The Context: Financial Gaps in Achieving the Global Biodiversity Framework Targets

The GBF calls for a substantial increase in financial investments in biodiversity, estimating that $700 billion per year is required to meet the biodiversity goals by 2030. However, current estimates suggest that the global community is far from reaching this target. Between $78 billion and $200 billion is currently being mobilized annually for biodiversity-related efforts, a stark contrast to the scale of funding needed. Much of the existing finance has come from public sources, especially from high-income countries, with over 95% of biodiversity finance directed to OECD nations. This has left developing countries—many of which are home to the world’s biodiversity hotspots—largely underserved. Moreover, much of the biodiversity-related official development assistance (ODA) flowing to these countries has been in the form of loans rather than grants, worsening debt burdens in already vulnerable regions.
Furthermore, many nations have failed to meet their commitments to provide sufficient international financial support for biodiversity, with a growing recognition that the current financial system is not equipped to effectively channel resources where they are most needed. As debates over climate finance intensify, similar conversations are beginning to unfold around the need to reform global financial systems to align with biodiversity goals.

Key Takeaways from the C3A Side-Event at COP16

The C3A side-event aimed to address these critical issues and stimulate a discussion on how to both mobilize and reform the financial system to meet the ambitious targets of the GBF. Key insights emerged from the presentations and discussions that highlighted the complexity of financing biodiversity and the necessary reforms required to achieve the targets.

The Scale of the Funding Gap: Mobilizing Resources for Biodiversity

Jeffrey Althouse, Co-Coordinator of the C3A Nature Hub, introduced this event with a comprehensive overview of the current biodiversity finance landscape. His research, conducted alongside Fellow Co-Coordinator, Romain Svartzman, and another member of the C3A Nature Hub, Morgane Gronon, was recently published as a working paper by the University College London, outlined the financial gap that exists between current funding levels and the GBF’s goals. While the GBF calls for $700 billion per year by 2030, current mobilization is far behind this target, with only between $78 billion and $200 billion currently allocated annually to biodiversity-related initiatives. 
Althouse also emphasized the fact that biodiversity-related ODA is underperforming, particularly in low-income countries, where the need is greatest. The overwhelming reliance on public funding (92%) also poses a challenge, as the private sector’s role in financing biodiversity has been limited. Furthermore, the vast majority of current biodiversity finance is directed toward high-income countries, creating a stark imbalance in the distribution of financial resources. Althouse’s presentation underscored the importance of increasing both the volume and equity of financing flows, particularly toward developing countries and biodiversity hotspots.

The Role of Developed Countries and Public Development Banks

Mark Opel, Finance Lead at Campaign for Nature, provided an update on the progress toward meeting the GBF’s Target 19a, which calls for at least $20 billion per year in international finance flowing from developed to developing countries by 2025. Opel presented findings that highlighted a significant gap in meeting these commitments, with many developed nations failing to contribute their "fair share" of international biodiversity finance. His analysis revealed that only a few countries—Germany, Norway, and Sweden—are providing their fair share, while the majority of DAC (Development Assistance Committee) countries are contributing far below what is needed.
The role of public development banks also emerged as a critical topic. Odette Lima Campos, from Brazil’s National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES), shared valuable insights into how national development banks can play a pivotal role in driving the nature transition. BNDES has been supporting a variety of ecological initiatives, such as public-private partnerships, long-term financing for climate adaptation, and non-refundable resources for projects like the Amazon Fund to combat deforestation. This emphasized the potential of development banks to support biodiversity at the national and subnational levels, ensuring the alignment of finance with national development goals.

Systemic Reforms to Overcome Structural Barriers

Ananthakrishnan Prasad, Advisor and unit chief at the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department, took a broader view of the structural barriers that hinder biodiversity financing. Drawing from a recent IMF report on nature-related economic and financial risks, Prasad emphasized the need (and difficulty) to reform harmful subsidies that continue to prop up environmentally damaging sectors, such as fossil fuels and industrial agriculture. Nearly 38% of the loans from the world’s largest banks go to sectors dependent on harmful subsidies, diverting capital away from sustainable projects.
Prasad also stressed the need for tailored financial instruments that address the specific challenges faced by mega-biodiverse countries, many of which are in emerging markets or developing economies. These countries often struggle with limited borrowing capacity and face barriers to scaling up nature finance. He pointed out how the regulatory and institutional conditions for different financial instruments, such as debt-for-nature swaps, could be strengthened to ensure they are scalable and effective in meeting biodiversity finance needs.

Private Sector Engagement and the Limits of Market Solutions

A final key takeaway from the event was the recognition of the limits of private sector involvement in financing biodiversity. While there is growing interest in mobilizing private capital, the discussion raised concerns about the challenges of using private finance to provide for public goods like environmental sustainability. Participants noted that private finance may not be sufficient or reliable enough to support long-term biodiversity goals, particularly in the most biodiversity-rich and financially distressed regions of the world.

Watch our video interview with Romain Svartzman, C3A & Research Fellow at Bocconi University

The C3A side-event at COP16 underscored the urgency of both mobilizing and reforming financial systems to meet the GBF targets. While the need for increased financing is clear, there is also a need for systemic reforms that ensure financial flows are equitable, sustainable, and aligned with biodiversity conservation goals. The event highlighted that achieving the GBF targets will require innovative financing mechanisms, the active involvement of public development banks, and bold reforms to the global financial system—reforms that can ensure biodiversity is adequately prioritized in the global economic system.
As the world moves toward 2030, the discussions held at this side-event serve as a critical reminder that the financial system must evolve if the international community is to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. The challenge remains significant, but with coordinated action and systemic change, there is hope for a sustainable future where both people and nature can thrive.