This section contains:
- key reports published or sponsored by the European Commission (EC);
- other publications (EU and global scope).
Key reports published or sponsored by the EC
This study, prepared by external experts (2022), presents proposals for updating the European Commission’s methodology to track biodiversity in the multi-annual financial framework for 2021-2027. It also provides an assessment of the funding needs to implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, of current and projected biodiversity spending in the EU, and of the funding gap.
This study, prepared by external experts (2017), analyses lessons learnt on biodiversity financing and tracking in the main EU funding instruments in the first years of the 2014-2020 budget, and makes recommendations for improvements.
This study, prepared by external experts (2015), proposes an approach for tracking biodiversity in the EU budget for 2014-2020, based on the OECD Rio markers methodology. Part I provides general guidance and a typology for applying the markers to the EU budget. Part II develops more detailed advice on the use of the markers for specific EU funds.
This report presents the web-based eConservation application developed by the JRC (see section "Resources on biodiversity financing”).
This study, prepared by external experts (2012), examines potential interventions to promote the involvement of the private sector in biodiversity financing, including through compliance markets such as biodiversity offsets and biocarbon credits or investment in green infrastructure.
This study, prepared by external experts (2010), carried out an assessment of the overall costs of implementing the Natura 2000 network in the EU and explored the associated socio-economic benefits, notably through case studies.
This policy paper, prepared by the OECD for the United Kingdom Presidency of the G7 (2021), analyses four priority action areas for governments: measuring and mainstreaming biodiversity; aligning budgetary and fiscal policy with biodiversity; embedding biodiversity in the financial sector; and improving biodiversity outcomes linked to international trade.
This OECD report (2020) provides a comprehensive overview and aggregate estimates of global biodiversity finance. It also examines government funding potentially harmful to biodiversity and offers recommendations for improving the assessment, tracking and reporting of biodiversity finance.
This report, prepared by the OECD for the G7 environment ministers’ meeting in May 2019, presents a preliminary assessment of global biodiversity-related finance flows and examines data gaps to be addressed.
This publication from Global Canopy (2021), which includes a set of case studies, aims to help governments, NGOs, the private sector and others to compare options for financing conservation. In order to overcome the finance gap, it looks at how to redirect private and public funding away from activities with negative impacts on nature towards nature-positive investment opportunities.
This study from the Paulson Institute, the Nature Conservancy, and Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability (2020) assesses how much is currently spent and how much is needed in the next 10 years to protect global biodiversity and the services it provides. It estimates the global funding gap at USD 598-824 billion per year and argues that it can only be closed by shifting capital flows away from harmful behaviours and toward outcomes that benefit nature.
The second report of the CBD High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources (2014) presents a broad assessment of the amount of funding needed to achieve all 20 Aichi targets by 2020, estimated at USD 150-440 billion annually.
The Review includes a chapter on Finance for Sustainable Engagement with Nature, which discusses the mechanisms through which finance from public and private sources can support biodiversity, and the existing limitations.
This study, prepared for the European Parliament by external experts (2020), analyses the methodologies used for tracking expenditure related to climate and biodiversity in the EU budget and suggests approaches for strengthening the tracking mechanisms.
This study (2018) presents the findings of the National Biodiversity Expenditure Review carried out in Ireland using the BIOFIN methodology. It provides a baseline from which expenditure can be tracked relative to national and international biodiversity targets.
This report from the European Court of Auditors (2020) reviews the methodology for tracking climate spending in the EU budget and looks ahead to the post-2020 period.
This special report from the European Court of Auditors (2020) includes a review of the methodology for tracking biodiversity-related expenditure in the EU budget.
This brochure presents statistics on biodiversity-relevant economic instruments and the finance they mobilise, based on available data in the OECD’s database of Policy Instruments for the Environment (PINE).
This academic article by A. Balmford and T. Whitten (2003) compares the spatial distribution of the costs and benefits of tropical biodiversity conservation. It concludes that the funding gap should be borne largely by national and especially global communities, who receive most benefit but pay least cost.
This academic article by D.C. Miller, A. Agrawal and J.T. Roberts (2013) presents the results of a comprehensive assessment of official donor assistance for biodiversity during 1980–2008, using the AidData compilation, and analyses the effectiveness of the allocation of aid flows.
This academic article by A. Waldron, A.O. Mooers, D.C. Miller et al. (2013) assembles a global database of annual conservation spending and develops a statistical model of conservation expenditures. This model is used to identify the most severely underfunded countries, which represent urgent priorities for biodiversity conservation funding.