National inclusion of biodiversity is biodiversity action that is institutionalized, intentional and planned through national public organizations and/or private bodies, and - in their totality - constitute the formal biodiversity management system of a country. Mainstreaming often refers to institutionalized aspects of national inclusion while integration is used to describe planned dimension. Almost all countries reported certain sectoral and cross-sectoral inclusion of biodiversity, but some appears to be incidental or random inclusion as they are not institutionalized, intentional or planned.
While broadening national inclusion of biodiversity was a major issue of the past decade, deepening national inclusion has become an emerging challenge for this decade. In particular, financial inclusion of biodiversity is not well developed, and only a small number of countries reported such inclusion, such as Mexico, Kyrgyz Republic, Mozambique, Comoros, Burundi, Tunisia, Noway, Vietnam, Ecuador, Chile, Netherlands, and France. A few countries also considered biodiversity in development assistance projects, including Japan, Czech Republic, Chad, Ireland, Denmark, Australia, Namibia, Colombia,Niger, Guinea Bissau and Panama.
Croatia indicated that the integration of biological diversity has been achieved at the legislative level (it has been integrated into strategic documents) and in sectors of agriculture, forestry, hunting, fisheries, environmental protection, nature protection, marine, etc.. However, in most of the sectors, no operational mechanisms for implementation have been established. Similarly in Zambia, the poverty reduction strategy paper and national development plan have stand-alone sections on the environment or natural resources (which include biodiversity), but with no real demonstrated linkages to other sectors. These government documents are generally not influencing the main forces affecting degradation because they mostly fail to establish systems and processes that engage the dominant sectors of society and government. Algeria left funding needs of biodiversity to be taken care of in national socioeconomic development plans. Burkina Faso noted that biodiversity conservation and sustainable use must go harmony with other national strategies and plans and sectoral development plans that exist or are being developed or planned. Belgium promotes integration of biodiversity into development plans of partner countries. France undertakes to turn biodiversity into a driver for development. Developing countries and development partners of developed countries need to redouble efforts to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into development plans and strategies, particularly whenever they are updated.