Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The effectiveness of national biodiversity investments to protect the wealth of nature

Abstract

Finance will be among the priority concerns when the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity launches the post-2020 framework for global biodiversity conservation (Global Biodiversity Framework) in 2021. The Biodiversity Finance Initiative provides a means for countries to account systematically for their biodiversity expenditures. A sample of 30 countries facilitated the construction of a panel to better understand the effectiveness of public biodiversity investments. Overall, the results show a positive trend in national public biodiversity investments and that larger economies invest more in biodiversity in gross magnitude and as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (0.30% of GDP among wealthy countries versus 0.29%) and of national budgets (1.78% versus 1.14%). Controlling for GDP, wealthier countries invest proportionately less than less wealthy countries. The relationship between GDP and public biodiversity expenditure is an inverted-U curve. All biodiversity-related variables (threatened species, protected area and the presence of a hotspot) were positively correlated with public biodiversity investments. Funds allocated to biodiversity are associated with a reduction in the number of threatened species and the rate of biodiversity loss of about 1% per year. Each US$1 billion investment in biodiversity is associated with an annual reduction in the proportion of threatened to total species of about 0.57%. Population growth is associated with lower financial support for biodiversity and an increase in the proportion of threatened to total species in a country.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Public biodiversity expenditure as a proportion of budget and of GDP trends.
Fig. 2: Trends in total species, threatened and the ratio of threatened to total species.

Data availability

The secondary datasets of public data compiled and generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in Supplementary Data 1. The primary country expenditure data compiled and analysed during the current study are not available due to standard survey research protocols protecting individual respondents but will be made available to check or replicate our results from the corresponding author under conditions that individual country responses are not divulged.

References

  1. 1.

    Huwyler, F., Kappeli, J., Serafimova, K., Swanson, E. & Tobin, J. Conservation Finance: Moving Beyond Donor Funding Toward an Investor-driven Approach (WWF, Credit Suisse and McKinsey & Company, 2014); http://go.nature.com/2Ka5Y2u

  2. 2.

    Deutz, A. et al. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap: Full Report (Paulson Institute, Nature Conservancy and Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, 2020).

  3. 3.

    Halpern, B. et al. Gaps and mismatches between global conservation priorities and spending. Conserv. Biol. 20, 56–64 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    James, A., Gaston, K. J. & BalmfordA. Can we afford to conserve biodiversity? BioScience 51, 43–52 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    McCarthy, D. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946–949 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’ (IPBES, 2019); http://go.nature.com/2V4ZBN9

  7. 7.

    The Global Risks Report 2020 (WEF, 2020); https://go.nature.com/3ahNfg8

  8. 8.

    IUCN Views on the Preparation, Scope and Content of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (IUCN, 2018); https://go.nature.com/2WlW3ti

  9. 9.

    Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action (OECD, 2019); https://go.nature.com/3h0F9Kc

  10. 10.

    Parker, C. & Cranford, M. The Little Biodiversity Finance Book. A Guide to Proactive Investment in Natural Capital (Global Canopy Program, 2010); https://go.nature.com/3mwyxUJ

  11. 11.

    Coad, L. et al. Widespread shortfalls in protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 259–264 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kearney, S. G. et al. Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation. ORYX 54, 276–284 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Waldron, A. et al. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications (IIASA, 2020); https://go.nature.com/387GkDq

  14. 14.

    Stepping, K. M. K. & Meijer, K. S. The challenges of assessing the effectiveness of biodiversity-related development aid. Trop. Conserv. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918770995 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12144–12148 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gallo-Cajiao, E. et al. Crowdfunding biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1426–1435 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Parker, C., Cranford, M., Oakes, N. & Leggett, M. The Little Biodiversity Finance Book 3rd edn (Global Canopy Programme, 2012).

  18. 18.

    Arlaud, M. et al. in Towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Principles, Challenges and Perspectives (eds Filho, W. L. et al.) Ch. 5 (Springer, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73028-8_5

  19. 19.

    Rawat, U. S. & Agarwal, N. K. Biodiversity: concept, threats and conservation. Environ. Conserv. J. 16, 19–28 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gorobets, A. Wild fauna conservation: IUCN-CITES match is required. Ecol. Indic. 112, 106091 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rao, M., Naro-Maciel, E. & Sterling, E. Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation II: Management and Effectiveness (Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners, 2009).

  23. 23.

    Adams, V. M., Iacona, G. D. & Possingham, H. P. Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nat. Sustain. 2, 404–411 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    BIOFIN The Biodiversity Finance Initiative Workbook 2018 (United Nations Development Programme, 2018).

