An overview of global biodiversity finance

4. Improving data and reporting on biodiversity finance

Up-to-date estimates of biodiversity finance flows are needed to establish a baseline from which governments and other stakeholders can track biodiversity finance trends over time. They are also useful for identifying and assessing any shortfalls in biodiversity finance, and for identifying opportunities for scaling up finance in support of biodiversity objectives.

Current data and reporting systems do not yet provide a complete, transparent or internationally comparable overview of biodiversity finance. International statistical classifications play an important role in promoting standardisation, consistency and comparability across countries and sectors. Such international classifications have, to date, intended to identify expenditures according to their primary purpose, while the CBD reporting framework seeks to also capture finance where biodiversity is a secondary purpose (i.e. “indirect”). A key challenge is therefore to better ensure that CBD reporting requirements evolve in a way that builds on and remain compatible with internationally recognised statistical classifications.

Meanwhile, a range of bottom-up methodologies has been developed to help address this gap by estimating “indirect” biodiversity finance at a more granular level. While these approaches can provide valuable insights, they often rely on different assumptions, definitions and allocation methods, which can limit comparability across countries as well as over time. In addition, the basis for estimates is not always fully transparent, making it difficult to assess their robustness or reconcile results from different sources. Progress is being made to draw on international classification systems – and the rigour and consistency they offer – and to facilitate identification of non-primary-purpose expenditure. For example, preliminary proposals to reflect both primary and secondary expenditures for biodiversity are provided in the CEP via the so-called “policy areas” in the Annex of the guidelines (EUROSTAT, 2024[15]). Similarly, the COFOG is currently being revised with a stated objective to also address secondary purpose expenditure.

4.1. Observations on national reporting to the CBD

Despite initiatives underway to review domestic public biodiversity expenditure, the recent draft CBD Global Review of Implementation on Progress Towards the KMGBF has shown that data gaps, inconsistencies and ambiguity persist. While the OECD had put forward the concept of headline indicators back in 2019 to help ensure more consistent and internationally comparable data across countries (OECD, 2019[2]), this still remains a significant challenge for biodiversity finance data in 2026.1

In CBD/COP/DEC/16/31, Annex II on optional disaggregations of the headline indicators and voluntary component and complementary indicators in the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2025[16]) does not propose any disaggregation for D1 (international public funding) and D2 (domestic public funding). For D3 (private funding – domestic and international), it states: By funding source (including international private philanthropic organization for development, private biodiversity finance mobilised by official development finance (separate bilateral and multilateral indicators), biodiversity offsets, payment for ecosystem services, domestic private donations, private benefit-sharing schemes and other instruments, including biodiversity-relevant bonds[.] impact investing, credit markets, insurance products).

According to the CBD revised draft Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (SBSTTA/28/2/Add.1/Rev.1), which is based on 129 (out of 196) Parties to the CBD that provided data on Target 19 through their National Reports to the CBD by 7 March 2026, total biodiversity finance from international public sources, domestic public sources and private finance sources was USD 5.2 billion, USD 20.6 billion and USD 6.9 billion, for a total of USD 32.7 billion in 2023. Parties reported mobilising a cumulative USD 17.7 billion from international public sources, USD 135.9 billion from domestic sources, and USD 32.8 billion from private finance sources for a cumulative total of USD 186.4 billion over four years (2020-23). The numbers are lower than OECD estimates presented in this paper for three main reasons: 1) OECD addressed data gaps in CBD reporting on public finance by complementing with other data sources, notably other official government data provided through international statistical classifications and well-established reporting frameworks such as the CRS and TOSSD; 2) OECD used other available sources to estimate private finance due to shortcomings of data reported to the CBD; 3) OECD included national data reported to the CBD by mid-September 2026 (i.e. includes more countries).

4.1.1. Public Domestic

By mid-September 2026, 142 Parties to the CBD had submitted 7^th National Reports. Of these, 78 included some quantitative data on public domestic expenditure for at least one year (Figure 3). However, these data include partial estimates, estimates associated with individual projects, programmes or instruments, and estimates that sometimes predate the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Looking more closely at the approaches used to report on public domestic biodiversity finance, several developed countries indicate using EPEA data and the associated CEP (or earlier CEPA) international statistical standard to report on domestic public biodiversity finance, such as Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Portugal and Norway. More specifically, Belgium used CEPA 6 (2022 data). Italy used CEPA 6 (Protection of biodiversity and landscape) and CEPA 4 (Protection and remediation of soil and water) (2022 data). France used CEP 0502 and CEP 0501 (Protection of soil, surface and groundwater), and explicitly stated it did not use CEP 0503 (Management of Forests). Portugal also used CEP 0502 and CEP 0501 (with minor adjustments to remove finance from non-profits serving households). Spain approximated data based on expenditure reported under CEPA 6 and COFOG 0504. Australia used the COFOG. Brazil adopted an extended COFOG approach covering expenditures aimed at the protection of soil, surface water and groundwater, biodiversity and landscapes, and at the management of forest resources. Several developing countries (as well as Israel) indicated using the UNDP BIOFIN Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER) approach to estimate domestic public finance, such as Belize, Malaysia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Hungary reported green bond issuance in the category “land use and natural resources”.

