D.3 Private funding (domestic and international) on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
Disaggregation of the headline indicator:
All monetary values are to be reported in national currency.
Countries should ensure the methodologies used for potential “other instruments” do not double count with previous categories (for instance, biodiversity-relevant bonds and impact investing with sustainable commodities).
Elements marked with * have a methodology available.
2023-03-28 12:00:00 UTC
Headline Indicator for Goal D Adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and access to and transfer of technology to fully implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework are secured and equitably accessible to all Parties, especially developing country Parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, progressively closing the biodiversity finance gap of $700 billion per year, and aligning financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision for biodiversity.
Headline indicator forTarget 19 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, mobilizing at least $200 billion per year by 2030, 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 $20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least $30 billion per year by 2030;
(b) Significantly increasing domestic resource mobilization, facilitated by the preparation and implementation of national biodiversity finance plans or similar instruments according to national needs, priorities and circumstances;
(c) Leveraging private finance, promoting blended finance, implementing strategies for raising new and additional resources, and encouraging the private sector to invest in biodiversity, including through impact funds and other instruments;
(d) Stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, and benefit sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards;
(e) Optimizing co-benefits and synergies of finance targeting the biodiversity and climate crises;
(f) Enhancing the role of collective actions, including by indigenous peoples and local communities, Mother Earth centric actions and non-market-based approaches including community based natural resource management and civil society cooperation and solidarity aimed at the conservation of biodiversity;
(g) Enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of resource provision and use.
Draft Goal D relates to the means of implementation for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The post-2020 global biodiversity framework will need to be implemented primarily through activities at the national and/or subnational levels, with supporting action at the regional and global levels. However, the capacity for implementing the Convention in terms of human, technical and financial resources is limited in most countries, especially in developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition.Reaching the 2050 Vision for biodiversity will require that the necessary means of implementation are available to enable Parties and stakeholders to undertake the necessary actions.
Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective biodiversity conservation in many countries and may be associated with failures to meet global targets. Conservation investment has been demonstrated to reduce biodiversity loss. Spending on biodiversity provides a very high social return on investment. Thus, while increased biodiversity resource mobilisation from all sources is not only necessary to reduce, halt and reverse biodiversity loss (Le.to bend the curve on biodiversity loss) it is also likely to generate net economic benefits for both present and future generations.Current global biodiversity finance is of the order of USD 100 billion per year, while estimates of funding needs for a comprehensive post 2020 global biodiversity framework are of the order of USD 800 billion per year, giving a funding gap of the order of USD700 billion per year. This indicator will monitor the extent to which the gap between available financial resources and those necessary to achieve the 2050 Vision, is closed.
This indicator aims to quantify total international and domestic private finance flows with biodiversity objectives. It includes international and domestic private philanthropy with biodiversity objectives, and to the extent that data is available, private funding for non-philanthropic investments in biodiversity.
Private philanthropy is one source of finance for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Often these investments in biodiversity do not offer a financial return and therefore are not attractive to the private sector seeking to maximise their profits. While the private sector plays a pivotal role in investing in the sustainable use of biodiversity as part of a broader strategy to mitigate risk and build corporate resilience and reputation, private philanthropy can invest in the protection and preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems for the greater benefits to society without necessarily having a financial return. Measuring private philanthropy finance therefore captures one element of private financial flows towards the protection of biodiversity.
While private philanthropy plays an important role in mobilising finance for biodiversity, non-philanthropic funds are critical to achieve biodiversity-related outcomes in the private sector. Through economic expenditures such as the purchase of biodiversity offsets as part of a mitigation hierarchy strategy, the purchase of nature-based carbon offsets in a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy, the payment for ecosystem services as a risk reduction and cost saving strategy, and investments in natural resource-based supply chains that adhere to sustainability standards, private entities can direct their expenditures to contributions related to biodiversity. In addition to these economic expenditures, financial markets play an equally important role in directing their capital investments towards those in which positive impacts on nature are intended, alongside financial returns.
While a robust dataset to measure and report on all streams of private finance for biodiversity is not readily available, this methodology draws on a variety of available resources for countries to quantitatively report on private finance for biodiversity, depending on their national circumstances.