  25. 25.

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152–158 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Naidoo, R. et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9495–9500 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Turner, W. et al. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience 57, 868–873 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Balmford, A. et al. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hily, E. et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a biodiversity conservation policy: a bio-econometric analysis of Natura 2000 contracts in forests. Ecol. Econ. 119, 197-208 (2015).

  31. 31.

    Ferraro, P. J., McIntosh, C. & Ospina, M. The effectiveness of the US endangered special act: an econometric analysis using matching methods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 54, 245–261 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12144–12148 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Waldron, A. et al. Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending. Nature 551, 364–367 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Richerzhagen, C. et al. Why We Need More and Better Biodiversity Aid Briefing Paper 13 (German Development Institute, 2016); https://go.nature.com/2K0S9Dz

  35. 35.

    Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

  36. 36.

    Karousakis, K. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Policy Instruments for Biodiversity: Impact Evaluation, Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Other Approaches Environment Working Paper No.141 (OECD, 2018).

  37. 37.

    Isaza, C., Bofill, W. & Cabrera, H. Cost-effective species conservation: an application to Huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Chile. Environ. Dev. Econ. 12, 535–551 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N. & Sims, K. R. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Econ. 88, 613–638 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bare, M. Assessing the impact of international conservation aid on deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 125010 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ferraro, P. J. et al. More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 025011 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lindsey, P. A. et al. More than $1 billion needed annually to secure Africa’s protected areas with lions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E10788–E10796 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Bonham, C. et al. Conservation trust funds, protected area management effectiveness and conservation outcomes: lessons from the global conservation fund. Parks 20, 89–100 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hein, Lars et al. Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems. Science 367, 514–515 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Natural Capital Accounting and Valuing Ecosystem Services Project (UN, 2019); http://go.nature.com/2K2jsxn

  45. 45.

    Ecosystem Valuation and Natural Capital Accounting (Gaborone Declaration for Sustainability in Africa, 2012); http://www.gaboronedeclaration.com/nca

  46. 46.

    Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) (UNDP, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2K0C7tp

  47. 47.

    BIOFIN Workbook: Mobilising Resources for Biodiversity and Sustainable Development (UND, 2016); https://go.nature.com/3p1PDMb

  48. 48.

    Shieh, G. Effect size, statistical power, and sample size for assessing interactions between categorical and continuous variables. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 72, 136–154 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Leon, A. C. & Heo, M. Sample sizes required to detect interactions between two binary fixed-effects in a mixed-effects linear regression model. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 53, 603–608 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Marques, A. et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Luther, D. A. et al. Determinants of bird conservation—action implementation and associated population trends of threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 30, 1338–1346 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Brooks, T. M. et al. Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Sci. Data 3, I60007 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Keith, D. A. et al. Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e62111 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague J. Rule Law 3, 220–246 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Akaike, H. Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle (Academiai Kiado, 1973).

  58. 58.

    Bozdogan, H. Model selection and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52, 345–370 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009); http://go.nature.com/3r5t6zA

  60. 60.

    Wooldridge, J. M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data 2nd edn (MIT Press, 2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the BIOFIN country and global team members, past, present and future, for contributing to the evolution of the BIOFIN methodology. We thank our partners for their support to BIOFIN: The European Union, the Governments of Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Flanders and Sweden. We acknowledge the following individuals for their guidance, feedback and research assistance: A. Dinu, J. Alvsilver, H. Barois, M. Bellot, K. Bhattacharyya, T. Cumming, I. Dickie, J. Ervin, B. Gjeka, J. Maiden, D. Meyers, M. Paxton, N. Sekhran and A. Trinidad. We would also like to thank the numerous country teams, experts and governments who generated the national-level Biodiversity Expenditure Reviews. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or the UN Member States.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.S., M.A., O.v.d.H. and M.R. developed the data collection method. A.S., K.M., M.A. and O.v.d.H. took part in data collection. A.S., K.M. and M.A. interpreted the models. K.M. undertook data synthesis and econometric modelling. M.A., K.M., O.v.d.H. and M.R. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Seidl.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Robert Costanza, Diana Weinhold and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Real public biodiversity expenditure and trends among sampled countries (n = 30).

Public biodiversity expenditure (in 2020 million USD), Public biodiversity expenditure as % of GDP.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

All secondary data used in the models.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seidl, A., Mulungu, K., Arlaud, M. et al. The effectiveness of national biodiversity investments to protect the wealth of nature. Nat Ecol Evol 5, 530–539 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01372-1

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing