UN biodiversity summit: Why world is struggling to fund its $200 billion nature goal

Countries raised an estimated $75 billion to $92 billion annually for biodiversity between 2023 and 2025, based on data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as reported by AP. The shortfall comes as countries struggle to meet commitments to protect 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030, restore damaged ecosystems and slow the loss of plants and animals. A draft UN progress report cited by Reuters found that countries were off track on 22 of the framework’s 23 targets.

Closing the gap will require more than raising additional money. Governments must decide how to share the costs, attract private investment, improve access to funding and reform subsidies that encourage activities such as deforestation, overfishing and the excessive use of harmful chemicals. The stakes extend beyond wildlife conservation. Healthy ecosystems support food production, clean water, livelihoods and economic stability.

Their degradation can affect farmers, businesses, households and national economies. “This isn't primarily a story about conservation,” Eva Zabey, chief executive of non-profit Business for Nature, told Reuters. “It's an economic, fiscal, political and competitiveness story, which is grounded in resilience and resource security,” Eva said. COP17 will test whether countries can turn their commitments into a workable financing plan before the 2030 deadline.

Why is world falling short of $200 billion nature goal? The $200 billion annual target comes from Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It calls for countries to mobilise domestic and international, public and private finance to support national biodiversity plans by 2030. The framework also sets a separate target for international biodiversity finance from developed to developing countries: at least $20 billion annually by 2025, rising to at least $30 billion by 2030.

The Associated Press reported that biodiversity funding for developing countries reached $19 billion in 2024, close to the 2025 target. However, declining foreign aid has raised concerns about whether that progress can be sustained. These figures also do not mean that every country or conservation project has received the funding it needs. Infographic generated using AI Developing countries face particular challenges.

Many contain forests, wetlands, coral reefs and other ecosystems that support large numbers of species, but protecting them requires sustained spending on research, park management, trained staff, infrastructure and enforcement against illegal activities. Governments must balance these costs against competing priorities such as healthcare, education and transport. Countries with limited public resources may struggle to finance conservation at the required scale, even when they recognise its importance.

Funding commitments alone are not enough. Governments also need the technical expertise, institutions and implementation plans to turn money into effective conservation. As Susan Lieberman, vice-president for international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society, told the Associated Press, protected areas require scientific assessment, management, governance and infrastructure, rather than simply being marked on a map.

The framework therefore expects countries to increase domestic spending and develop financing plans, while international assistance supports nations that lack the resources to meet conservation goals independently. Target 19 encourages mechanisms such as impact funds, blended finance, green bonds and payments for ecosystem services. Blended finance combines public or development funding with private investment to help projects attract capital.

However, nature projects can be difficult to finance commercially because their benefits may take years to materialise and do not always generate direct revenue. A forest restoration project, for example, may improve water quality, reduce soil erosion and protect biodiversity without producing sufficient income to cover its costs. Investors may also face uncertainty over land rights, regulations, long-term maintenance and how environmental benefits will be measured.

The International Chamber of Commerce, in an October 12 policy paper on biodiversity finance, argued that governments need clear frameworks, financing solutions and market conditions that reduce investment risks and direct capital towards measurable results. Businesses also depend on nature for raw materials, water, agriculture and supply chains. Protecting ecosystems can therefore help companies manage resource risks and strengthen long-term resilience.

However, private investment cannot replace public funding, particularly for ecosystems that have substantial environmental and social value but limited commercial returns. Can subsidy reform and private investment close funding gap? The financing challenge is not only about raising money. It also involves redirecting public support away from activities that damage nature. Under Target 18 of the global biodiversity framework, countries agreed to identify and reform or phase out incentives and subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

The goal is to reduce such support by at least $500 billion annually by 2030, starting with the most damaging incentives. These subsidies can encourage unsustainable fishing, deforestation and the excessive use of synthetic fertilisers and chemical pesticides. Reform could change the financial incentives behind damaging activities and redirect resources towards more sustainable practices. Reuters reported that subsidy reform is expected to be a major issue at COP17, with governments facing calls to establish a two-year timeline to identify and redirect the most harmful support.

However, the $500 billion target should not be confused with new money already available for conservation. The actual amount redirected towards biodiversity will depend on how governments implement the reforms. The changes could also be politically difficult. Subsidies often support agriculture, fisheries and other industries on which workers and communities depend. Removing them without alternatives could raise costs for farmers, affect food production or threaten livelihoods.

Governments may therefore need transition assistance, access to sustainable technologies and policies that help businesses use natural resources more efficiently. More than 130 businesses, including retailer H&M and consumer goods company Nestlé, signed an open letter before the summit urging governments to establish clearer policies and a plan to reform incentives over the following 12 months, Reuters reported.

The companies' demand reflects a concern that policy uncertainty can discourage long-term investment. Businesses and financial institutions need clear rules, reliable standards and consistent government commitments to assess the risks of financing nature-related projects. The Finance for Biodiversity Foundation said in an October 15 update that the financial system had developed tools and reporting frameworks but had not aligned financial flows with biodiversity targets at the required scale or speed.

Its report, “From Cali to Yerevan: Is the Financial System on Track?”, identified gaps in implementation, fiscal reform and access to finance. It also highlighted limitations in the data used to track private biodiversity funding. According to the foundation, the global progress report recorded $32.8 billion in private finance over four years, based on reporting from only 26% of the countries covered.

The foundation warned that this may not capture the full scale of private investment. It also said existing indicators do not adequately show whether financing for harmful activities is declining or shifting towards more sustainable alternatives. Better reporting would help governments assess both how much money supports conservation and how much continues to finance activities that damage ecosystems.

The foundation called for stronger government mandates, wider implementation and better access to finance for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Another initiative under discussion is the Cali Fund, established in 2025 to encourage companies that benefit from digital information based on genetic resources to contribute towards biodiversity conservation. Such resources can be used in industries including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and commercial agriculture.

Reuters reported that questions remain over how the fund's money should be distributed among countries and Indigenous communities, and whether companies should contribute based on their total revenue when only part of their business relies on these resources. Clearer rules would help companies understand their obligations and give countries and communities greater confidence that contributions will be shared fairly.

Philanthropy can also help finance conservation, although it cannot close the global funding gap on its own. The Associated Press reported that nine private organisations, including the Bezos Earth Fund, announced plans to spend $500 million over five years to prevent extinctions and support the recovery of threatened species. That initiative is separate from the $200 billion annual target. It demonstrates how private organisations can support specific conservation priorities, but sustained funding from governments, businesses and financial institutions will still be necessary.

How far is world from meeting its 2030 biodiversity targets? The funding shortfall is part of a wider implementation problem. Countries have committed to protecting ecosystems and reversing biodiversity loss, but progress remains insufficient across much of the global framework. Reuters reported that the world could protect an estimated 27.5% of land by 2030. The Associated Press cited a UN progress report projecting that, under current commitments, protection could reach only 26% of land and 12% of marine areas by that year.

These estimates come from different assessments, but both indicate that current efforts may fall short of the goal to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. Closing the gap will require countries to raise and deliver funding, reform harmful subsidies, establish clearer rules for private investment and improve accountability. They must also ensure that developing countries and local communities can access the resources needed to protect ecosystems over the long term.

COP17 gives governments an opportunity to assess progress, identify implementation gaps and agree on a clearer financing plan. The central challenge is to move beyond pledges and reporting frameworks towards funding that reaches conservation projects and supports them consistently.