barometer on cbd’s strategy for resource mobilization · 2020. 5. 22. · barometer on cbd’s...

Monitoring Developed Country Parties’ Commitment to Double and Maintain Biodiversity-related International Financial Resource Flows

Barometer on CBD’s Strategy for Resource Mobilization

2

Imprint

Publisher: WWF Germany, Reinhardtstr. 18, 10117 BerlinDate: November 2018Lead authors: Andrea Kraljevic (Consultant for Biodiversity and Resource Management) Günter Mitlacher (Director International Biodiversity Policy) Carol Phua (Global Coral Reef Initiative Manager and Global Marine

Protected Area Expert WWF Global Oceans Practice)Contact: Günter Mitlacher | [email protected] Carol Phua | [email protected]: Silke Roßbach | www.silke-rossbach.deProduktion: Maro Ballach (WWF)

Credits: S.4: Simon Rawles/WWF, S.14: Wikicommons, S.17: Tim Laman/naturepl.com

© 2018 WWF Germany, Berlin

Funded by

www.mkuesters.com

Barometer on CBD’s Strategy for Resource Mobilization | 3

Table of Contents

Executive summary 51 Objective of the Barometer 82 Barometer Methodology to Monitor Bilateral Resource Mobilization Commitments 93 Developed Country Parties’ Funding Baseline 2006 – 2010 144 Barometer – “Doubling and Maintaining” Achieved? 145 Multilateral Financial Flows through the GEF 186 Conclusions and Way Forward 20 Annex A – Biodiversity-related International Financial Flows 22 Annex B – Annual Total Biodiversity Financial Flows 24


Objective of the BarometerIn 2010, Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed to scaling-up their financing in order to support achieving the Strategic Plan 2011 – 2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. Aichi Target 20 in particular calls for a substantial increase of financial resources, which was accompanied by the Strategy for Resource Mobilization (SRM) that set resource mobilization targets.

This report’s objective is to assess how well donor countries achieved the time-bound resource mobilization target on international financial flows – i.e. doubling of the baseline figure by 2015 and at least maintaining this level until 2020 – by reviewing their annual biodiversity-related expendi-tures. With this Barometer, WWF is keeping track of developed countries’ accountability.

Barometer MethodologyWe used the data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), based on the reporting of OECD’s Development Assistant Committee (DAC), since most CBD developed country Parties are also DAC members, and the OECD DAC provides the most comprehensive, consistent, uniform, and up-to-date data. We only included expenditures qualified as ODA since other international financial flow data are not readily available.

Despite CBD Parties increased reporting through the Financial Reporting Frame- work, consistency and uniformity remain a deficiency. For this reason, the CBD national financial reports were considered too variable for the sake of assessing how well developed countries honoured their commitment to double and main-tain biodiversity-related international flows.

We note that the Barometer’s scores are not comprehensive due to missing information from several (newer) DAC member Parties and other funding sources. However, since Official Development Aid (ODA) funding is the most important flow to biodiversity financing, the ODA data analysed provides quite a robust picture of the magnitude and trend of international financial resource flows from developed to developing countries over the years.

Conclusions on bilateral resource mobilizationBased on OECD DAC data using constant 2016 prices, the baseline (defined as the average from 2006 – 2010) of biodiversity-related international financial flows from CBD Parties was US$3.4 billion.

The Barometer of bilateral resource mobilization shows mixed results. On one hand, donor countries that are Party to the CBD collectively doubled their biodiversity-related funding and increased their expenditure by 130 % from the baseline to 2015. The funding level reached US$7.8 billion. Overall, the commitment to target 1(a) of CBD’s Strategy for Resource Mobiliza-tion was fulfilled (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/4)1.

Executive Summary

WWF is keeping track of developed countries’

accountability

6

However, upon closer inspection, only 43 % of countries doubled their expenditures, while 28 % of countries had increased, but not yet dou-bled funding. Alarmingly, 29 % of countries decreased their biodiversity funding in 2015 compared to the baseline.

In 2016, 57 % of countries decreased their 2016 funding compared to 2015, while 43 % of countries – maintained their doubling commitment. This translated to a remarkable 20 % reduction in biodiversity-related funding – down to US$6.2 billion.

Conclusions on multilateral resource mobilization through the Global Environment Facility (GEF)

As the financial mechanism of the CBD and largest public funder of country-driven projects, we also reviewed the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) biodiversity-re-lated funding portfolio. Though, biodiversity-targeted funding has steadily increased with each GEF cycle since 1992, it did not double from the 2006 – 2010 baseline by 2014, 2018, or in the current 2018 – 2022 GEF-7 cycle. Overall, biodiversity related GEF funding has only increased about 30 % between GEF-4 and GEF-7.

Way forwardReporting of biodiversity financing is still a very difficult subject and many Parties lack capacity or political will to track their biodiversity spending through various mechanisms. Recently, the second meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implemen-tation (SBI) noted “that only a few Parties have submitted their financial reports, including reports on domestic resources…” Hence, SBI-2 urged “… all Parties to increase their efforts to achieve the targets, including the doubling of total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows… and maintaining this level until 2020, as stated in target 1(a)” (CBD/SBI/REC/2/6, P)2.

The results of the Barometer corroborate this conclusion. As sufficient funding is essential for achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the implementation of a post-2020 biodiversity framework, WWF calls on

■ Donor countries that have not reached the doubling and those that reduced their bilateral international spending since 2015 to increase their efforts to meet their commitments.

■ Donor countries that have doubled their bilateral international resource flow to maintain and increase their expenditure to meet the funding needs.