The indicator measures, where information is available, international and domestic private finance for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The total amount of private finance captured by this indicator is composed of
International private philanthropy from foundations for development includes foundations reporting their data on grants and program/mission-related investments to the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Philanthropic finance targeting the objectives of the CBD is tracked using the Rio marker for biodiversity (scores “principal” or “significant”) or in specific cases other available statistical tools
Private finance mobilised by official development finance includes data reported to the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) by bilateral and multilateral development finance providers using leveraging mechanisms to attract private investors such as guarantees, syndicated loans, shares in collective investment vehicles, direct investment in companies / SPVs, credit lines, simple co-financing arrangements, project finance schemes and, in some cases, technical assistance. Since data on mobilised private finance data is collected at the activity level, biodiversity-related data can be fetched through the use of purpose codes and keyword searches. For multilateral organisations, only aggregates can be disclosed to the public for confidentiality reasons
Domestic private donations include funding to implement conservation programs with no financial return. This class of funding includes only those revenues generated from individual donations, corporate grants, and investment income (which could be channeled through non-governmental organizations), and excludes revenue received from international private philanthropy from institutionalized philanthropic organizations and from public sources to reduce the risk of double counting.
Biodiversity offsets are “measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken.”(BBOP 2018). They are usually under a no net loss or a net gain objective. There are three main types of biodiversity offsets: 1. One-off biodiversity offsets; 2. payments in-lieu and 3. biobanking
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) is a voluntary transaction between ecosystem service users and service providers that are conditional on agreed rules of natural resource management for generating offsite services (Wunder, 2015). Ecosystem service providers and users may be individuals, companies or aggregations of actors. In some cases, a government may act on behalf of users
Sustainable supply chains refer to nature-based commodities such as harvested wood products, agricultural goods, palm oil, and seafood that have obtained certification through an established sustainability standard such as the Forest Stewardship Council, USDA/EU Organic, or Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. These certified products adhere to standards by employing methods to sustainably utilize natural resources that do not deplete biodiversity. Alternatively, countries may elect to implement their own definition of ‘sustainable supply chains’, for instance through alignment with biodiversity-relevant taxonomies, that do not align with established sustainability standards, so long as the definition and methodology for calculation are consistent and transparent
Private benefit sharing schemes refers to programs that channel private funding from the users of genetic resources to the people and communities providing the genetic resources
Other instruments include debt and equity instruments, insurance schemes, and other biodiversity-relevant financial instruments the country wishes to report on. As financial markets evolve rapidly, this list is not intended to be exhaustive, and countries are encouraged to report on innovative finance mechanisms being deployed in their country targeted towards biodiversity-related activities
Countries will report the monetary value of domestic public expenditure in national currency per year during the CBD national reporting cycle.
Options for the Secretariat for global indicators
Options for countries for national reporting
Alternative options for countries for national reporting
Countries may alternatively report on private domestic funding from their Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts, established following the System of Environmental Economic Accounting framework, for private expenditures, if such accounts have been implemented
Countries may alternatively report on private funding collected through existing biodiversity expenditure reviews as part of participation in the UNDP’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative, or alternative initiatives to collect private funding for biodiversity.
Depending on the reporting option selected by the country, data may be collected through information already reported to the OECD DAC Secretariat, with data collection methods described below. All other data collection will occur at the national level based on the approaches described in the previous section
Countries reporting via the OECD database can refer to
The CRS data are available since 1996 on an annual basis. The Rio marker on biodiversity is available since 2002
For the OECD PINE database, see the metadata sheet for 18.1
Countries and philanthropic foundations provide biodiversity-related international private flows. This data can be reported directly to the CBD or through data already collected and validated by the OECD prior to publishing online.
For the OECD PINE database, see the metadata sheet for 18.1
OECD CRS database
OECD PINE database
CBD Secretariat through country national reporting
EUROSTAT (for the EPEA database, which uses the CEP classification) and National Statistical Offices
UNDP-BIOFIN
Countries through surveys and other available information
Gaps in the OECD-CRS Database
In the CRS, providers beyond the DAC membership do not systematically report using the biodiversity Rio marker. Multilateral institutions report to the OECD on a voluntary basis but do not all use the biodiversity Rio marker or comprehensively indicate their biodiversity-related outflows. This data can be estimated through their reporting on the SDGs or purpose codes, or the use of keyword searches. A more robust breakdown of multilateral flows would be possible through the direct identification and reporting of biodiversity-related flows to the OECD, provided these flows comply with the definition of the Rio marker on biodiversity (i.e. flows targeting the objectives of the CBD). Multilateral institutions report in the CRS activities financed with their core budget.