4.1.2. Public International

Reporting on international biodiversity finance to the CBD shows both broad engagement and important methodological challenges. By mid-September, a total of 95 Parties to the CBD, both development finance providers and recipients, submitted some quantitative data on public international finance. An earlier analysis of the 7^th National Reports that had been submitted to the CBD by July 27 found that among the 33 OECD DAC members that are Parties to the CBD, 28 members reported qualitative or quantitative information on international biodiversity finance, while 4 DAC members party to the CBD had not yet reported. Beyond the OECD DAC, 57 non-OECD countries reported information related to international biodiversity finance, reflecting a highly diverse group that includes South-South co-operation providers as well as recipient countries DCD/DAC/ENV(2026)15. This broad participation demonstrates strong interest in tracking biodiversity finance internationally, but also highlights the diversity of reporting contexts and interpretations.

A prominent feature of the submissions is the growing effort to capture not only biodiversity-specific finance, but also finance for climate, development and other environmental objectives that seeks biodiversity co-benefits. Many countries report integrated nature-climate portfolios and financing mechanisms that simultaneously support biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation and mitigation, sustainable forest management, resilience-building and private finance mobilisation. While this reflects the increasing integration of biodiversity considerations across development finance and sustainability agendas, it also creates significant measurement challenges.

Countries differ considerably in how they define, identify and attribute biodiversity-related international public finance. Some DAC members report only activities with biodiversity as the principal objective, while others include projects where biodiversity is a significant objective or expected outcome. Differences in methodologies, scope and attribution practices can substantially affect reported volumes and limit comparability across countries. Some non-OECD countries rely on national datasets or budget systems; others build on UNDP BIOFIN expenditure reviews or refer to concrete donor and project records; and many provide narrative reporting where finance tracking systems are still being developed. As biodiversity objectives become increasingly embedded within broader climate and sustainable development programmes, distinguishing biodiversity-specific finance from wider environmental and development finance becomes more challenging.

4.1.3. Private (domestic and international)

Private biodiversity expenditure remains one of the least developed elements of national biodiversity-finance reporting. Of the 142 reporting Parties, only 42 reported quantitative information for headline indicator D.3 on private finance, none comprehensively and each with varying methodologies and temporal coverage. Several EU Members States such as Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain drew data on corporate expenditure from EPEA accounts, using the CEP (or earlier CEPA) to identify biodiversity expenditure. Other Parties reported expenditure by conservation NGOs and foundations, corporate contributions, project and partnership finance, private finance mobilised through development finance, or finance associated with green, blue and sustainability-labelled instruments. Overall, CBD Parties had difficulty identifying private financial flows, applying biodiversity coefficients to expenditure with multiple objectives, distinguishing commitments from actual expenditure, and obtaining information from companies, financial institutions, philanthropies and individuals.

Figure 3. Biodiversity finance reporting across Parties

Reporting coverage by biodiversity finance category among 142 of 196 CBD Parties submitting 7th National Reports, September 2026

Note: Coverage refers to Parties that reported any quantitative information in reporting tables or comments sections.

4.2. Options for improving finance data and reporting

4.2.1. Public domestic expenditure

Reporting gaps exist even where countries have relevant data available. For example, 40 Parties to the CBD, including 27 Parties that submitted 7^th National Reports, had readily available public domestic expenditure data for at least one year during 2020-25 but did not report such data to the CBD. These include biodiversity and landscape protection expenditure data classified according to COFOG in government finance statistics (GFS), as well as environmental protection expenditure data available through environmental protection expenditure accounts (EPEA).

To expand country coverage, Parties could be encouraged to submit public domestic expenditure data on biodiversity and landscape protection already reported in government finance statistics classified by COFOG 0504 or environmental expenditure by CEP 0502. Such data are referred to as primary purpose in these international statistical classifications and align with what the CBD refers to as “direct” biodiversity finance.

For direct (or primary purpose) biodiversity expenditure, all countries could draw on data reported to EUROSTAT, OECD or IMF through COFOG 05.04 on biodiversity and landscape protection. Alternatively, if any OECD/EU countries have not reported through COFOG, these countries could draw on data reported to EUROSTAT and OECD through the EPEA data under CEP 05.02 on biodiversity and landscape protection. Both COFOG and EPEA track primary purpose expenditure, which could be considered similar to the concept of direct finance used by the CBD. To foster transparency, the reporting requirements would cover:

• data on direct (i.e. primary purpose) biodiversity expenditure (in national currency)

• data source (e.g. GFS–COFOG, EPEA–CEP, or other [to state])

• classification group or code used (e.g. COFOG 05.4 or CEP 0502) as relevant.