■ Donors to the GEF to significantly step up their contribution to reach at least the level of $US2.5 billion by GEF-8 to address the needs for the implementa-tion of a post-2020 biodiversity framework.

■ COP-14 to assess the various reporting methodologies to track biodiversity financing (OECD DAC, GEF, CBD’s financial reporting framework) in order to develop a coherent methodology to ensure transparency, consistency, comparability, and accountability.

57 % of countries decreased their

2016 funding compared to 2015


■ ALL Parties to continuously increase their efforts to track their entire biodiver-sity-related expenditures at the national and international level in order to transparently show their performance to meet ALL targets of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization.

In addition, a new or amended resource mobilization strategy must be an integral part of the overall post-2020 strategic framework to be adopted by COP-15. Therefore, Parties should ensure that a new strategy to mobilize additional resources is developed in parallel. Parties should initiate preparations on this at the earliest stage to ensure full coherence and coordina-tion with the overall process for the post-2020 framework.

Table 2. The percent change in total biodiversity funding (constant price 2016) from the baseline average of 2006 – 2010 until 2015 (deadline for “doubling”) and from 2015 – 2016 (indicator of “maintaining until 2020”). Barometer from the baseline until 2015: Red = Decrease in funding; Orange = 0 – 49.99 % increase; Yellow = 50 – 99 % increase; Green = 100 % or more increase. Barometer from 2015 – 2016: Green = maintained doubling commitment; Red = did not maintain doubling commitment. * DAC Member since 2013 (as no data reported pre-membership, assumed baseline of US$0), ** DAC Member since 2016. § Non Party to the CBD.

Donor 2006 – 2010 Total BD Funding Average – “Baseline” (US$ mil)

2015 Total BD Funding (US$ mil)

% Change TOTAL BD Funding Baseline – 2015

2016 Total BD Funding(US$ mil)

% Change TOTAL BD Funding 2015 – 2016

Australia 151.13 219.71 +45 % 268.28 +22 % Austria 19.59 17.27 -12 % 19.68 +14 %

Belgium 91.13 196.14 +115 % 130.80 -33 % Canada 62.90 59.10 -6 % 22.94 -61 %

Czech Republic * 0.00 3.01 + 3.62 +20 % Denmark 134.43 149.92 +12 % 37.40 -75 %

EU Institutions 422.53 598.06 +42 % 714.30 +19 % Finland 73.54 19.41 -74 % 5.97 -69 % France 208.28 1,599.29 +668 % 1,904.94 +19 %

Germany 323.42 1,177.56 +264 % 1,111.23 -6 % Greece 3.32 0.19 -94 % 0.96 +399 %

Hungary ** 0.00 0.00 n/a 0.00 n/a Iceland * 0.00 4.26 + 3.96 -7 % Ireland 29.82 24.33 -18 % 43.39 +78 %

Italy 46.05 67.53 +47 % 48.62 -28 % Japan 1,149.57 2,048.01 +78 % 677.46 -67 % Korea 18.83 33.54 +78 % 25.18 -25 %

Luxembourg 0.62 8.97 +1,346 % 8.98 0 % Netherlands 151.89 197.21 +30 % 89.58 -55 % New Zealand 10.26 5.56 -46 % 7.30 +31 %

Norway 174.79 590.07 +238 % 420.83 -29 % Poland * 0.00 2.02 + 0.61 -70 % Portugal 2.29 1.12 -51 % 1.10 -2 %

Slovak Republic * 0.00 0.02 + 0.08 +373 % Slovenia * 0.00 0.01 + 0.36 +2,367 %

Spain 176.41 35.19 -80 % 30.47 -13 % Sweden 45.48 291.49 +541 % 234.95 -19 %

Switzerland 44.16 48.43 +10 % 119.81 +147 % United Kingdom 54.64 411.09 +652 % 296.81 -28 % United States § 342.75 7,808.52 +2,178 % 1,309.03 -83 %

DAC members, Total 3,737.83 15,617.03 +318 % 7,538.66 -52 %DAC members, Total

without USA3,395.08 7,808.52 +130 % 6,229.63 -20 %

8

1 Objective of the Barometer

In 2010, Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed to scaling-up their financing in order to support achieving the Strategic Plan 2011 – 2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. Aichi Target 20 in particular calls for a substantial increase of financial resources:

By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011 – 2020 from all sources, and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the strategy for resource mobilization, should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resource needs assessments to be developed and reported by parties (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2).3

COP-10 in Nagoya, Japan, also decided on the Strategy for Resource Mobilization (SRM) in support of the achievement of the Convention’s three objectives. At COP-11 in Hyderabad, India, Parties agreed to set a target on international financial flows and identified actions to increase mobilization of financial resources from all sources (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/4, Para 7a). At both COP-12 and COP-13 in 2014 and 2016, this commitment was reaffirmed, as follows:

1 (a) Double total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows to developing countries, in particular least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, using average annual biodiversity funding for the years 2006 – 2010 as a baseline, by 2015, and at least maintain this level until 2020, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, to contribute to the achievement of the Convention’s three objectives, including through a country-driven prioritization of biodiversity within development plans in recipient countries (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XII/3)4

5 Urges Parties to increase their efforts to achieve the targets, including the doubling of total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows to developing countries, in particular least developed countries and small island developing States as well as countries with economies in transition… (CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/20)5

At COP-12, Parties also agreed to mobilize domestic financial resources from all sources to reduce the gap between identified needs and available resources at domestic level (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XII/3, Para 1e).

