Written by Igor Izotov, UNDP BIOFIN Coordinator in North Macedonia with the contribution of the BIOFIN N. Macedonia team: Daniela Rendevska, national expert PIR; Prof. Aleksandar Naumovski, national expert BER/FNA; Prof. Dragan Tevdovski, national expert BFP; Vlatko Trpeski, Head of Nature Department, Ministry of Environmeent and physical planning, and Ms. Dragana Filipovska, Focal Point BIOFIN Ministry of Finance.
North Macedonia spent approximately US$297.5 million on biodiversity between 2020 and 2024. Much of this funding was spread across forestry, water management, agriculture and other sectors, making it difficult to see the full picture through conventional budget reporting.
The country now has a clearer understanding of where this money comes from, how it is spent and what additional resources are needed to protect and restore nature.
Following the launch of UNDP’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) in January 2026, North Macedonia completed three core assessments: a Policy and Institutional Review, a Biodiversity Expenditure Review and a Financial Needs Assessment. Their findings were reviewed and validated at a national workshop bringing together more than 50 representatives from ministries, national institutions, the public and private sectors, civil society and the expert community.
Together, the assessments provide an evidence base for the country’s first Biodiversity Finance Plan, connecting national priorities with practical financing solutions.
A strong policy foundation, with implementation challenges
The Policy and Institutional Review finds that North Macedonia’s legal and strategic framework for biodiversity is broadly sound and largely aligned with European Union standards. The challenge lies in implementation.
Enforcement of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment requirements remains uneven. These processes also need to give greater attention to impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. Coordination between the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning and sectoral ministries requires strengthening.
Agricultural and rural development support offers an opportunity to better align public spending with biodiversity objectives. Closer cooperation between the ministries responsible for agriculture and the environment could help integrate conservation considerations into support schemes while maintaining their development objectives.
Protected areas face a related financing challenge. North Macedonia’s four national parks—Galichica, Mavrovo, Pelister and Shar Planina—rely largely on self-financing models, making long-term conservation planning difficult. Other categories of protected areas, many managed by municipalities, also need adequate and predictable funding.
The revision of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, expected to be finalized in the second half of 2027, provides an opportunity to address these findings and align national priorities with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Making biodiversity spending visible
The Biodiversity Expenditure Review estimates that North Macedonia spent approximately MKD 16.5 billion, or US$297.5 million, on biodiversity during 2020–2024. This represented approximately 0.40% of GDP annually.
Identifying this expenditure required looking beyond the environment budget. The review examined programmes covering forestry, water, wastewater, plant protection, urban greenery and rural development, alongside the accounts of self-financing public institutions. For programmes serving several objectives, it counted only the share attributable to biodiversity.
The findings show that biodiversity finance is distributed across the economy. Public institutions accounted for 42.6% of recorded expenditure, central government for 31.3%, local government for 6.0% and private companies for 4.2%. Bilateral international support contributed 14.8%, while multilateral support accounted for 1.3%.
The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning accounted for approximately 13% of total expenditure. This underlines why biodiversity financing cannot be understood through one ministry’s budget alone.
The review also challenges the perception that biodiversity finance is primarily donor-driven. International partners remain important for reforms, pilot initiatives and new investments, but domestic sources finance much of the continuing work to manage forests, rivers, parks and green spaces.
Where investment is needed
The Financial Needs Assessment estimates that delivering the biodiversity priorities assessed would require US$171.36 million, with nearly 70% needed for capital investment.
Restoration represents the largest area of need: approximately US$60 million for degraded land, rivers and wetlands. Yet restoration received only about 0.1% of domestic public biodiversity expenditure during 2020–2024. Biodiversity knowledge and awareness received 0.6%.
The Ohrid Region accounts for a substantial concentration of identified investment needs, estimated at US$51.14 million. The assessment takes a conservative approach, including activities only where a clear biodiversity link could be established.
National park accounts illustrate the pressures on existing resources. In 2024, operating costs absorbed most park income, with staff costs representing more than half of total expenditure in three of the four parks. This leaves limited resources for conservation investment. Dependence on self-generated income can also create tensions between revenue-generating activities and conservation objectives.
More predictable financing would help protected areas plan beyond immediate operating needs and invest in their long-term ecological health.
Aligning incentives with biodiversity
The assessments also highlight opportunities within agricultural and rural development spending.
In 2026, planned state support for agriculture and rural development amounts to approximately MKD 6.7 billion, or US$125 million. Two measures directly supporting biodiversity—maintaining grazing on high-mountain pastures and conserving indigenous breeds such as Buša cattle, Pramenka sheep and the Balkan goat—receive approximately MKD 59 million combined, less than 1% of the total. Support for farm machinery fuel is almost nine times larger.
These figures do not mean that agricultural support is inherently harmful. Farmers manage much of North Macedonia’s landscape, and well-designed support can advance rural livelihoods and biodiversity together. They do, however, point to opportunities to assess what existing incentives reward and how they could better support nature.
This is central to Target 18 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: identifying and reforming incentives that harm biodiversity while scaling up positive incentives.
Turning the evidence into financing solutions
The expenditure review projects that, if current patterns continue, biodiversity spending will increase in national currency but decline as a share of the economy—from approximately 0.36% of GDP in 2025 to 0.31% by 2030.
The draft Biodiversity Finance Plan proposes ways to address this challenge. It identifies 17 potential solutions across four areas: the financial sustainability of protected areas, integration of biodiversity into public financial management, private-sector participation, and education and capacity development.
Ten solutions prioritized for near-term development are projected to mobilize approximately US$177.2 million between 2027 and 2031. These are estimates of potential financing, dependent on further development and implementation.
The largest projected contributions include:
- Green bonds: potential mobilization of up to US$130 million.
- A results-based Nature Protection Fund: an estimated US$13.6 million.
- A wildlife conservation bond: potential mobilization of US$12 million.
The plan also proposes measures to strengthen the systems supporting biodiversity finance. These include natural capital valuation, biodiversity budget tagging to make relevant public spending easier to track, and a biodiversity finance training programme.
Finalization of the Biodiversity Finance Plan is expected in 2027. Before the project closes in September that year, the aim is to have at least one finance solution operational.
North Macedonia now has a stronger foundation for deciding how to finance its biodiversity priorities: a validated baseline of existing expenditure, an assessment of needs and a draft set of financing solutions.
The task ahead is to use this evidence to improve spending decisions, align incentives with conservation objectives and mobilize additional resources where they are needed most.
North Macedonia is one of more than 90 countries developing their Biodiversity Finance Plans with support from UNDP BIOFIN and the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
