Conserving biodiversity and halting extinction: from ambition to action on conservation imperatives and how to pay for it

Published on June 25th, 2024

We have long known that our planet is in the midst of the sixth extinction crisis in Earth’s history—and the first caused by human activities. Using a conservative model, Ceballos et al. (1) estimate that the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 100 times higher than the background rate. Using a different model, De Vos et al. (2) conclude that “current extinction rates are 1000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher.” 

Degradation and conversion of natural habitat plays a critical role in accelerating extinction. Over 40% of the world’s land is now agricultural or urban, with ecosystem processes deliberately redirected from natural to anthropogenic pathways. Human drivers extend so widely beyond these areas that as little as 23% of the land can still be classified as having “intact ecosystems” (3). 

In response to these dismaying trends, the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People (HAC for N&P) was established in late 2019 and formally launched in early 2021 at the initiative of the governments of Costa Rica and France for the explicit purpose of delivering a global agreement to protect at least 30% of our planet’s land and ocean by 2030 (4)​​.  

The HAC​ for N&P’s​ initial goal of translating scientific findings into an imperative target was achieved when Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), at its 15th Conference of the Parties in December 2022, adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF): an ambitious set of goals and targets intended to substantially slow biodiversity loss by 2030. GBF Target 3 calls for conserving at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, by 2030. By early 2024, 119 countries had joined the HAC for N&P, which now devotes its energies to supporting countries in implementing this ambitious area-based conservation commitment. Specifically, Target 3 commits the CBD Parties to: 

“Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.” 

At present, 17% of the terrestrial realm lies within some form of protected area or has some other effective area-based conservation status. But from which habitats will the next 13% be added? GBF Target 3 commits CBD Parties to prioritize “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services.” On what basis should we do so? 

GBF Target 4, “Halt species extinction, protect genetic diversity, and manage human-wildlife conflicts”, provides one important piece of guidance: selection of the additional 13% of the terrestrial realm that must be conserved according to Target 3 should focus on “urgent management actions to halt human-induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species, in particular threatened species, to significantly reduce extinction risk […]” 

In a lead article published in Frontiers in Science, Dinerstein et al. address these questions and provide a blueprint for where targeted interventions could play a critical role in meeting GBF Targets 3 and 4, thus changing the trajectory of the species extinction crisis if we act now (5). The results are encouraging. 

First, saving the homelands of currently unprotected terrestrial species—Conservation Imperatives—would require adding only 1.2% of land (0.76% of which is dispersed in tropical rain forests) to the current protected areas estate, but, if effectively managed, this could prevent a vast number of threatened species from becoming extinct. 

Second, 39% of the Conservation Imperative sites lie adjacent to existing protected areas; simply extending the protection boundary to these critical neighboring areas could save on management and monitoring costs.​​  

Third, these Conservation Imperative sites are heavily concentrated in 30 (mostly tropical) countries; protecting the sites in only 10 of these countries would cover 72% of Conservation Imperatives globally. 

Finally, 17% of all Conservation Imperative sites occur on lands of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Supporting these groups’ rights and claims over the critical ecosystems that they are conserving not only makes sense for both conservation and human rights but is also an integral part of GBF Target 3, which calls on Parties to recognize and respect “the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.”                               

Dinerstein et al. thus convincingly demonstrate that protecting the Conservation Imperative sites does not pose insurmountable political or practical challenges and could be a key element of achieving GBF Targets 3 and 4. But how would such a collective effort be financed? 

A major study on the biodiversity financing gap estimated that “to reverse the decline in biodiversity by 2030 […] we need to spend between US$722-967 billion each year over the next ten years (6). That puts the biodiversity financing gap at an average US$711 billion or between US$598-824 billion per year.” Given that formidable gap, the estimated cost of securing the lands holding the Conservation Imperatives is a relative bargain at only $35 Billion over 5 years, based on an analysis of nearly 1,000 (mostly tropical) land purchases or long-term leases. Having said that, the resources needed to effectively manage and protect these areas, once secured, are of course greater. 

It is not news that most terrestrial biodiversity, including most of the Conservation Imperative sites, lies within the territories of developing countries in the tropics. Developing countries have long argued, with good reason, that if conserving biodiversity is a shared global imperative, then wealthier developed countries—who are asking developing countries to take on the greatest conservation effort—need to mobilize much more financing to do so. This global conservation deal is enshrined in GBF Target 19, which commits CBD Parties to: 

“Substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources, in an effective, timely and easily accessible manner, including domestic, international, public and private resources, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by 2030 mobilizing at least 200 billion United States dollars per year, including by: 

(a) Increasing total biodiversity-related international financial resources from developed countries, including official development assistance, and from countries that voluntarily assume obligations of developed country Parties, to developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030" 

To that end, COP15 also established a new Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) on an interim basis within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the official financial mechanism for the CBD. The GEF is already a major funder of biodiversity conservation efforts in developing countries, but its current level of finance—less than $500 million/year in its present 4-year funding cycle (2022–2026)—is only about 2.5% of what the developed country Parties at CBD COP15 committed to mobilize in international assistance to the developing countries. Encouragingly, the GBFF recently approved $US110 million of additional funding for biodiversity conservation. 

It is a hopeful sign that the June 2024 G7 Leaders’ Communique strongly reaffirmed both the 30x30 conservation target and the specific financial commitments in Target 19. But it is also true that traditional donor countries face multiple demands on their resources at home and abroad, and voices calling for increased foreign assistance for biodiversity conservation are rarely the loudest and most insistent at budget negotiation tables. As a result, there has been a significant push to develop “innovative financing mechanisms” that could tap the power of the market and the vast financial resources of the private business sector to make up at least some of the biodiversity finance gap (7). Two recent developments are of interest in this regard. 