This report’s goal is to assess how well donor countries achieved the time-bound resource mobilization target on international financial flows – i.e. doubling of the baseline figure and maintaining until 2020 – by review-ing their annual biodiversity-related expenditures. With this Barometer, WWF is keeping track of developed countries’ accountability. The COP and others can also use this Barometer to monitor how well commitments have been honoured.


2 Barometer Methodology to Monitor Bilateral Resource Mobilization Commitments Due to the lack of consistent or uniform information on TOTAL expenditures for biodiversity provided by Parties in the Financial Reporting Framework (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XII/3), we used the data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We note that the result is not comprehensive due to missing information from several (newer) member Parties and other funding sources (see Figure 1). However, since Official Development Aid (ODA) funding is the most important flow to biodiversity financing, the ODA data analysed provides quite a robust picture of the magni-tude and trend of international financial resource flows from developed to developing countries over the years.

CBD Parties classified as “developed countries”The specific role of developed country Parties in providing financial resources is outlined in Article 20 of the Convention:

The developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfil the obligations of this Convention …6

COP-1 published a list of countries that voluntarily assume the obligations of developed country Parties (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/I/2, Annex II)7; this list was updated at COP-8 in 2006 (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VIII/18, Annex)8 (see Table 1 below).

What are “international financial resource flows”?According to the CBD’s “Methodological and Implementation Guidance” to monitor the SRM, international financial flows and ODA are defined as follows (UNEP/CBD/SRM/Guidance/1)9:

International flows of financial resources originate from several sources (see Figure 1). Official development assistance (ODA) is one of these sources. ODA can be either bilateral (directly from a donor country to a recipient country) or multilateral (resources channelled through international financial institu-tions [i.e. the Global Environment Facility or World Bank] and United Nations organization funds and programmes). International financial flows can also include non-ODA public funding (North-South) and cooperation among devel-oping countries (South-South cooperation) as well as flows through private companies and through international not-for-profit organizations….ODA refers to flows of official financing administered with the purpose of promoting economic development and welfare of developing countries…

ODA data analysed provides quite a robust

picture of the magnitude and trend of

international financial resource flows

10

How are expenditures on “international financial resource flows” monitored?Currently, there are two main systems in place to report bilateral and multilateral biodiversity-related ODA:

i) CBD’s Financial Reporting FrameworkAt COP-11, CBD Parties welcomed and decided “… to use the preliminary report-ing framework and methodological and implementation guidance (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/14/Add.1) as a flexible and preliminary framework to report on and monitor resources mobilized for biodiversity at national and global level” (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/4). Parties adopted a revised Financial Reporting Framework at COP-12 (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XII/3).

Prior to COP-13 in 2014, 24 developed countries submitted national financial reports through the new framework. However, submissions differed in the years and type of financial flows, in which currency, and how comprehensively ODA funding was reported. At COP-13 Parties “[took] note with concern of the insufficient information gathered from the financial reporting frameworks submitted by Parties, which limits the basis for a comprehensive assessment of progress towards achieving the targets” (CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/20). The Subsidiary Body on Implementation noted in July 2018 “that only a few Parties have submitted their financial reports, including reports on domestic resources” (CBD/SBI/REC/2/6, Para 2). As of September 1, 2018, there were 75 financial reports on baseline and progress towards 2015. However, the continued lack of consistency and uniformity in reporting prevented deriving a comprehensive assessment for this Barometer.

ODAOther public funds

(non-ODA public funding and South-South Cooperation)

Private sector / Market

International Financial Flows

Not for profit organizations (NGOs, foundations,

and academia)

Bilateral Multilateral

Figure 1. Types of international financial flows (source: UNEP/CBD/SRM/Guidance/1)

The continued lack of consistencyand

uniformity in reporting prevented deriving

a comprehensive assessment


Updated list of developed country Parties to the CBD

OECD DAC Member

Updated list of developed country Parties to the CBD

OECD DAC Member

Australia Australia Austria Austria

Belgium Belgium Canada Canada

Czech Republic Czech Republic* Denmark Denmark

-- EU Institutions Finland Finland

France France Germany Germany

Greece Greece -- Hungary**

Iceland Iceland* Ireland Ireland

Italy Italy Japan Japan

-- Korea Luxembourg Luxembourg

Monaco -- Netherlands Netherlands

New Zealand New Zealand Norway Norway

-- Poland* Portugal Portugal

-- Slovak Republic* Slovenia Slovenia*

Spain Spain Sweden Sweden

Switzerland Switzerland United Kingdom United Kingdom

-- non Party to the CBD -- United States

ii) Reporting of OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC)The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) was established as an international forum for bilateral donors to contribute to sustainable development. To date, there are 30 DAC Members, who are predominantly also listed as CBD developed country Parties (see Table 1).

The DAC defines ODA similarly to the CBD – as government aid that promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries. ODA is the resource flows to countries and territories on the DAC List of ODA Recipients and to multilateral development institutions that are i. Provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies; and ii. Concessional (i.e. grants and soft loans) and administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing12.

Based on annual member reporting, the OECD DAC compiles financial resource flows for development broken down by sector: i.e. biodiversity, climate, etc. Biodiversity-related ODA mainly includes grants and is tracked with the Rio Marker for Biodiversity (see box).

Table 1. Updated list of developed country Parties to the CBD (2006, UNEP/CBD/COP/8/20) and OECD DAC Members11 (* DAC Member since 2013, **DAC Member since 2016).

