We Can’t Rely on Voluntary and Private Finance to End the Biodiversity Crisis

By Mwanahamisi Singano

We cannot afford to leave biodiversity finance to the whims of market actors. We need public, grant-based, and accessible financing that prioritizes the rights of women, Indigenous Peoples, and frontline communities.

From our first convening in Miami in 1991- in preparation for the Rio Earth Summit- to mobilizing hundreds of women for the Women’s Tent in 1992—where the Rio Conventions were born—the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) has been at the forefront of advancing women’s rights and gender equality in environmental governance.?

While much of our recent focus has been on climate action, we’ve also sustained engagement across the other two Rio Conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD)- driven by our founding mission to advance gender equality across all Rio Conventions, to promote policy coherence, and to prevent harm to those most vulnerable.

With 2024 being a year of triple COPs (Conference of the Parties), today marks the start of CBD COP16—an opportunity to focus on what’s at stake for biodiversity and why we must ensure robust public financing to avert a biodiversity crisis.

Gender-Responsive Biodiversity Framework: A Step Forward

There is some good news. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) acknowledges the essential role of gender equality in ensuring successful biodiversity outcomes. Through the adoption of Targets 22 and 23, which emphasize equitable participation and gender-responsive approaches, and the new CBD Gender Plan of Action (2023-2030), parties have a roadmap to advance gender equality in biodiversity governance. However, these commitments must be backed by meaningful financing to achieve the Framework’s vision.

The Crisis of Resource Mobilization

A key issue at COP16 will be “Resource Mobilization and Financial Mechanism.” While Parties make critical decisions , including on indicators for the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its financing, gender equality advocates are following closely.?

As it stands, current pledges to the newly established Global Biodiversity Framework Fund by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) amount to USD 231 million, with only USD 128 million deposited—far short of the target to mobilize 20 billion dollars per year by 2025 and 30 billion by 2030.

Three options are on the table for Parties to decide here in Cali, establishing a dedicated Global Biodiversity Fund, deferring the decision to COP17 or, continuing with the GEF’s Global Biodiversity Framework Fund as an interim mechanism.

1. [25. Decides to establish the dedicated [Global Biodiversity Fund][global instrument for biodiversity finance, which should be designated the Global Biodiversity Fund], under the authority [and guidance] of, and accountable to, the Conference of the Parties [and to operationalize it] [, which should be informed by the criteria enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention] [and by other elements reflected in annex III to the present decision];
2. [25. Decides to defer [until its seventeenth meeting] the [consideration][decision] of whether the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund should be designated the Global Biodiversity Fund, [and advance with the discussion] [in view of its still recent establishment] [, which should be informed by the criteria enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention] [and by other elements reflected in annex III to the present decision];
3. [25. [Affirms that, in line with Article 39 of the Convention,] [Decides that] the Global Environment Facility, including its newly established Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, is to continue to be the [interim] institutional structure operating the financial mechanism of the Convention and its Protocols] [, which should be informed by the criteria enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention] [and by other elements reflected in annex III to the present decision];

The Erosion of Developed Countries' Obligations

One of the most alarming developments is the potential erosion of developed countries’ obligations under Article 20 of the Convention, which binds them to provide financial resources to support developing countries in biodiversity protection.?

21. [Calls upon][Urges] [countries in a position to do so to][developed country Parties and countries in position to do so] [donors] [all Parties and other Governments that are in a position to do so] [to make or] [significantly] [increase their contributions] [to contribute] to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund [in order to achieve the target of mobilizing at least 20 billion dollars per year by 2025 and at least 30 billion dollars per year by 2030] [in a manner commensurate with the challenges faced by developing countries in the implementation of the Convention and the Framework, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention];

Draft language for the resource mobilization strategy introduces voluntary financing commitments, signaling a retreat from the principle of public accountability and equity. Instead of ensuring that developed countries meet their historical and legal obligations, we are seeing options that introduce private and philanthropic finance, as well as market-based instruments like biodiversity offsets and credits—mentioned seven times in the draft decisions—despite opposition from civil society .

By further stimulating and increasing the use of finance solutions,57 [such as payments for ecosystem services and green bonds [and biodiversity credits]][such as payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets and credits, and green bonds], with environmental and social safeguards, including by developing guidelines and sharing good practices, [while monitoring and assessing their impact on biodiversity, gender equality and human rights];

Feminist Financing for Biodiversity: No Room for Neoliberal Agendas

The move toward private financing, often lauded as “innovative,” risks further entrenching inequalities. Relying on private finance not only absolves developed countries of their responsibility but also places the burden on developing countries, women, and local communities—those who are least responsible for the biodiversity crisis yet suffer its harshest impacts. Neoliberal financing mechanisms like biodiversity offsets commodify nature, threatening the very ecosystems and people we seek to protect.

We cannot afford to leave biodiversity finance to the whims of market actors. We need public, grant-based, and accessible financing that prioritizes the rights of women, Indigenous Peoples, and frontline communities. Public financing ensures accountability and transparency, while private finance is driven by profit motives that often undermine environmental justice.

What’s Next? Rejecting Inadequate Options

The decisions made at COP16 will shape the future of global biodiversity in particular and planetary crisis in general. As we look ahead to 2 weeks of intense negotiations, we must reject the erosion of developed countries' obligations and insist on new and additional public finance that is debt-free.? With all the attention directed to COP 29 NCQG decision, the international community should equally pressure developed parties to uphold commitments to gender equality, human rights, and environmental justice within the realm of public finance. Gender language should not be added as a token to financing models which are flawed at best and disastrous and unjust at worst.

WEDO and our allies will continue to fight for a feminist, gender-responsive approach to biodiversity financing. The biodiversity crisis cannot be solved by the private sector alone—nor should it be. Public finance must play a central role in ensuring that biodiversity is protected for current and future generations, with women and marginalized communities at the heart of these efforts.