Related to private finance mobilized by official development finance, the data may not adequately capture financial flows to projects/interventions where biodiversity may not have been the primary objective, such as investments in agriculture, but have a significant biodiversity benefit. Due to confidentiality concerns, data on private finance mobilized by some official providers (multilateral development banks in particular is only made publicly available at the aggregate level. This work will explore further the available data on private finance mobilized and also address the capacity building needs to improve the biodiversity flagging of the underlying activities
Gaps in the OECD PINE Database
The OECD PINE database includes data from 134 countries. Limited data are available on biodiversity offsets and PES as these instruments have only recently been integrated into PINE. All countries are welcome and encouraged to contribute data, and to disaggregate monetary flows from private and public sectors. The data collection method may result in some reporting bias, as OECD members and active accession countries are likely to report data more regularly. All figures should be interpreted in this context.
Other gaps in data coverage
Datasets on private funding for biodiversity are limited. While the OECD-CRS database captures a significant amount of international biodiversity-related private philanthropy for development, it does not comprehensively capture all other private grants and donations for biodiversity-related activities, such as direct donations by high-net-worth-individuals and smaller private philanthropic foundations. Some private philanthropies also do not wish to report their data to OECD-CRS. In addition, the numerous channels, actors, and instruments for biodiversity conservation funding are not captured in a global dataset that countries can draw on for national reporting. Innovative finance mechanisms for biodiversity are continuously evolving and are not adequately captured in the proposed methodology here given the gaps in identifying, tracking, and reporting on these private financial flows. As new mechanisms and strategies evolve over time, countries are encouraged to track the private financial flows as a result of these efforts
Scale of application:Global, Regional, National
Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation:
Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level: No
National data is collated to form global indicator: No
No
Private biodiversity-related international philanthropic contributions from the OECD CRS database can be disaggregated by recipient, sector/purpose code, DSG focus, and Rio Marker
Target 18.1 Positive incentives in place to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Target 19 on Domestic Expenditure
Target 15 on Business Disclosures
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for the OECD CRS and PINE databases
Eurostat and other statistical agencies for environmental economic accounts including environmental protection expenditure accounts
Figure 1: Private pihlantrhopy for development. Source: OECD (2023). Estimates based on OECD DAC statistics from the OECD, Creditor Reporting System
D.3 Private funding (domestic and international) on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
Disaggregation of the headline indicator:
All monetary values are to be reported in national currency.
Countries should ensure the methodologies used for potential “other instruments” do not double count with previous categories (for instance, biodiversity-relevant bonds and impact investing with sustainable commodities).
Elements marked with * have a methodology available.
2023-03-28 12:00:00 UTC
Headline Indicator for Goal D Adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and access to and transfer of technology to fully implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework are secured and equitably accessible to all Parties, especially developing country Parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, progressively closing the biodiversity finance gap of $700 billion per year, and aligning financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision for biodiversity.
Headline indicator forTarget 19 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, mobilizing at least $200 billion per year by 2030, 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 $20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least $30 billion per year by 2030;
(b) Significantly increasing domestic resource mobilization, facilitated by the preparation and implementation of national biodiversity finance plans or similar instruments according to national needs, priorities and circumstances;
(c) Leveraging private finance, promoting blended finance, implementing strategies for raising new and additional resources, and encouraging the private sector to invest in biodiversity, including through impact funds and other instruments;
(d) Stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, and benefit sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards;
(e) Optimizing co-benefits and synergies of finance targeting the biodiversity and climate crises;
(f) Enhancing the role of collective actions, including by indigenous peoples and local communities, Mother Earth centric actions and non-market-based approaches including community based natural resource management and civil society cooperation and solidarity aimed at the conservation of biodiversity;
(g) Enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of resource provision and use.
Draft Goal D relates to the means of implementation for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The post-2020 global biodiversity framework will need to be implemented primarily through activities at the national and/or subnational levels, with supporting action at the regional and global levels. However, the capacity for implementing the Convention in terms of human, technical and financial resources is limited in most countries, especially in developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition.Reaching the 2050 Vision for biodiversity will require that the necessary means of implementation are available to enable Parties and stakeholders to undertake the necessary actions.
Inadequate funding levels are a major impediment to effective biodiversity conservation in many countries and may be associated with failures to meet global targets. Conservation investment has been demonstrated to reduce biodiversity loss. Spending on biodiversity provides a very high social return on investment. Thus, while increased biodiversity resource mobilisation from all sources is not only necessary to reduce, halt and reverse biodiversity loss (Le.to bend the curve on biodiversity loss) it is also likely to generate net economic benefits for both present and future generations.Current global biodiversity finance is of the order of USD 100 billion per year, while estimates of funding needs for a comprehensive post 2020 global biodiversity framework are of the order of USD 800 billion per year, giving a funding gap of the order of USD700 billion per year. This indicator will monitor the extent to which the gap between available financial resources and those necessary to achieve the 2050 Vision, is closed.
