Last updated: 14/04/2026

Financing from the EU budget

During the 2014-2020 period, the EU budget dedicated EUR 85 billion to combatting biodiversity loss, or 8% of the EU long-term budget, the multi-annual financial framework (MFF). This reflects contributions from a range of EU programmes across different policy areas, including notably a significant contribution from the common agricultural policy (CAP). 

For the current 2021-2027 financial programming period and beyond, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 has set the following objectives: 

• at least €20 billion a year should be unlocked for spending on nature. This will require mobilising private and public funding at national and EU level, including through a range of different programmes in the next long-term EU budget.  

• as nature restoration will make a major contribution to climate objectives, a significant proportion of the EU budget dedicated to climate action will be invested on biodiversity and nature-based solutions. 

• under the  EU investment programme InvestEU (which aims to leverage private and public funds for investing in the EU's top policy priority areas), a dedicated natural-capital and circular-economy initiative will be established to mobilise at least €10 billion over the next 10 years, based on public/private blended finance.

Furthermore, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU decided that the long-term EU budget for 2021-2027 should dedicate 7.5 % of annual spending to biodiversity in 2024, increasing to 10 % in 2026 and 2027.

To achieve these objectives, the EU has been actively mainstreaming biodiversity across EU funds and programmes. Biodiversity-related investments have also been supported by the EU recovery plan, NextGenerationEU, notably by featuring in Member States’ national plans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The chart below shows estimates of spending for biodiversity over the 2021-2027 period based on past and expected programming (these estimates are still subject to change for the last years, depending notably on the adoption of new measures). Overall, the contribution to biodiversity objectives is estimated at EUR 112 690 million over the period 2021-2027, accounting for 5.8% of the EU long-term budget (MFF) augmented by NextGenerationEU. While the 7.5% target for 2024 has been achieved, the overall contribution towards biodiversity in 2026 and 2027 is projected to fall below the initial ambition of reaching 10%.

An assessment of the funding needs to fully implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 was carried out as part of the above-mentioned study on Biodiversity Financing and Tracking. These funding needs, including baseline expenditure, were estimated at around EUR 48 billion annually between 2021 and 2030, i.e. a significantly higher amount than the EUR 20 billion/year highlighted in the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The study also estimates overall expenditure supporting biodiversity, including from the MFF and Member States’ national budgets as well as private funding, at circa EUR 29 billion annually over 2021-2030, and the remaining financing gap at around EUR 19 billion annually. The Commission's 2025 Environmental Implementation Review estimated the annual investment gap in biodiversity and ecosystems (including soil ecosystems) at EUR 37.4 billion. Unlocking the necessary funding for fully implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy will require increased contributions from public budgets and private actors at national and EU level. 

Along with the mobilisation of adequate funding for biodiversity, it is also important to ensure that overall EU spending at a minimum has no negative impacts and, whenever possible, supports the achievement of biodiversity objectives. The EU budget, as well as the financing that was mobilised under the Resilience and Recovery Facility, must comply with the European Green Deal “do no harm” oath, as established in the inter-institutional agreement. More information on the practical operationalisation of this principle in the EU budget can be found in Annex II of the Climate Mainstreaming Architecture Staff Working Document. 

Mobilising public and private investment in natural capital

To halt and reverse deteriorating trends in biodiversity, public financing needs to be complemented by increasing investment from the private sector. This can include dedicated funding that directly supports conservation and sustainable use as well as other investment that generates positive impacts while targeting other objectives. The Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF), created under the LIFE programme, developed a series of bankable operations serving as a "proof of concept" and supported natural capital investments projects until 2021. Scaling up such operations at the level required will be a major challenge (greening finance and investments requires a deep transformation in key economic sectors). For the 2021-2027 period, investment in "biodiversity and ecosystems" is supported under the InvestEU programme, which offers an EU guarantee to mobilise public and private financing for strategic investments supporting EU policy priorities. Biodiversity is addressed in particular under the “Sustainable infrastructure” window, one of the four priority areas supported. InvestEU combines a variety of EU financial instruments and is implemented through financial partners (including the European Investment Bank Group and other international financial institutions), who will invest in projects using the EU guarantee. 

In addition to dedicated financing instruments, the EU is putting in place a comprehensive enabling framework that is conducive to sustainable investment, including in relation with biodiversity objectives. 

EU and Member States’ financing for biodiversity

Biodiversity-related spending by EU Member States includes national co-funding for EU funds as well as all other relevant national expenditures. As Parties to the CBD, the EU and its Member States have to report on their domestic and international financial flows to support biodiversity. This must include funding from central government budgets, and aims to also cover other public and private funding sources, although the reporting of these flows is still incomplete and there is a lack of timely and consistent data (in terms of coverage and tracking methodologies), in particular for domestic expenditures. As regards international financial flows, biodiversity-related ODA flows are also reported to the OECD-Development Assistance Committee, based on the Rio markers, which ensures better data consistency. 

Domestic funding

The table below provides an overview of domestic financial flows in the EU and its Member States between 2006 and 2020 based on the latest available financial reports to the CBD (only partial data are available for the years after 2015), showing positive trends in several countries as well as the EU.

Table 1. Overview of domestic financial flows related to biodiversity, by EU Member States and institutions (million EUR) as reported to the CBD

Source: Reports from https://www.cbd.int/financial/reporting.shtml, complemented in some cases by data provided by the EU Member States to the EU Council Presidency or the European Commission.  

For countries that reported in national currency or USD, the average annual exchange rates from OECD have been used (https://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm). Changes in the exchange rate may outweigh changes in absolute figures in the national currency.  

