The UN’s convention on biodiversity (the CBD) states that ”developed” countries shall contribute with new, additional, adequate and predictable financial resources to developing countries’ efforts for biodiversity.
During COP15 in 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted. A target for international biodiversity finance was set to at least 20 billion USD per year by 2025, and at least 30 billion USD per year by 2030. In this context, international finance refers to the support from “developed” to “developing” countries. There is also a broader target to mobilize 300 billion USD to the implementation of the GBF globally.
The GEF is the official funding mechanism of the CBD. In 2023, the GBFF was established to increase international finance for implementation of the framework.
Probably not. According to the global review of progress in the implementation of the GBF to be discussed at COP17, the target of 20 billion USD for 2025 was likely not met.
What makes it difficult to establish the progress is partially varying figures between sources, and partially the fact that the numbers reported on development aid for 2024 and 2025 are not yet set in detail. The GBF review reported a total of 17,7 billion USD in international public finance during the years of 2020-2023, whilst the OECD estimates the financing to be on average 16.1 billion USD per year in 2023-2025. Regardless of the calculation methods, the allocated financing does not reach the goal of 20 billion USD per year.
Yes, Sweden is a significant provider. Biodiversity finance from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency’s (Sida) increased greatly between the years of 2010 and 2019 and reached 2,27 billion SEK in 2024. In 2025, however, it decreased by nearly 24% to 1,73 billion SEK, which is the lowest figure since 2018.
Sweden is also one of the largest contributors to the GEF, and the second largest per capita. For the period of 2023-2026, Sweden contributed with 4,1 billion SEK. About 71% of the GEF’s total budget for this period has been allocated towards biodiversity.
As of October 2026, Sweden had not yet made a pledge to the next replenishment of the GEF and had not allocated any funds to the GBFF.
The largest share of public biodiversity finance has come from bilateral development assistance. However, the share of finance that was provided via multilateral institutions, such as global funds and international development banks, grew significantly towards the end of that period.
GEF’s budget for the years 2023–2026 reaches 5,33 billion USD, of which 71% has been allocated to activities that contribute to biodiversity objectives.
A large proportion of multilateral financing is provided as loans, not grants. When these are provided on market terms, they cannot be reported as official development assistance.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) play a central role in biodiversity conservation, yet they receive a small portion of the finance.
OECD estimates that around 6% of biodiversity-related development assistance targeted these groups in 2022. This was a slight increase from the average 4% in the years 2011-2020.
Finance to IPLCs typically flows through intermediaries, including various organizations, government agencies, and international institutions. Only a small portion goes directly to IPLCs.
The GEF has set a target that 20% of funding from 2026–2030 should support Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
The Cali Fund is a benefit-sharing mechanism from the use of digital genetic information from biodiversity, and it was created at COP16 in 2024. Companies are expected to contribute to the fund voluntarily. Half of the funds raised are earmarked for IPLCs. Expectations were high, yet very little money has been mobilized. 18 months after the fund became active, contributions from companies add up to only 6000 USD.
No, there are significant overlaps between the two. For example, restoring ecosystems can contribute to both climate and biodiversity objectives.
In 2025, 95% of Sida’s biodiversity finance also contributed to climate-related goals. Conversely, 43% of its climate finance contributed to achieving biodiversity goals in the last two years.
Yes and no. Many interventions have positive effects on both the climate and biodiversity. Such synergies are beneficial, as long as one objective does not overshadow the other. If measures for biodiversity are also expected to contribute to climate goals, there is a risk that important biodiversity initiatives lacking climate benefits will not be prioritised.
Problems can also arise when the same sum of money is counted towards various international commitments. This concerns, for example, the finance targets for both climate and biodiversity, as well as the aid target of 0.7% of GNI.
It is important that all commitments are actually met, and that funding increases, rather than simply improving how the funds are reported.
COP17 will discuss how the CBD’s Strategy for resource mobilisation should be developed beyond 2025.
A key issue is also the institutional structure for supporting work on the global framework. Developing countries have proposed a new financial mechanism directly under the CBD.
Ahead of COP17, discussions include proposals to strengthen the criteria for financing, for instance by:
• clarifying that the funding must be new, additional, predictable, and adequate
• ensuring the full and effective participation of IPLCs
• establishing a grievances and redress mechanism
• strengthening synergies between funding for biodiversity, climate, and other environmental areas
A decision regarding the financial mechanism, whether the current system, comprising the GEF, the GBFF, and the Cali Fund, should remain in place or be replaced by something new, is not expected until COP18.
Civil society demands ahead of COP17 are largely centred around three main issues:
• New, additional and predictable funding to meet the agreed targets;
• Direct access of finance for IPLCs, on their terms
• Establishing effective social and environmental safeguards in all mechanisms that provide biodiversity finance.
Development assistance remains the primary source of international funding for biodiversity. At the same time, global aid has declined significantly. Consequently, there is a need for both increased aid levels and new funding specifically for biodiversity, rather than simply reclassifying existing aid resources.
Indigenous peoples and local communities must also have greater influence over decisions and projects that affect their territories, rights, and interests. When funding is channeled through intermediaries, clear rules must be in place to ensure that sufficient resources actually reach the local communities.