This indicator aims to quantify total international and domestic private finance flows with biodiversity objectives. It includes international and domestic private philanthropy with biodiversity objectives, and to the extent that data is available, private funding for non-philanthropic investments in biodiversity.
Private philanthropy is one source of finance for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Often these investments in biodiversity do not offer a financial return and therefore are not attractive to the private sector seeking to maximise their profits. While the private sector plays a pivotal role in investing in the sustainable use of biodiversity as part of a broader strategy to mitigate risk and build corporate resilience and reputation, private philanthropy can invest in the protection and preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems for the greater benefits to society without necessarily having a financial return. Measuring private philanthropy finance therefore captures one element of private financial flows towards the protection of biodiversity.
While private philanthropy plays an important role in mobilising finance for biodiversity, non-philanthropic funds are critical to achieve biodiversity-related outcomes in the private sector. Through economic expenditures such as the purchase of biodiversity offsets as part of a mitigation hierarchy strategy, the purchase of nature-based carbon offsets in a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy, the payment for ecosystem services as a risk reduction and cost saving strategy, and investments in natural resource-based supply chains that adhere to sustainability standards, private entities can direct their expenditures to contributions related to biodiversity. In addition to these economic expenditures, financial markets play an equally important role in directing their capital investments towards those in which positive impacts on nature are intended, alongside financial returns.
While a robust dataset to measure and report on all streams of private finance for biodiversity is not readily available, this methodology draws on a variety of available resources for countries to quantitatively report on private finance for biodiversity, depending on their national circumstances.
The indicator measures, where information is available, international and domestic private finance for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The total amount of private finance captured by this indicator is composed of
International private philanthropy from foundations for development includes foundations reporting their data on grants and program/mission-related investments to the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Philanthropic finance targeting the objectives of the CBD is tracked using the Rio marker for biodiversity (scores “principal” or “significant”) or in specific cases other available statistical tools
Private finance mobilised by official development finance includes data reported to the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) by bilateral and multilateral development finance providers using leveraging mechanisms to attract private investors such as guarantees, syndicated loans, shares in collective investment vehicles, direct investment in companies / SPVs, credit lines, simple co-financing arrangements, project finance schemes and, in some cases, technical assistance. Since data on mobilised private finance data is collected at the activity level, biodiversity-related data can be fetched through the use of purpose codes and keyword searches. For multilateral organisations, only aggregates can be disclosed to the public for confidentiality reasons
Domestic private donations include funding to implement conservation programs with no financial return. This class of funding includes only those revenues generated from individual donations, corporate grants, and investment income (which could be channeled through non-governmental organizations), and excludes revenue received from international private philanthropy from institutionalized philanthropic organizations and from public sources to reduce the risk of double counting.
Biodiversity offsets are “measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken.”(BBOP 2018). They are usually under a no net loss or a net gain objective. There are three main types of biodiversity offsets: 1. One-off biodiversity offsets; 2. payments in-lieu and 3. biobanking
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) is a voluntary transaction between ecosystem service users and service providers that are conditional on agreed rules of natural resource management for generating offsite services (Wunder, 2015). Ecosystem service providers and users may be individuals, companies or aggregations of actors. In some cases, a government may act on behalf of users
Sustainable supply chains refer to nature-based commodities such as harvested wood products, agricultural goods, palm oil, and seafood that have obtained certification through an established sustainability standard such as the Forest Stewardship Council, USDA/EU Organic, or Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. These certified products adhere to standards by employing methods to sustainably utilize natural resources that do not deplete biodiversity. Alternatively, countries may elect to implement their own definition of ‘sustainable supply chains’, for instance through alignment with biodiversity-relevant taxonomies, that do not align with established sustainability standards, so long as the definition and methodology for calculation are consistent and transparent
Private benefit sharing schemes refers to programs that channel private funding from the users of genetic resources to the people and communities providing the genetic resources
Other instruments include debt and equity instruments, insurance schemes, and other biodiversity-relevant financial instruments the country wishes to report on. As financial markets evolve rapidly, this list is not intended to be exhaustive, and countries are encouraged to report on innovative finance mechanisms being deployed in their country targeted towards biodiversity-related activities
Countries will report the monetary value of domestic public expenditure in national currency per year during the CBD national reporting cycle.
