Networks and flows of conservation finance: the case of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Transforming Biodiversity Governance

“…We start by arguing that despite the broad range of instruments, most biodiversity finance instruments have common roots in a "nature-asnatural-capital" view (see Sullivan, 2018). Subsequently, we discuss three interrelated arguments found in the literature that reflect the core challenges for biodiversity finance (see Anyango-van Zwieten, 2021). First, it is generally asserted that there is a "funding gap" for biodiversity conservation, which leads to the argument that financial instruments need upscaling.…”

“…UNDP, 2020). In this respect, many innovative financial mechanisms are targeted at enhancing private sector funding, increasing involvement of private capital and implementing marketbased instruments (Anyango-van-Zwieten, 2021;EC, 2011;Gutman and Davidson, 2007;Miles, 2005;Pirard, 2012;Thiele and Gerber, 2017;UNDP, 2020). Similarly, stakeholders have started to build the "business case" for biodiversity conservation to attract private sector involvement by pointing out cost reduction, return-oninvestment and risk mitigation motives, among others .…”

“…Arguably, the most promoted instruments for leveraging financial resources are deemed to be marketbased, meaning that "biodiversity conservation [is] financed through and undertaken with the aim of generating profitable returns for their investors" (Dempsey and Suarez, 2016: 654). At the same time, such for-profit instruments still face challenges, including lack of scale (often the projects are too small), lack of financial track record, lack of so-called angel investors at the risky early-stage phase and poor project design without "investable, simple and understandable conservation asset classes" (Anyango-van Zwieten, 2020;Huwyler et al, 2014: 27). The task ahead, these publications assert, is to address these challenges and scale up private finance to close the funding gap.…”