12

(Source: OECD DAC Statistics, Biodiversity-related Official Development Assistance, Updated April 201613)

“Rio Marker” – Biodiversity

Since 1998, Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has monitored develop-ment finance targeting the objectives of the Rio Conventions through DAC members’ reporting on the Rio markers…

…development co-operation activities [are either] marked as either targeting the Conventions as a “principal” objective or a “significant” objective...

Activities marked as “principal” would not have been funded but for that objective; activities marked “significant” have other prime objectives, but have been formulated or adjusted to help meet biodiversity concerns.

The Rio markers are descriptive rather than strictly quantitative. They allow for an approximate quantification of financial flows targeting the objectives of the Rio conventions. The figures presented… may not be identical to the figures reported by Parties to the CBD, where reporting is often based on, but may not be directly comparable to Rio marker data.

Biodiversity-related development finance is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources.

An activity can be marked with the biodiversity Rio marker if it contributes to: a. protection of or enhancing ecosystems, species or genetic resources through in-situ or ex-situ conservation, or remedying existing environmental damage; or b. integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services concerns within recipient countries’ development objectives and economic decision making, through institution building, capacity development, strengthening the regulatory and policy framework, or research; or c. developing countries’ efforts to meet their obligations under the Convention.


Barometer MethodologyDespite CBD Parties increased reporting through the Financial Reporting Frame- work, consistency and uniformity remain a deficiency. For this reason, the CBD national financial reports were considered too variable for the sake of scoring how well developed countries honoured their commitment to double and maintain biodiversity-related international flows.

Since most CBD developed country Parties are also DAC members, and the OECD DAC provides the most comprehensive, consistent, uniform, and up-to-date data, WWF used DAC data for its Barometer on donor country’s biodiversity-related expenditures. WWF only included expenditures qualified as ODA since other international financial flow data are not readily available and ODA is the main funding flow to developing countries.

In line with OECD DAC’s reporting, this Barometer presents biodiversity-related financing data in the constant 2016 price. Constant price provides a truer idea of the volume of flows over time… [an] adjustment has been made to cover both inflation in the donor’s currency between the year in question and the reference year, and changes in the exchange rate between that currency and the United States dollar over the same period14. To arrive at the TOTAL biodiversity related financing, “principal” and “significant” expenditures were added together.

It is important to note that DAC data reporting is voluntary for members and some members joined only recently. Hence, funding data was sometimes not available for all countries and/or all years. European Union institutions, Korea, Poland, Slovak Republic, and USA are DAC members, but are not included in the CBD’s list of developed countries (see Table 1). However, since the EU, Korea, Poland, and the Slovak Republic did not receive any ODA funding15 and are Parties to the CBD, they were included in the analysis. Though the USA is a DAC member, they are a non-Party to the CBD and were thus NOT included in the analysis. While Monaco is considered a CBD developed country, it is not an OECD DAC member and thus no country-specific funding information is available.

At COP-11, it was decided that a preliminary baseline would be established using average annual biodiversity funding for the years 2006 – 2010 (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/4, para 6). Data on developed countries’ biodiversity-related expenditures from 2015 (the deadline for “doubling”) and 2016 (to monitor if countries were “maintaining”) was then compared to this baseline to score how well developed country Parties honoured their commitment to “double total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows…by 2015…and at least maintain this level until 2020”.

The OECD DAC provides the most comprehensive,

consistent, uniform, and up-to-date data

14

Based on OECD DAC data using constant 2016 prices, the average baseline of biodiversity-related international financial flows from CBD Parties was US$3.4 billion (see Table 2 and Annex A).

Since no funding data for 2006 – 2010 was available for countries that only became DAC members in 2013 (the Czech Republic, Iceland, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia) and 2016 (Hungary), it was assumed that their baseline funding was US$0 for this analysis.

Overall, DAC members that are Party to the CBD collectively doubled their biodiversity-related funding by 130 % from the baseline to 2015 (see Table 2 and Annex A). In 2016, less than half – 43 % – maintained their doubling commitment (see Figure 2). It should be noted, annual expenditures tended to fluctuate greatly (see Annex B).

The OECD’s headquarters are at the Château de la Muette in Paris, France.

3 Developed Country Parties’ Funding Baseline 2006 – 2010

4 Barometer – “Doubling and Maintaining” Achieved?


Table 2. The percent change in total biodiversity funding (constant price 2016) from the baseline average of 2006 – 2010 until 2015 (deadline for “doubling”) and from 2015 – 2016 (indicator of “maintaining until 2020”). Barometer from the baseline until 2015: Red = Decrease in funding; Orange = 0 – 49.99 % increase; Yellow = 50 – 99 % increase; Green = 100 % or more increase. Barometer from 2015 – 2016: Green = maintained doubling commitment; Red = did not maintain doubling commitment. * DAC Member since 2013 (as no data reported pre-membership, assumed baseline of US$0), ** DAC Member since 2016. § Non Party to the CBD.

