Conservation Finance Options to Support African Post-2020 Biodiversity Priorities

The document assesses the global and regional shortfall in biodiversity finance, noting that the world failed to meet any Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. It argues that conservation should be viewed as an investment with a financial return on investment (ROI) rather than a cost. The author explores several 'green' financial instruments—including debt-for-nature swaps, green bonds, 'blue' financing, payment for ecosystem services (PES), and biocredits—as viable options for Africa. It specifically highlights the opportunity provided by COVID-19 recovery packages to implement a 'build forward better' approach, urging African governments and the African Development Bank to lead in mobilising these resources and realigning harmful subsidies toward nature-positive outcomes.

• The global community failed to achieve any of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020, with a primary cause being the lack of funding for implementation despite agreements to mobilise resources under Target 20.
• There is a severe imbalance in biodiversity finance; while 78% of finance is generated in advanced economies, only 41% is deployed to emerging or developing economies, with less than 19% of all biodiversity finance transferred to less developed countries.
• Global public spending on 'nature-negative' subsidies—those that harm biodiversity—is estimated at over $1 trillion, which is five to seven times the amount spent on 'nature-positive' protection efforts.
• Conservation is increasingly framed as 'impact investing' rather than a cost, with research suggesting a financial return on investment (ROI) averaging $10 for every $1 of conservation finance spent.
• Debt-for-nature (DFN) swaps, where foreign debt is reduced in exchange for local conservation investment, present a significant opportunity for Africa, especially as approximately 37 African countries are eligible for debt relief following the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Green bonds have seen massive growth, surpassing $1 trillion in cumulative issuance by January 2021, yet less than 1% of these funds were allocated to biodiversity conservation in 2019, with most directed toward renewable energy.
• Payment for ecosystem services (PES) and biocredits offer scalable income streams for local communities; for example, the Wildlife Works Kasigau Corridor project in Kenya generates revenues comparable to the entire Tsavo National Park despite covering only 1% of its area.
• The African Development Bank (AfDB) is positioned to close the conservation finance gap by 'greening' climate finance through nature-based solutions (NbS), although its current formal financial products do not yet reference conservation or green financing.

APA

KING, N. (2021). Conservation Finance Options to Support African Post-2020 Biodiversity Priorities. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Occasional-Paper-325-king.pdf

Chicago

KING, NICK. Conservation Finance Options to Support African Post-2020 Biodiversity Priorities. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2021. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Occasional-Paper-325-king.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=KING |first1=NICK |title=Conservation Finance Options to Support African Post-2020 Biodiversity Priorities |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=May 2021 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Occasional-Paper-325-king.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{king2021conservation, author = {KING, NICK}, title = {{Conservation Finance Options to Support African Post-2020 Biodiversity Priorities}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2021}, month = may, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Occasional-Paper-325-king.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }