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

Non-governmental organizations

Basis for action:
"To enhance financial, scientific, technical and technological cooperation with international organizations, non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples’ organizations and public institutions for biological diversity and its associated ecosystem services"...Strategy for resource mobilization, objective 5.5

Indicator:
Aggregated financial flows, in the amount and where relevant percentage, of biodiversity-related funding, per annum, for achieving the Convention’s three objectives, in non-governmental organizations, foundations, and academia

Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar

Mauritius
(2014) NGO biodiversity expenditure (2010): 40,000 MUR by Mauritius Marine Conservation Society and Mauritian Wildlife Foundation

Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda

Canada
(2012) Counting contributions of non-governmental organizations in millions of CAN$ (current prices): 402 (2006), 405 (2007), 563 (2008), 549 (2009), 480 (2010)

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic

Switzerland
(2014) NGOs, foundation, and academia biodiversity expenditure in million CHF: 112.2 (2006), 118.3 (2007), 124.7 (2008), 131.9 (2009), 142.3 (2010), 143.2 (2011), 142.6 (2012)
(2012) Counting funding from non-governmental organizations in millions of CHF: 168.3 (2010 - 1.086 CHF per US dollars)

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

Japan
(2014) NGOs, foundation, and academia biodiversity expenditure in JPY (Million): 509 (2006), 663 (2007), 716 (2008), 993 (2009), 943 (2010), 1,343 (2011), 954 (2012).

Albania

Bulgaria
(2014) NGOs and private donors have reported 538,395 Euro spent for the period 2012–2013.
(2014) NGOs, foundations, academia funding (euro): 90,494 (2012), 511,439 (2013).

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro

Poland
(2014) NGOs, foundation, and academia biodiversity expenditure in million US dollars: 37.54 (2006), 30.78 (2007), 54.34 (2008), 73.74 (2009), 72.68 (2010)

Romania, Serbia, and Ukraine

Denmark
(2014) NGOs. foundations, academia in million US dollars: 1.31 (2006), 1.68 (2007), 1.31 (2008), 0.93 (2009), 3.92 (2010), 44.65 (2011), 37.36 (2012) explanation
(2012) Counting non-governmental organization financing in million DKK: 7 (2006), 9 (2007), 7 (2008), 5 (2009), 21 (2010)

Latvia, Lithuania, and Norway

Estonia
(2014) NGOs. foundations, academia (2011): 1.15 million euro.
(2012) Counting non-governmental organization financing (2010): 0.64 million euro

Finland, and Sweden

United Kingdom
(2014) NGOs, foundation and academia biodiversity expenditure in GBP £m in 2012 prices: 202 (2010), 205 (2011)

Greece
(2014) NGOs, foundation, and academia biodiversity expenditure in million euros: 0.28 (2007), 0.115 (2008), 0.475 (2009), 0.995 (2010), 1.355 (2011), 1.4 (2012), 1.225 (2013)

Ireland, Portugal, and Spain

France
(2014) NGOs, foundation, and academia in euros (millions): 119 (2007), 139 (2008), 148 (2009), 155 (2010), 166 (2011)
(2012) Counting non-governmental organization financing in millions € current: average 113.4 (2006-2010)

Germany
(2014) NGOs, foundation, and academia biodiversity expenditure: 170 million euro (2010)

Global Monitoring Report 2012: Large international non-government organizations, including BirdLife International, Conservation International, Flora and Fauna International, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, and World Resources Institute, are only a small drop of the ocean of non-governmental organizations, but have demonstrated unparalleled capabilities of resource mobilization. The financial health of these large international non-governmental organizations also serves as a bellwether for the entire community of non-governmental environmental organizations. After a sharp decline in revenues following the financial crisis in 2008, the seven largest nongovernmental organizations have recovered to their pre-crisis level, jumping over the US$2.5 billion mark, though still lower than the historic high. As the large non-governmental organizations spend roughly 80 percent of their funding on conservation programs, policies, awareness and education, some US$2 billion may have been extended from these organizations in 2011.
Countries have become increasingly receptive to nature-based international organizations and non-governmental organizations. Conservation organizations, such as WWF International, The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International sometimes have an Australian arm, or are regionally headquartered in Australia, with a focus on activities specifically in Australia’s regions. The mobilizing capability of nongovernmental organizations is strongly correlated with economic and business environments in respective countries. But in many cases, non-governmental organizations are much more effective in mobilizing private resources from corporations and individuals. This trend will likely continue in the coming decade.

BirdLife International
Conservation International
Flora and Fauna International
The Nature Conservancy
Wildlife Conservation Society
World Wildlife Fund
World Resources Institute

  • United Nations
  • United Nations Environment Programme