An overview of global biodiversity finance

Executive Summary

Reversing biodiversity loss will require accelerated action to strengthen biodiversity policies and translate commitments into effective implementation. Mobilising finance at scale is essential to support these efforts and deliver effective biodiversity outcomes. Consistent, comparable and transparent tracking of biodiversity finance is therefore needed to assess its scale and sources, understand the contributions of public and private actors, and evaluate progress towards biodiversity finance objectives.

This paper provides a global estimate of public and private biodiversity finance from both domestic and international sources. The paper also highlights persistent gaps in biodiversity finance data and reporting and provides recommendations to improve finance tracking. Greater consistency, comparability, coverage and transparency of biodiversity finance data are essential for accountability and better policy and investment decisions.

An estimate of global finance for biodiversity

Global biodiversity finance is estimated at USD 74.9-92.4 billion annually (2023-25 annual average), based on currently available data. This includes public and private finance from both domestic and international sources. The range reflects methodological assumptions rather than statistical confidence intervals.

• Public domestic biodiversity expenditure: USD 46.0-63.5 billion annually (2023-25 average). The estimates cover 104 countries, representing 61% of global GDP. They include varying combinations of finance for which biodiversity is either a primary or secondary objective, reflecting differences in reporting approaches by countries. The lower-range estimate includes expenditure reported by countries only, while the upper-range estimate additionally includes expenditure reported by the European Union, some of which may overlap with expenditure reported by EU Member States.

• Public international biodiversity finance: USD 16.1 billion annually (2023-24 average). This covers bilateral and multilateral flows, including official development finance and South-South Co-operation. The estimate counts 100% of the finance associated with activities where biodiversity is a principal objective, and 40% of the finance associated with activities for which biodiversity is a significant objective. Total international finance – encompassing both public and private finance – reached USD 18.9 billion in 2024.

• Private domestic and international biodiversity finance: USD 12.9 billion annually (2023-25 average). This includes private investment, philanthropy and other private financial flows.

These estimates are not directly comparable with OECD’s 2020 estimates due to differences in the availability, coverage and underlying methodologies of the country data, as well as the lack of comparable private finance datasets.

While consistent time-series data remain limited, they indicate that biodiversity finance increased between 2018-20 and 2023-24. Public domestic expenditure on biodiversity across a sample of 63 countries with consistent time-series data increased by 16% in real terms. International public finance for biodiversity increased by 94%. Private-finance data also show increasing trends overall, with a rise in both finance mobilised by official development interventions and broader private investment, although reported philanthropic flows declined overall.

The public finance estimates are derived from government-reported data provided through:

Domestic

• 7^th National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);

• International statistical classifications namely Government Finance Statistics (GFS), using the Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG) and Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts (EPEA), using the Classification of Environmental Purpose (CEP);

International

• The OECD Creditor Reporting System, complemented with Total Official Support for Sustainable Development.

Comparison across the available public domestic biodiversity finance data sources reveals no systematic differences in expenditure levels. No single data source gives consistently higher or lower estimates.

The private finance estimate is based on a variety of sources, including estimates from other analytical assessments of private investment in biodiversity, two OECD datasets on philanthropic funding and financial reports of non-governmental organisations.

Overall, this paper’s methodology is conservative to minimise the risk of double counting, recognising that the same underlying finance can appear at several stages of the financial value chain and in different datasets. Furthermore, due to incomplete reporting and data gaps, actual global biodiversity finance is likely to be higher.

Data gaps and inconsistent reporting approaches in national reports to the CBD limit the ability to assess global progress

Despite some progress in biodiversity finance tracking, significant gaps and inconsistencies remain. For example, of the 142 Parties that had submitted 7^th National Reports to the CBD by mid-September 2026, 78 reported at least some quantitative data on public domestic finance, 95 on public international finance (as recipients or donors) and 42 on private finance. At the same time, existing data sources based on international statistical classifications remain underused: 40 countries that did not report recent domestic biodiversity expenditure, including 13 that did not submit 7^th National Reports, have biodiversity and landscape protection expenditure data available through the COFOG and CEP. Furthermore, reporting approaches vary considerably, with some countries relying on international statistical classifications and others using nationally developed methodologies, thus limiting comparability.

Options to improve consistency, comparability and coverage of biodiversity finance reported to the CBD

Improve consistency and comparability of data across countries

• Encourage Parties to disaggregate reporting on biodiversity finance into “direct” and “indirect” finance across all public domestic, public international and private finance.

• Encourage Parties to adopt a common approach to reporting on “direct” public domestic finance based on primary purpose biodiversity expenditure classified under COFOG 05.4 or CEP 0502.

• Consider aligning CBD terminology and definitions with international statistical classifications e.g. referring to “direct” biodiversity finance as “primary-purpose” biodiversity expenditure.

• Develop guidelines for reporting on “indirect” public domestic biodiversity finance, requiring disclosure of the data source (e.g. GFS-COFOG, EPEA-CEP); classification code (e.g. CEP 0501); and the coefficient applied to estimate the biodiversity-relevant share. Progressively align guidance with future COFOG and CEP methodologies for capturing secondary-purpose expenditure.

• Encourage Parties to disaggregate data on international public biodiversity finance by principal and significant objective, and private finance by direct and indirect finance, with disclosure of any coefficients applied.

Expand data coverage

• Expand country coverage of public domestic biodiversity expenditure by encouraging Parties to report existing data classified under COFOG 05.4 or CEP 0502 data.

• Strengthen national collection and reporting of private biodiversity expenditure by establishing regular reporting mechanisms for business and other private actors, expanding national accounts to better cover corporate biodiversity expenditure according to CEP 0502, and enhancing national data infrastructure such as public registries for biodiversity offsets, biodiversity credits and payments for ecosystem services.

Strengthen international co-ordination and exchange

• Promote international exchange of national approaches for tracking and reporting public and private biodiversity finance, including opportunities to harmonise methods, strengthen public-private data partnerships and replicate comparable reporting practices across countries.

• Engage with the ongoing COFOG revision process to improve alignment with CEP to the extent possible, and to further explore options for treating primary and secondary-purpose expenditure in CBD reporting across all sources of finance. Encourage CBD Focal Points and Resource Mobilisation experts to follow the COFOG revision to ensure their policy needs are met.