Donor

2006 – 2010 Total BD Funding

Average – “Base-line” (US$ mil)

2015 Total BD Funding

(US$ mil)

% Change TOTAL BD Funding

Baseline – 2015


(US$ mil)


2015 – 2016

Australia 151.13 219.71 +45 % 268.28 +22 %

Austria 19.59 17.27 -12 % 19.68 +14 %

Belgium 91.13 196.14 +115 % 130.80 -33 %

Canada 62.90 59.10 -6 % 22.94 -61 %

Czech Republic * 0.00 3.01 + 3.62 +20 %

Denmark 134.43 149.92 +12 % 37.40 -75 %

EU Institutions 422.53 598.06 +42 % 714.30 +19 %

Finland 73.54 19.41 -74 % 5.97 -69 %

France 208.28 1,599.29 +668 % 1,904.94 +19 %

Germany 323.42 1,177.56 +264 % 1,111.23 -6 %

Greece 3.32 0.19 -94 % 0.96 +399 %

Hungary ** 0.00 0.00 n/a 0.00 n/a

Iceland * 0.00 4.26 + 3.96 -7 %

Ireland 29.82 24.33 -18 % 43.39 +78 %

Italy 46.05 67.53 +47 % 48.62 -28 %

Japan 1,149.57 2,048.01 +78 % 677.46 -67 %

Korea 18.83 33.54 +78 % 25.18 -25 %

Luxembourg 0.62 8.97 +1,346 % 8.98 0 %

Netherlands 151.89 197.21 +30 % 89.58 -55 %

New Zealand 10.26 5.56 -46 % 7.30 +31 %

Norway 174.79 590.07 +238 % 420.83 -29 %

Poland * 0.00 2.02 + 0.61 -70 %

Portugal 2.29 1.12 -51 % 1.10 -2 %

Slovak Republic * 0.00 0.02 + 0.08 +373 %

Slovenia * 0.00 0.01 + 0.36 +2,367 %

Spain 176.41 35.19 -80 % 30.47 -13 %

Sweden 45.48 291.49 +541 % 234.95 -19 %

Switzerland 44.16 48.43 +10 % 119.81 +147 %

United Kingdom 54.64 411.09 +652 % 296.81 -28 %

United States § 342.75 7,808.52 +2,178 % 1,309.03 -83 %

DAC members, Total

3,737.83 15,617.03 +318 % 7,538.66 -52 %

DAC members, Total without USA

3,395.08 7,808.52 +130 % 6,229.63 -20 %

16

Increase and doubling achievedBy 2015, 43 % of DAC members that are Party to the CBD doubled their expenditures (see Table 2). These countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Member countries that joined in 2013 – Czech Republic, Iceland, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia – were also included as their baseline funding was assumed to be $US 0.

In 2016, 43 % of DAC members maintained an increase in their biodiversity financing compared to 2015 levels (see Figure 2).

Increase, but doubling not yet achieved28 % of developed country Parties had increased but not yet doubled their biodiversity funding in 2015 (see Figure 2). Twenty-one percent increased their baseline funding by up to 50 % – Australia, Denmark, EU Institutions, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland; while the remaining 7 % – Japan and Korea – increased their funding between 50 – 100 %.

43 %57 %

2016

43 %

29 %

2015

21 %7 %

< 0 %

0 – 49,99 %

50 – 99,99 %

> 100 %

Change 2015 – 2016 positive

Change 2015 – 2016 negative

Figure 2. The percent change of developed countries’ total biodiversity funding from the 2006 – 2010 average (“baseline”) to 2015 (deadline for “doubling”) and from 2015 – 2016 (indicator of “maintaining until 2020” based on 2015 funding level). It was assumed the baseline funding for DAC members that joined in 2013 was US$0, thus any increase in their funding was marked as doubling. Data used from OECD DAC member coun-tries reporting in 2016 constant prices, excluding the USA (non-Party to CBD) and Hungary (DAC member as of 2016, no data available).


Decrease29 % of developed country Parties decreased their biodiversity fund-ing in 2015 compared to baseline funding. Austria, Canada, and Ireland fell slightly below the baseline; while, Finland, Greece, New Zealand, Portugal, and Spain experienced more significant drops.

Even more dramatic is that 57 % of Parties decreased their 2016 funding compared to 2015 (see Figure 2).

EU Institutions and Member State expenditures, which comprise the biggest part of biodiversity-related ODA, can be cross-checked with data provided through CBD’s Financial Reporting Framework16 and the EU Accountability reports published from 2011 – 201517. It should be noted that data on biodiversity-related expenditure differ from OECD DAC figures. Expenditure in EU’s Accountability reports was reported using current prices in Euros and was collected using the Common Reporting Framework of the EU.

18

Table 3. GEF Resource Allocation for Biodiversity-related activities from GEF-4 (2006 – 2010, which corresponds to the “Baseline”)20 and GEF-5 (2010 – 2014), GEF-6 (2014 – 2018), and GEF-7 (2018 – 2022)21

(orange: 0 – 49.99 % increase from ‘baseline’; green: positive change)

The Global Environment Facility (GEF18) is the financial mechanism of the CBD and provides funding for developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The GEF is comprised of 183 countries in partnership with interna-tional institutions, civil society organizations, and the private sector to address global environmental issues: biodiversity, climate change, land degradation, chemicals and waste, forests and international waters.

The GEF is the largest public funder of country-driven projects. According to the Sixth Overall Performance Study of the GEF, the GEF has awarded US$4.9 billion in grants across all GEF cycles, which has leveraged US$17.3 billion in co-financing for 1,460 biodiversity-related projects19.

Table 3 shows how biodiversity-related GEF financing has changed from GEF-4 to GEF-7. Since the GEF Focal Area of International Waters covers marine area projects, it’s been included in the table. Other biodiversity-related funding was also available, in particular through the Sustainable Forest Management envelope, but financing data were not singled out in the OPS-6 study.

