Biodiversity, Governance, and the Allocation of International Aid for Conservation

Abstract

There is little systematic knowledge about the magnitude and allocation of international funding flows to support biodiversity conservation in the developing world. Using the newly released AidData compilation, we present a comprehensive assessment of official donor assistance for biodiversity during 1980-2008. We find that biodiversity aid increased markedly in the early 1990s, but that estimates of current aid are likely overstated and donor commitments at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit have not been met. Aid has been well targeted, however, in that the allocation of biodiversity aid is positively associated with the number of threatened species in recipient countries after controlling for country size, national population, and wealth. Biodiversity aid is also positively associated with indicators of good governance. Our results provide an empirical measure of progress toward international conservation funding targets, a baseline against which future flows can be compared, and information necessary to assess the effectiveness of biodiversity aid.

Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines

“…The CBD parties repeatedly listed lack of financial resources as one of the main barriers to meeting CBD goals in the run-up to the 2010 failure (2). Academic studies have also documented the global inadequacy of conservation spending and its relationship to increased rates of species imperilment (3)(4)(5)(6)(7). To improve the chances of fulfilling the new 2011-2020 strategic goals (8), and in particular the goal of effecting a rapid and substantial reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss, the main funding institutions need to target additional finance (3,4,7,9).…”

“…Raw GBF is calculated as the sum of all range fractions in each country, using global Mammalia-a major target of biodiversity funding (23)-as our biodiversity surrogate (SI Appendix). We developed GBF rather than use simple species counts (7,10,11) because species are often distributed very unevenly between countries, and yet simple counts allocate equal responsibility irrespective of proportional distributions. Our final measure, threatened GBF, weights raw GBF by risk of extinction (24) (SI Appendix).…”

Stakeholder Visions for Biodiversity Conservation in Developing Countries

“…In one assessment by McCarthy et al [10], it was estimated that current biodiversity funding would need to be expanded by about 800% for effective progress on the Aichi Targets to be achieved. While prioritizing and targeting of aid may help in preventing loss in some of the most threatened ecosystems [11], significant new funding is necessary. Full progress on the Aichi Targets requires efforts on Target 20 which aims for "the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity…should increase substantially from the current levels".…”

International funding agencies: potential leaders of impact evaluation in protected areas?

“…The GEF is one of the world's largest conservation funders, having committed over $5 billion [13] to biodiversity projects since 1991, and providing a total environmental commitment including non-biodiversity funding of $13.5 billion plus $65 billion in leveraged co-financing for 3900 projects in more than 165 developing countries [29]. At least $2 billion has been directed to the implementation and management of protected areas [30]; though project documents record total expenditure accurately, they rarely record specific estimates of the amount spent supporting protected areas.…”

“…These channel funds from developed to mainly developing countries, e.g. the United States Agency for International Development [13]. The last group of significant funders are international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Global Conservation Fund, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Conservation International (CI).…”