators based on the Nature Index

Sweden NBSAP1996

United Kingdom 1. NBSAP1994, 2007, 2011
2. Initial Investigation of the Actual Costs of Implementing UK Biodiversity Action Plans (2002)
3. Costings for Species and Habitat Action Plans (2003)
4. Costing Biodiversity Priorities in the UK Overseas Territories (2007)
5. Costs of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan - Update 2010
6. Capital Budgeting Decisions

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Northern Europe
Southern Europe
Albania NBSAP1999

Bosnia and Herzegovina NBSAP2008

Croatia multiannual strategic program
NBSAP2000, 2008

Italy NBSAP2011

Malta NBSAP2012

Portugal NBSAP2001

Serbia NBSAP2011

Slovenia NBSAP2001

Spain Marco de Acción Prioritaria para la financiación de la Red Natura 2000 para el periodo 2014-2020, el Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (FEADER), el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) y el Fondo Social Europeo (FSE), el Fondo Europeo Marítimo y de la Pesca (FEMP) y el Programa Marco de Investigación
NBSAP1999, 2011

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia NBSAP2004

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Southern Europe
Western Europe
Austria NBSAP1998

Belgium Objective 15 of the new strategy: Ensure the provision of adequate resources for biodiversity
NBSAP2006

France NBSAP2004, 2011

Germany Federal Biological Diversity Programme, Research promotion by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Federal Environment Ministry (BMUB), Sustainable Land Management and Ecosystem Services (BMBF), Conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity (BMEL)
NBSAP2007

Luxembourg NBSAP2007

Netherlands NBSAP1995, 2000, 2008

Switzerland NBSAP2012

European Union (2014) LIFE — the Financial Instrument for the Environment — is the only EU financial instrument fully dedicated to the environment. Since 1992, LIFE has supported over 3100 projects. The new LIFE Regulation, published on 20 December 2013, sets a budget for the 2014–20 funding period of EUR 3.4 billion.
(2006, 2011)
NBSAP2006, 2011
(2012) EU submission on funding needs
(2006) The Use of Market Incentives to Preserve Biodiversity, July 2006
(2011) Estimating Costs and Benefits of Invasive Alien Species Strategy in European Union (2011)
(2011) Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people (2011)

Subregion Financial Planning for Biodiversity for Western Europe
Oceania
Australia NBSAP1996, 2010

Cook Islands NBSAP2002

Fiji NBSAP2003

Kiribati NBSAP2005

Micronesia (Federated States of) NBSAP2000, Micronesia submission on funding needs

New Zealand NBSAP2000

Niue NBSAP2001

Palau NBSAP2008

Papua New Guinea NBSAP2007

Samoa NBSAP2001

Solomon Islands Resources Mobilization plan (2014-2018)
NBSAP2009

Tonga NBSAP2006

Vanuatu NBSAP1999

Regional Financial Planning for Biodiversity in Oceania
General
COMIFAC Feasibility Study on Financing Mechanisms for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Central African Forests (2002)

GEF Financing Protection of the Global Commons: The Case for a Green Planet Contribution (2000)

Green Peace We cannot afford more biodiversity loss: the urgency of protected area financing (2005)

IIED The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation Report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change (2006)

IUCN Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A global review of challenges and options (2006)

OECD 1. Fisheries Management Costs: Concepts and Studies
2. The Costs of Inaction with Respect to Biodiversity Loss (2005)

UNDP 1. Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance
2. Financial Sustainability Scorecard: for National Systems of Protected Areas, 2nd Edition, 2010
3. Workshop Report: Financing of Sustainable Forest Management (1999)
4. Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance (2010)
5. Mainstreaming Poverty-Environment Linkages into Development Planning: A Handbook for Practitioners (2009)
6. International Guidebook of Environmental Finance Tools: Executive Summary (2012), Chapter 1: Objectives, Tools and Definitions , Conclusions and Recommendations, Chapter 4: Protected Areas, Chapter 5: Sustainable Agriculture, Chapter 6 – Sustainable Forestry

UNFF 1. Innovative financial mechanisms: searching for viable alternatives to secure basis for the financial sustainability of forests, San José, Costa Rica, March 29 – April 1 2005
2. Financing Sustainable Forest Management: Report of the International Workshop of Experts, 22-25 January 2001, Oslo, Norway

UNFAO International cooperation and resource mobilization for sustainable forestry development (1997)

World Bank 1. Estimating the opportunity costs of REDD+
2. Estimating the Cost of Environmental Degradation: A Training Manual (2005)

World Water Council Costing MDG Target 10 on Water Supply and Sanitation: Comparative Analysis, Obstacles and Recommendations (2006)

WWF 1. A Review of Innovative International Financial Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation with a Special Focus on the International Financing Of Developing Countries’ Protected Areas (2007)
2. Mapping Conservation Investments: An Assessment of Biodiversity Funding in Latin America and the Caribbean (2000)
3. Resources for Implementing the WWF Project & Programme Standards: Step 3.2 - Conservation Finance

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

Reference
Indicative guidelines for country-specific resource mobilization strategies 2010
Early Experience of Considering Finance in the Revised/Updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

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