Although the GEF-4 amounts were decided prior to COP-11 defining the baseline reference period, the timeframe matches and we thus used GEF-4 as the baseline figure. In the first half of 2010, donors to GEF-5 decided on a remarkable increase of more than 20 % prior to the upcoming negotiations and the agreeing upon of the Strategic Plan at the CBD COP-10. An additional increase was decided for GEF-6, while the amount remained flat in GEF-7.

Despite this increase, donors to the GEF still fell short of significantly increasing biodiversity-related funding to the level that was recommended in the report of the CBD Expert Team presented to COP-13 on the Full Assessment of the Amount of Funds Needed for the Implementation of the Convention and its Protocols for the Seventh Replenishment Period of the Trust Fund of the Global Environment Facility (UNEP/CBD/COP/13/INF/16)22. The estimated funding needs for the

5 Multilateral financial flows through the GEF

GEF Thematic

Areas

GEF-4 (“Baseline” 2006 – 2010)

US$ mil.

GEF-5 (2010 – 2014) GEF-6 (2014 – 2018) GEF-7 (2018 – 2022)US$ mil

% change from

baseline

US$ mil

% change from GEF-5

to GEF-6

US$ mil.

% change from GEF-6

to GEF-7Biodiversity 990 1,210 +22 % 1,296 +7 % 1,292 +0 %

International Waters 355 440 +24 % 456 +4 % 463 +2 %

Total 1,345 1,650 +23 % 1,752 +6 % 1,755 +0 %


The GEF has a unique governing structure organized around an Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, 18 Agencies, a Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) and the Evaluation Office. It serves as a financial mechanism for several environmental conventions.

Table 4. Cumulative Direct Contribution of all GEF Resources to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (July 1, 2014 to March 15, 2018 (CBD/SBI/2/8/ADD1, Table 9, adapted)23

GEF-7 Trust Fund ranged from US$2.0 billion to US$2.8 billion under the co-financing ratios of 1:4 and 1:5 respectively (UNEP/CBD/COP/13/INF/16, Table 16). These levels would have fulfilled the CBD’s target of doubling the international financial flows to developing countries. Overall, biodiversity-targeted funding increased about 30 % since GEF-4, which is substantially less than the decided doubling and maintaining.

It should be noted, other Focal Areas and programs also contribute to achieving the Aichi targets (see Table 4, CBD/SBI/2/8/ADD1, Table 9). [From July 1, 2014 to March 15, 2018,] US$1.543 billion of GEF resources have leveraged US$7.986 billion of co-financing; a ratio of 1 to 5. This level of co-financing has resulted in a total of US$9.529 billion being invested towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD/SBI/2/8/Add.1, Para 25).

Funding Source GEF grant (US$ mil)

Co-financing (US$ mil)

Total GEF grant and co-financing

(US$ mil)Biodiversity Focal Area 777.2 3,859 4,636.2

Sustainable Forest Management 205.1 1,189 1,394.1Climate Change Mitigation program 218.5 829.6 1,048.1

International Waters 134 1,096 1,230Integrated Approach Pilot

(Commodity Supply Chains) 40.3 443.2 483.5

Non-grant Instrument Pilot 29.3 218.2 247.5Least Developed Countries Fund 102.6 314.1 416.7

Small Grants Programme 36 37 73Totals 1,543 7,986.1 9,529.1

20

Conclusions on bilateral resource mobilizationBased on OECD DAC data using constant 2016 prices, the average baseline of biodiversity-related international financial flows from CBD Parties was US$3.4 billion.

The barometer of bilateral resource mobilization shows mixed results. On one hand, donor countries that are Party to the CBD collectively doubled their biodiversity-related funding and increased their expenditure by 130 % from the baseline to 2015. The funding level reached US$7.8 billion. Overall, their commitment to target 1(a) of CBD’s Strategy for Resource Mobili- zation was fulfilled (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/4).

Taking a closer look, only 43 % of countries doubled their expenditures, while 28 % of the countries had increased, but not yet doubled. Alarm-ingly, 29 % of the countries decreased their biodiversity funding in 2015 compared to the baseline. In 2016, 57 % of countries decreased their 2016 funding compared to 2015, while 43 % of countries maintained their doubling commitment. This resulted in a remarkable 20 % reduction in biodiversity- related funding – down to US$6.2 billion.

Conclusions on multilateral resource mobilization through the GEFThough biodiversity-targeted funding has steadily increased with each GEF cycle since 1992, it did not double from the 2006 – 2010 baseline by 2014, 2018, or in the current 2018 – 2022 GEF-7 cycle. Overall, biodiversity-related funding only increased about 30 % between GEF-4 and GEF-7.

6 Conclusions and way forward


Way forwardReporting of biodiversity financing is still a very difficult subject and many Parties lack capacity or political will to track their biodiversity spending through various mechanisms. Recently, the second meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implemen-tation (SBI) noted “that only a few Parties have submitted their financial reports, including reports on domestic resources…” Hence, SBI-2 urged “… all Parties to increase their efforts to achieve the targets, including the doubling of total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows… and maintaining this level until 2020, as stated in target 1(a)” (CBD/SBI/REC/2/6, P).

The results of the Barometer corroborate this conclusion. As sufficient funding is essential for achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the needs for the implementation of a post-2020 biodiversity framework, WWF calls on

■ Donor countries that have not reached the doubling and those that reduced their bilateral international spending since 2015 to increase their efforts to meet their commitments.

■ Donor countries that have doubled their bilateral international resource flow to maintain and increase their expenditure to meet the funding needs.

■ Donors to the GEF to significantly step up their contribution to reach at least the level of $US2.5 billion by GEF-8 to address the needs for the implementa-tion of a post-2020 biodiversity framework.