For indirect biodiversity finance expenditure (akin to secondary purpose in statistical classifications), countries could draw on data reported to EUROSTAT and the OECD through the EPEA data under CEP 05.01 on soil and groundwater protection, and apply a coefficient they consider appropriate, e.g. 10, 20, 40, 50, 75, 100% (or any other co-efficient considered appropriate by the country reporting). The same approach could apply to e.g. CEP 05.03 on forestry if considered appropriate by the reporting country. To foster transparency, the reporting requirements would cover:

• data on indirect (i.e. secondary purpose) biodiversity expenditure (in national currency)

• data source (e.g. COFOG, EPEA CEP, or other [to state])

• classification code or group used (e.g. CEP 0501 and/or CEP 0503 and/or other [to state] – see Annex A Table A A.2 and Annex C Table A C.1 for further CEP groups and classes that may be considered relevant)

• the co-efficient selected for each classification code (e.g. 40% for CEP 0501 and 10% for CEP 0503, etc.).

Such a methodology would build conceptually on the OECD Rio Marker methodology used for the OECD CRS data on development finance. Specifically, the Rio Markers apply a 100% co-efficient for finance for activities where biodiversity is a principal objective and a 40% co-efficient where biodiversity is a significant objective. However, the methodology proposed here is firmly embedded in existing international statistical classifications that are used to track government (and private) expenditure on biodiversity and other environmental purposes (notably the SEEA Central Framework and the SNA) helping to converge towards a more aligned pathway between two approaches. It thus allows these two reporting approaches to evolve in parallel and could be further merged over time with COFOG, given forthcoming revisions to the COFOG which are expected to be completed by 2028.

4.2.2. International public finance

Reporting on international public biodiversity finance could be strengthened by building more systematically on existing OECD reporting systems, notably the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD), which already provide established methodologies and reporting frameworks for tracking biodiversity-related development finance. Greater use of these data in CBD reporting could reduce reporting burdens, expand coverage and improve consistency across countries. Outreach could be targeted at Parties that report biodiversity-related development finance through OECD and TOSSD systems but have not yet reflected these data in their CBD submissions. Greater transparency on how countries interpret and apply biodiversity-related reporting criteria would also help improve comparability and understanding of reported figures. Similar to public domestic finance, Parties should report disaggregated data on principal and significant flows on international public finance, with the latter including the co-efficient adopted.

Further analytical work could assess the degree of alignment between the approach for reporting international public finance, using principal and significant objective markers, and the expenditure-based approaches used in national and international statistical frameworks such as COFOG and CEP, which distinguish between primary and secondary purposes. Such analysis could help clarify conceptual differences, identify areas of convergence and support the gradual development of more coherent reporting approaches across OECD DAC, CBD frameworks, and international statistical classifications.

4.2.3. Private finance

Improving private biodiversity-finance data could draw on two complementary approaches. First, countries could strengthen economy-wide estimates of expenditure by businesses, financial institutions, foundations and other private actors, drawing on corporate sustainability disclosures, environmental-economic accounts, administrative data and targeted surveys. In EU Member States, the corporate-sector component of EPEA, including expenditure classified under CEP 0502 for the protection of biodiversity and landscapes, provides a useful statistical foundation.2 This could be complemented by other approaches to capture expenditure for which biodiversity is a secondary, but not primary, purpose, ideally building on proposals in EUROSTAT (2024[15]). While COFOG covers government finance statistics, pending revisions to address primary and secondary expenditure may in principle also be relevant for the private sector expenditure.

Second, economy-wide accounting could be complemented by instrument-level reporting on biodiversity offsets, credits, privately financed payments for ecosystem services, philanthropy, and bonds or other financial products with biodiversity-related use-of-proceeds. Wider use of comprehensive public registries (see e.g. p20 OECD (2025[5])), standardised disclosures and independent verification, including of environmental and social safeguards and outcomes (see OECD (2026[4])) could improve the traceability, transparency and integrity of these flows. For bonds and similar instruments, reporting should focus on proceeds actually allocated to biodiversity activities rather than total issuance or commitments and should distinguish the amount mobilised from the underlying expenditure to avoid counting the same finance at multiple points in the financial value chain.

Greater comparability under CBD indicator D.3 on private finance will also require common minimum guidance on definitions, scope and data structure. Definitions should align to the extent possible across all public domestic, public international and private finance, and be embedded in international statistical standards. National submissions could identify the provider and recipient, financial instrument, sector, biodiversity objective, domestic or international origin, commitment and expenditure dates, attribution coefficient and possible overlap with other reported categories. Governments could consolidate these sources and report both an overall D.3 estimate and disaggregated instrument-level totals, supported by methodological notes and a reconciliation of potential double counting. International exchange of national methods and tools could further support harmonisation and the replication of effective reporting practices.

Notes

← 1.  Exploratory OECD work on this began as far back as 2015 – see (Van Winkle et al., 2015[26]).

← 2.  The EU's Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts (EPEA) require Member States to report expenditure by institutional sector, including government and corporations, using the Classification of Environmental Purposes (CEP). CEP-based reporting became mandatory under EU legislation in 2025.