EU Member States also report to Eurostat on their domestic expenditures on biodiversity, as part of the reporting on general government expenditure under the European System of National Accounts, using the international Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). This reporting focuses on direct expenditure for biodiversity (“Biodiversity and landscape protection”) and therefore does not include other environmental expenditure that may also contribute to biodiversity objectives.

External funding

The EU has been supporting biodiversity action and the implementation of international biodiversity commitments in partner countries, including developing countries, for more than two decades. This includes support to the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and financing projects in partner countries. EU external programmes significantly increased their focus on biodiversity over the 2014-2020 period, as part of promoting sustainable development. 

Together, the EU and its Member States are the largest donor of international aid for biodiversity and have made a strong contribution to the global resource mobilisation targets agreed by the Parties to the CBD at Hyderabad. The table below shows a doubling of overall international financial flows from the EU and its Member States to developing countries in 2015 compared to 2006-2010 and, based on the latest data available, a continued strong increase until 2019, with a slight decrease in 2020 but still way above the 2015 level.  

Table 2. Overview of international financial flows related to biodiversity by EU Member States and institutions (million EUR) as reported to the CBD

Source: Reports from https://www.cbd.int/financial/reporting.shtml, complemented in some cases by data provided by the EU Member States to the EU Council Presidency or the European Commission.  

International financial flows related to biodiversity include official development assistance (ODA) and other flows.  

For countries that reported in national currency or USD, the average annual exchange rates from OECD have been used (https://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm). Changes in the exchange rate may outweigh changes in absolute figures in the national currency. 

* The index provides an indication of how the EU and its Member States together are contributing to the CBD Hyderabad target. For example for 2015, it compares the sum of the funding provided in 2015 with that provided in 2006-2010, and is calculated year-to-year taking into account only those countries for which data are available. The index shows the trend over time but does not represent a precise assessment of the funding from the EU and its Member States. Small variations in its value should not be considered as significant trend changes. The index is calculated taking into account the fact that the UK was part of the EU until 2019 and is no longer since 1st February 2020.   

The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) and the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA3) are expected to contribute to the ambition of dedicating 7.5% of annual spending under the MFF to biodiversity objectives in 2024 and 10% in 2026 and 2027. Furthermore, in September 2021, the European Commission President announced that the EU will double its external funding for biodiversity (compared to 2014-2020, when it reached EUR 3.5 billion), in particular for the most vulnerable countries.  

EU external action activities also need to comply with the ‘do no harm’ principle and support biodiversity-friendly investments whenever possible. Increasingly, EU external funding is provided through support to investments, in the form of blended finance or guarantees. In this case the environmental and social standards and safeguards of the lead financial institution are followed (do no harm). Specific work is taking place to increase support for investments with positive impacts on nature. This can raise significant challenges due to the externalities that need to be factored in, as the benefits provided by biodiversity and ecosystems are often not well reflected in market prices (similar challenges also arise for the mobilisation of private investment to support biodiversity domestically). 

In the context of the CBD, ambitious goals and targets on global biodiversity financing have been internationally agreed at COP15 in December 2022 as a core part of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework (GBF). The importance of financing is fully reflected in Goal D, one of the 4 goals of the GBF:

"Adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and access to and transfer of technology to fully implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework are secured and equitably accessible to all Parties, especially developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition,progressively closing the biodiversity finance gap of $700 billion per year,and aligning financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity."

To ensure the achievement of this long-term goal by 2050, several action-oriented global targets have been agreed for urgent action over the decade to 2030 concerning total financing for biodiversity, international financial flows to developing countries, and the elimination of harmful incentives, including subsidies:

"Target 18: Identify by 2025, and eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies harmful for biodiversity, in a proportionate, just, fair, effective and equitable way, while substantially and progressively reducing them by at least500 billion United States dollars per year by 2030, starting with the most harmful incentives, and scale up positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Target 19: Substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources, in an effective, timely and easily accessible manner, including domestic,international, public and private resources, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by2030 mobilizing at least 200 billion United States dollars per year, including by:

(a) Increasing total biodiversity related international financial resources from developed countries, including official development assistance, and from countries that voluntarily assume obligations of developed country Parties, to developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030;

(b) Significantly increasing domestic resource mobilization, facilitated by the preparation and implementation of national biodiversity finance plans or similar instruments according to national needs, priorities and circumstances

(c) Leveraging private finance, promoting blended finance, implementing strategies for raising new and additional resources, and encouraging the private sector to invest in biodiversity, including through impact funds and other instruments;

(d) Stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, benefit-sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards

(e) Optimizing co-benefits and synergies of finance targeting the biodiversity and climate crises,

(f) Enhancing the role of collective actions, including by indigenous peoples and local communities, Mother Earth centric actions¹ and non-market-based approaches including community based natural resource management and civil society cooperation and solidarity aimed at the conservation of biodiversity

(g) Enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of resource provision and use."

Given its active role in negotiating the new global framework, the EU is expected to become a frontrunner in the implementation of these commitments, which will require further efforts from the EU and its Member States in terms of both domestic and international spending for biodiversity and of enabling increased contributions from a variety of other sources. 

EU research and innovation activities on biodiversity financing

• CORDIS database: for exploring past and ongoing EU-funded research and innovation projects on biodiversity financing;

• EU funding and tenders portal: for exploring funding and tender opportunities on biodiversity financing

^[1] These aggregate estimates should be considered with caution because of gaps and inconsistencies in the available data, in particular for private funding.