■ COP-14 to assess the various reporting methodologies to track biodiversity financing (OECD DAC, GEF, CBD’s financial reporting framework) in order to develop a coherent methodology to ensure transparency, consistency, comparability, and accountability.

■ ALL Parties to continuously increase their efforts to track their entire biodiver-sity-related expenditures at the national and international level in order to transparently show their performance to meet ALL targets of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization.

In addition, a new or amended resource mobilization strategy must be an integral part of the overall post-2020 strategic framework to be adopted by COP-15. Therefore, Parties should ensure that a new strategy to mobilize additional resources is developed in parallel. Parties should initiate preparations on this at the earliest stage to ensure full coherence and coordina-tion with the overall process for the post-2020 framework.

sufficient funding is essential for achieving

the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and a post-

2020 biodiversity framework

22

As reported to the OECD DAC24, the baseline, 2015, and 2016 biodiversity related international financial flows from CBD Parties classified as developed countries. The baseline was calculated by averaging total biodiversity funding for 2006 – 2010. The average funding that had biodiversity as a principal and significant objective and the total amount is included for each donor country (* DAC Member since 2013, ** DAC Member since 2016, § Non Party to the CBD). The percent increase in funding with biodiversity as a principal and significant objective and total

Annex A Biodiversity-related International Financial Flows

Donor

2006 – 2010 (Baseline) –

Principal Average ($US)

2006 – 2010 (Baseline – Significant

Average ($US)

2006 – 2010 (Baseline) –

Total Average ($US)

2015 – Principal

($US)

2015 – Significant

($US)


($US)

% Change Principal

Baseline – 2015

% Change Significant

Baseline – 2015


Baseline – 2015

Australia 19.99 131.14 151.13 34.96 184.75 219.71 +75 % +41 % +45 %

Austria 10.74 8.85 19.59 4.07 13.20 17.27 -62 % +49 % -12 %

Belgium 8.65 82.48 91.13 4.31 191.83 196.14 -50 % +133 % +

Canada 17.96 44.94 62.90 0.67 58.43 59.10 -96 % +30 % -6 %

Czech Republic* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.33 3.01 + + +

Denmark 3.68 130.75 134.43 0.00 149.92 149.92 -100 % +15 % +12 %

EU Institutions 89.80 332.73 422.53 205.38 392.67 598.06 +129 % +18 % +42 %

Finland 6.75 66.79 73.54 2.40 17.01 19.41 -64 % -75 % -74 %

France 52.72 155.56 208.28 625.00 974.30 1,599.29 +1086 % +526 % +668 %

Germany 163.43 160.00 323.42 702.61 474.95 1,177.56 +330 % +197 % +264 %

Greece 1.24 2.08 3.32 0.19 0.00 0.19 -84 % -100 % -94 %

Hungary** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

Iceland* 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 1.98 4.26 + + +

Ireland 0.72 29.10 29.82 2.55 21.78 24.33 +254 % -25 % -18 %

Italy 8.09 37.96 46.05 14.29 53.24 67.53 +77 % +40 % +47 %

Japan 1,042.63 106.95 1,149.57 1,937.40 110.61 2,048.01 +86 % +3 % +78 %

Korea 1.05 17.78 18.83 0.52 33.03 33.54 -51 % +86 % +78 %

Luxembourg 0.36 0.26 0.62 1.94 7.03 8.97 +440 % 2593 % +1346 %

Netherlands 28.89 123.00 151.89 6.74 190.47 197.21 -77 % +55 % +30 %

New Zealand 1.37 8.89 10.26 1.89 3.67 5.56 +38 % -59 % -46 %

Norway 61.49 113.30 174.79 30.95 559.11 590.07 -50 % +393 % +238 %

Poland* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.90 2.02 + + +

Portugal 0.85 1.45 2.29 0.42 0.70 1.12 -51 % -51 % -51 %

Slovak Republic* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 + 0 +

Slovenia* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 + 0 +

Spain 41.42 134.99 176.41 3.45 31.74 35.19 -92 % -76 % -80 %

Sweden 4.48 41.00 45.48 17.54 273.96 291.49 +291 % +568 % +541 %

Switzerland 21.89 22.26 44.16 16.41 32.02 48.43 -25 % +44 % +10 %

United Kingdom 22.67 31.98 54.64 86.65 324.43 411.09 +282 % +915 % +652 %

United States§ 326.91 15.84 342.75 662.41 468.10 7,808.52 +103 % +2855 % +2178 %

DAC members, Total 1,937.75 1,800.08 3,737.83 4,365.86 4,573.17 15,617.03 +125 % +154 % +318 %

DAC members, Total w/out USA 1,610.84 1,784.24 3,395.08 3,703.45 4,105.06 7,808.52 +130 % +130 % +130 %


biodiversity funding from the baseline average of 2006 – 2010 until 2015 (deadline for “doubling”) and from 2015 until 2016 (indicator of “maintain”) was calculated and scored. Barometer from the baseline until 2015: Red = Decrease in funding; Orange = 0 – 49.99 % increase; Yellow = 50 – 99 % increase; Green = 100 % or more increase. Barometer from 2015 – 2016: Green = maintained doubling commitment; Red = did not maintain doubling commitment. Member countries that joined in 2013 were assumed to have a baseline funding of US$0.