Options for the Secretariat for global indicators
Options for countries for national reporting
Alternative options for countries for national reporting
Countries may alternatively report on private domestic funding from their Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts, established following the System of Environmental Economic Accounting framework, for private expenditures, if such accounts have been implemented
Countries may alternatively report on private funding collected through existing biodiversity expenditure reviews as part of participation in the UNDP’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative, or alternative initiatives to collect private funding for biodiversity.
Depending on the reporting option selected by the country, data may be collected through information already reported to the OECD DAC Secretariat, with data collection methods described below. All other data collection will occur at the national level based on the approaches described in the previous section
Countries reporting via the OECD database can refer to
The CRS data are available since 1996 on an annual basis. The Rio marker on biodiversity is available since 2002
For the OECD PINE database, see the metadata sheet for 18.1
Countries and philanthropic foundations provide biodiversity-related international private flows. This data can be reported directly to the CBD or through data already collected and validated by the OECD prior to publishing online.
For the OECD PINE database, see the metadata sheet for 18.1
OECD CRS database
OECD PINE database
CBD Secretariat through country national reporting
EUROSTAT (for the EPEA database, which uses the CEP classification) and National Statistical Offices
UNDP-BIOFIN
Countries through surveys and other available information
Gaps in the OECD-CRS Database
In the CRS, providers beyond the DAC membership do not systematically report using the biodiversity Rio marker. Multilateral institutions report to the OECD on a voluntary basis but do not all use the biodiversity Rio marker or comprehensively indicate their biodiversity-related outflows. This data can be estimated through their reporting on the SDGs or purpose codes, or the use of keyword searches. A more robust breakdown of multilateral flows would be possible through the direct identification and reporting of biodiversity-related flows to the OECD, provided these flows comply with the definition of the Rio marker on biodiversity (i.e. flows targeting the objectives of the CBD). Multilateral institutions report in the CRS activities financed with their core budget.
Related to private finance mobilized by official development finance, the data may not adequately capture financial flows to projects/interventions where biodiversity may not have been the primary objective, such as investments in agriculture, but have a significant biodiversity benefit. Due to confidentiality concerns, data on private finance mobilized by some official providers (multilateral development banks in particular is only made publicly available at the aggregate level. This work will explore further the available data on private finance mobilized and also address the capacity building needs to improve the biodiversity flagging of the underlying activities
Gaps in the OECD PINE Database
The OECD PINE database includes data from 134 countries. Limited data are available on biodiversity offsets and PES as these instruments have only recently been integrated into PINE. All countries are welcome and encouraged to contribute data, and to disaggregate monetary flows from private and public sectors. The data collection method may result in some reporting bias, as OECD members and active accession countries are likely to report data more regularly. All figures should be interpreted in this context.
Other gaps in data coverage
Datasets on private funding for biodiversity are limited. While the OECD-CRS database captures a significant amount of international biodiversity-related private philanthropy for development, it does not comprehensively capture all other private grants and donations for biodiversity-related activities, such as direct donations by high-net-worth-individuals and smaller private philanthropic foundations. Some private philanthropies also do not wish to report their data to OECD-CRS. In addition, the numerous channels, actors, and instruments for biodiversity conservation funding are not captured in a global dataset that countries can draw on for national reporting. Innovative finance mechanisms for biodiversity are continuously evolving and are not adequately captured in the proposed methodology here given the gaps in identifying, tracking, and reporting on these private financial flows. As new mechanisms and strategies evolve over time, countries are encouraged to track the private financial flows as a result of these efforts
Scale of application:Global, Regional, National
Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation:
Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level: No
National data is collated to form global indicator: No
No
Private biodiversity-related international philanthropic contributions from the OECD CRS database can be disaggregated by recipient, sector/purpose code, DSG focus, and Rio Marker
Target 18.1 Positive incentives in place to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Target 19 on Domestic Expenditure
Target 15 on Business Disclosures
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for the OECD CRS and PINE databases
Eurostat and other statistical agencies for environmental economic accounts including environmental protection expenditure accounts
Figure 1: Private pihlantrhopy for development. Source: OECD (2023). Estimates based on OECD DAC statistics from the OECD, Creditor Reporting System
Feedback: UNEP-WCMC is keen to ensure that our data is accurate and up to date. We welcome any feedback on the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information on this site. If you see any errors or missing information, please get in touch.