Building off the experience of carbon markets in the forest and land use sector, many have proposed the development of a “biodiversity credit” approach (8). The idea is to quantify the value of specific units of biodiversity conservation and allow those to be purchased (by either the government, civil society, or the private sector) to then either be counted by the buyer towards its own conservation targets or goals or, in some versions of the idea, resold to others as an “offset”. Of course, there is much that is complex and controversial in trying to make some version of biodiversity crediting work at scale. Unlike carbon emissions, biodiversity cannot be readily quantified or even directly measured by any widely agreed metric. And, unlike a measure of GHG emissions, biodiversity is not fungible across species or ecosystems. Finally, there is no broadly agreed overall metric of success to play the role of “1.5 degrees Celsius” in the climate policy world (9). That being said, given the looming biodiversity finance shortfall, further development of biodiversity crediting is an avenue well worth further exploration and experimentation (10) as a complement to increases in public international funding. 

In December 2023, the government of Brazil proposed the establishment of a US$250 billion “Tropical Forests Forever Fund” (TFFF)—another innovative approach to financing focused in particular on slowing the loss of tropical forests. This by itself would not meet the entire biodiversity challenge. However, it is difficult to imagine a successful biodiversity conservation strategy that does not include appreciably slowing the loss of the biome containing the majority of terrestrial biodiversity. 

In April 2024, the World Bank (11) tabled a concept note proposing how the TFFF might work.  

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) would reward tropical forest countries for protecting the natural tropical forests that provide enormous development benefits and are a critical part of humanity’s effort to combat climate change. By providing an explicit payment for conservation and restoration of tropical forests, the facility would help to address a significant market failure, placing a value to the ecosystem services that those forests render to water management, biodiversity preservation, soil protection, nutrient cycling, continental and global climate regulation, and climate resilience. 

To do so, the TFFF would “generate financial returns for qualifying tropical forest nations by investing low-cost, long-term deposits and other borrowings in a long-dated diversified investment strategy”. The TFFF's funding will come from deposits, loans, and bonds from advanced economy sponsors and other investors at a cost materially lower than the returns to be expected from TFFF's investments. 

The TFFF is reportedly appealing to potential sponsor countries, at least in principle, since it is a loan mechanism rather than traditional foreign aid. It appeals to potential recipient countries in part because it grants them autonomy to develop and implement their own policies and strategies for reducing deforestation. A novel element of the model is the reliance on “transparent satellite-based” systems to monitor and verify forest cover change—something that was just not possible as recently as 15 years ago (12). 

We do not mention these specific developments to either endorse or criticize them. What is clear, however, is that these and other innovative biodiversity financing approaches that harness longstanding financial market tools and mobilize private sector investment are clearly needed to fill the biodiversity financing gap in the longer term. 

In the shorter term, however, as 2030 gets closer and closer, it is also clear that donor governments must step up, as they committed to do at COP15. Long experience with the establishment of new global environmental funds and mechanisms dictates that neither biodiversity credit schemes nor the proposed TFFF are likely to deliver the finance needed to address the most critical Conservation Imperatives before it is too late—certainly not by 2030. Financing for the Conservation Imperatives would be a good place to start. 

Disclaimer:

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of the World Resources Institute.

References 

1. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances (2024) 1, e1400253 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253 

2. De Vos JM, Joppa LN, Gittleman GL, Stephens PR, Pimm SL. Estimating the Normal Background Rate of Species Extinction. Conservation Biology (2014) 29: 452–462. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12380 

3. Watson JEM, Venter O, Lee J, Jones KR, Robinson JG, Possingham HP, et al. Protect the Last of the Wild. Nature (2018) 563 (27) 27-30. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07183-6 

4. High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People. About us (2024). Available at: https://www.hacfornatureandpeople.org/about-us/ 

5. Dinerstein E, Joshi AR, Hahn NR, Lee ATL, Vynne C, Burkart K, et al. Conservation imperatives: securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. Front Sci (2024) 2:1349350. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350 

6. Deutz A, Heal GM, Niu R, Swanson E, Townshend T, Li Z, et al. Financing Nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability (2020). Available at https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/conservation/financing-nature-report/ 

7. Innovative Finance for Nature and People: Opportunities and Challenges for Biodiversity-Positive Carbon Credits and Nature Certificates. GEF (2023). Available at: https://www.thegef.org/newsroom/publications/innovative-finance-nature-and-people 

8. Harnessing Biodiversity Credits for People and Planet. Nature Finance, Carbone 4, GEF (2023). Available at: https://www.naturemarkets.net/publications/harnessing-biodiversity-credits-for-people-and-planet 

9. Campaign for Nature. Funding Nature: The Essential Role of Governments and the Illusion of Biodiversity Credits. Campaign for Nature (2024). Available at: https://www.campaignfornature.org/funding-nature-essential-public-finance 

10. Rao R, Choi ES, Czebiniak RP. Can ‘Biodiversity Credits’ Boost Conservation? World Resources Institute (2024). Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/biodiversity-credits-explained 

11. World Bank. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility: A Proposed Multilateral Investment Fund to Reward Tropical Forest Conservation and Restoration. World Bank (2024). Available at The Global Foundation: https://globalfoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Brazil-Government-Tropical-Forests-Forever-Initiative.pdf 

12. Fassnacht FE, White JC, Wulder MA, Næsset E. Remote sensing in forestry: current challenges, considerations and directions. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research (2024) 97 (1) 11–37. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpad024 

Copyright: © 2024 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.