Donor2016 –

Principal ($US)

2016 – Significant

($US)


($US)

% Change Principal

2015 – 2016

% Change Significant 2015 – 2016


2015 – 2016

Australia 40.69 227.59 268.28 +16 % +23 % +22 %

Austria 2.66 17.02 19.68 -35 % +29 % +14 %

Belgium 4.74 126.07 130.80 +10 % -34 % -33 %

Canada 2.45 20.50 22.94 +263 % -65 % -61 %

Czech Republic 0.57 3.05 3.62 -17 % +31 % +20 %

Denmark 1.92 35.48 37.40 + -76 % -75 %

EU Institutions 218.03 496.28 714.30 +6 % +26 % +19 %

Finland 1.86 4.12 5.97 -23 % -76 % -69 %

France 829.03 1,075.91 1,904.94 +33 % +10 % +19 %

Germany 465.29 645.94 1,111.23 -34 % +36 % -6 %

Greece 0.26 0.70 0.96 +34 % + +399 %

Hungary 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a n/a n/a

Iceland 2.60 1.36 3.96 +14 % -31 % -7 %

Ireland 8.70 34.69 43.39 +241 % +59 % +78 %

Italy 9.96 38.65 48.62 -30 % -27 % -28 %

Japan 45.09 632.37 677.46 -98 % +472 % -67 %

Korea 0.71 24.47 25.18 +38 % -26 % -25 %

Luxembourg 1.92 7.06 8.98 -1 % 0 % 0 %

Netherlands 0.02 89.55 89.58 -100 % -53 % -55 %

New Zealand 0.46 6.84 7.30 -76 % +87 % +31 %

Norway 8.59 412.24 420.83 -72 % -26 % -29 %

Poland 0.15 0.46 0.61 +26 % -76 % -70 %

Portugal 0.44 0.66 1.10 +6 % -7 % -2 %

Slovak Republic 0.02 0.07 0.08 +1 % + +373 %

Slovenia 0.02 0.34 0.36 +12 % + +2367 %

Spain 3.74 26.73 30.47 +8 % -16 % -13 %

Sweden 82.09 152.85 234.95 +368 % -44 % -19 %

Switzerland 5.38 114.43 119.81 -67 % +257 % +147 %

United Kingdom 104.69 192.12 296.81 +21 % -41 % -28 %

United States 1,116.26 192.77 1,309.03 +69 % -59 % -83 %

DAC members, Total 2,958.32 4,580.34 7,538.66 -32 % +0 % -52 %

DAC members, Total w/out USA 1,842.06 4,387.56 6,229.63 -50 % +7 % -20 %

24

Annual total biodiversity financial flows from the top four donor DAC member countries that are Party to the CBD from the baseline 2006 – 2010 until 2016 (in $US million).

Annex B Annual Total Biodiversity Financial Flows

EUInstitutions

France

Germany

Japan

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100

2006

– 20

10 (B

aseli

ne-)

Total A

verag

e

2011

Total B

D Fundin

g

2012

Total B

D Fundin

g

2013

Total B

D Fundin

g

2014

Total B

D Fundin

g

2015

Total B

D Fundin

g

2016

Total B

D Fundin

g


Annual total biodiversity financial flows from the eight other donor DAC member countries that are Party to the CBD from the baseline 2006 – 2010 until 2016 (in $US million).

Australia

Belgium

Denmark

Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006

– 20

10 (B

aseli

ne-)

Total A

verag

e

2011

Total B

D Fundin

g

2012

Total B

D Fundin

g

2013

Total B

D Fundin

g

2014

Total B

D Fundin

g

2015

Total B

D Fundin

g

2016

Total B

D Fundin

g

26

Referenzenhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/cop-11-dec-04-en.pdfhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/recommendations/sbi-02/sbi-02-rec-06-en.pdfhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-12/cop-12-dec-03-en.pdfhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-20-en.pdfhttps://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-20 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-01/cop-01-dec-02-en.pdfhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-08/cop-08-dec-18-en.pdf https://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/srm-guidance-2012-01-en.pdf http://www.oecd.org/development/developmentassistancecommitteedac.htm http://www.oecd.org/dac/dacmembers.htm http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/What-is-ODA.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/BIODIVERSITY-RELATED%20FINANCE%202007-2014%20APRIL%202016.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm#Constant_Dollars http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/DAC%20List%20of%20ODA%20Recipients%202014%20final.pdfhttps://chm.cbd.int/database/record/50926178-0734-34E2-1822-59FEBFD3FDD7 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/financing-development_en https://www.thegef.org/ https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/GEF.A6.07_OPS6_0.pdf https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/C.29.3_Summary_of_Negotiations_4.pdf, Table 1. Targeted Allocation to Focal Areas, Corporate Programs, and Corporate Budgethttp://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/EN_GEF.C.54.19.Rev_.03_Replenishment.pdf, Annex 3 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/information/cop-13-inf-16-en.pdfhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/c/9f63/8ad3/2aab7f3f33590decf1a320e0/sbi-02-08-add1-en.pdfhttp://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RIOMARKERS

123456789

1011121314151617181920

21222324

© C

opyright WW

F International ® Tradem

ark WW

F International • 11/18

100%RECYCLED

Why we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

wwf.de | [email protected]

WWF DeutschlandReinhardtstraße 18 10117 Berlin | Germany

Tel.: +49 (0)30 311 777 700Fax: +49 (0)30 311 777 888

Support WWF

IBAN: DE06 5502 0500 0222 2222 22

Bank für Sozialwirtschaft Mainz

BIC: BFSWDE33MNZ

barometer on cbd’s strategy for resource mobilization · 2020. 5. 22. · barometer on cbd’s...

Documents