Biodiversity Expenditure Review in Sri Lanka reviewed the 2010-2015 period to assess the investments made on the biodiversity sector. It revealed the government has increased investments on biodiversity by 125% during the period but still couldn't facilitate the full achievement of national biodiversity targets. Annual projected investment from the government side is approximately 7 billion LKR which is equivalent to 45 million USD.

Aichi Biodiversity Targets - Mongolian version 

The terminology “biodiversity” was first introduced when Mongolia ratified the Convention on Biodiversity (1992), and it has been mainstreamed in policy and planning documents as a synonymous term for the umbrella environmental issues including environmental protection1, preserving ecological balance, conservation of protected areas, protection of endangered flora and fauna species. Biodiversity is a complex system consists of all aquatic and terrestrial living organisms, their genetic diversity, habitats in biosphere and ecosystem diversity. In this sense the National Biodiversity Programme (NBP) is an umbrella programme covering environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of natural resources and restoring of depleted resources.

a)    The policy and institutional landscape in Zambia is diverse and relatively adequate to finance and manage national biodiversity subject to various policy and implementation adjustments.

b)    The economic and financial drivers of biodiversity change are driven by economic and financial interaction between society and biological resources that positively or negatively impacts biodiversity.

c)    Economic valuations of biodiversity have indicated potential revenues from the natural assets base ranging from a low of $51-$135 million (2002-2007) from fisheries resources, $396m/annum from wood production, $6/ton of Carbon, to $17 billion/annum by 2017 from mineral resources.

d)    Biodiversity dependent revenues are primarily through penalties, licensing, environmental impact assessments, fees and charges.

e)    Key biodiversity conservation departments and statutory bodies are spread over eleven ministries. To avoid fragmented coordination and implementation of biodiversity and environmental programmes, there is need to revisit the setup of the biodiversity conservation departments and institutions and ensure that departments with similar mandates fall under one Ministry.

f)    There is inadequate holistic policy and legal framework to involve the private sector and civil society in the direct implementation of the activities in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

g)    There is need for legislative change that will ensure that the revenue generated from biodiversity sectors is spent on conservation; increased budgetary allocations and timely releases of funds for planned activities in the biodiversity sectors.

a)    Between 2010 to 2017, donor funding financed 73% of Zambia’s national budget towards environmental protection. Government needs to take leadership in financing environmental protection given the dwindling Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).

b)    Between 2010 to 2018, budgetary allocation towards environmental protection remained at an average of 0.6% of the total national budget against 2.29% allocated towards agriculture subsidies over the same period (Farmer Input Support Programme-FISP). Given the failure of FISP to deliver against its primary objectives of increasing productivity and poverty reduction over the years of its existence, it is recommended that this subsidy be reformed i.e. greening it.

c)    Fiscal revenue that are derived from environmental or biodiversity fiscal measures must not be pooled in the consolidated account. Instead, they should have a separate account earmarked to fund environmental or biodiversity conservation projects only.

d)    Non-tax revenues collected by Ministries, Provinces, and Spending Agencies (MPSAs) charged with biodiversity conservation must be allowed to retain a substantial component of the revenue collected (i.e. 60%) to be ploughed back into biodiversity conservation.

e)    The minimum investment threshold of US$500,000 for investments to qualify for incentives under the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) Act is too high. This needs to be revised downwards i.e.$50,000 if the country is to attract investments for pro-biodiversity conservation investments.

f)    Key biodiversity sectors notably fisheries, wildlife and water ought to explicitly be designated as priority sectors in the ZDA Act for potential investments in such sectors to qualify for fiscal incentives. The specific qualifying areas of investment outlined in the second schedule of Statutory Instrument No.17 of 2014-ZDA Act also needs to be revised to include these pro-biodiversity conservation investment areas.

g)    There has been a concentration on regulatory, fiscal, debt and grant instruments to finance biodiversity conservation in Zambia. It is essential to begin focussing on innovative financing instruments notably those that are market oriented (offsets, carbon markets, green or social and development Impact Bonds, impact investments etc), supported by risk mitigation instruments such a sovereign/public guarantees as well as disaster risk and related insurance products.

a)    Biodiversity loss has reached unprecedented levels in Zambia mainly due to anthropogenic activities in pursuit of economic gains. The sectors most affected by biodiversity loss are forestry, fisheries, wildlife and water.

b)    Economic drivers form a larger share of factors that affect biodiversity loss in Zambia, with agricultural expansion alone accounting for 90% of forest cover loss due to subsistence and commercial agriculture production. There is need to ensure that agriculture sector is compelled to collaborate with other biodiversity sectors such as forestry and wildlife. Extensive clearing of forests and woodlands for agriculture, use of wood in tobacco curing (e.g.in Eastern Province), require collaborative engagements with the forestry sector over sustainable utilisation of wood.

c)    Annual deforestation rate in Zambia is in the range of 79,000 to 270,000 ha of the total forest cover largely due to an increase in the urbanization rate of 3.2% per annum which is likely to compound the deforestation rates as the need to develop infrastructure in such areas such as housing, energy, transport and irrigation increases.

d)    Threats to forest resources are exacerbated by policy and regulatory factors such as the recent degazettion of six (6) forest reserves, predominantly for infrastructural development purposes. There is need for government to avoid this continued degazettion of forests. This also calls for the Government to extensively engage different stakeholders on potential impacts of such policy pronouncements.

e)    Apart from being the main polluters of Zambia’s ground and surface water, some of the mining companies conduct illegal mining activities in game management areas and national parks without carrying out environmental impact assessments. As a result, this disrupts animal populations in the protected areas, hence the need to ensure adherence to the provisions of the law before commencement of such activities.

f)    Key biodiversity sectors such as forestry, wildlife and fisheries have inadequate funding with total funding to environmental protection less than 50 percent of the budgeted amounts. Inadequate funding limits the sectors’ capacity to effectively carry out monitoring and control activities.

g)    Inadequate staffing is another issue affecting key biodiversity sectors i.e. the fisheries department had 18 percent (430 out of 2437 in 2014) of the total staff establishment while the Department of National Parks & Wildlife had a staff establishment of 76 percent of the total staff establishment which also limits the effectiveness of these departments to carry out monitoring and control activities

a)    Between 2010 to 2017, donor funding financed 73% of Zambia’s national budget towards environmental protection. Government needs to take leadership in financing environmental protection given the dwindling Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).

b)    Between 2010 to 2018, budgetary allocation towards environmental protection remained at an average of 0.6% of the total national budget against 2.29% allocated towards agriculture subsidies over the same period (Farmer Input Support Programme-FISP). Given the failure of FISP to deliver against its primary objectives of increasing productivity and poverty reduction over the years of its existence, it is recommended that this subsidy be reformed i.e. greening it.

c)    Fiscal revenue that are derived from environmental or biodiversity fiscal measures must not be pooled in the consolidated account. Instead, they should have a separate account earmarked to fund environmental or biodiversity conservation projects only.

d)    Non-tax revenues collected by Ministries, Provinces, and Spending Agencies (MPSAs) charged with biodiversity conservation must be allowed to retain a substantial component of the revenue collected (i.e. 60%) to be ploughed back into biodiversity conservation.

e)    The minimum investment threshold of US$500,000 for investments to qualify for incentives under the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) Act is too high. This needs to be revised downwards i.e.$50,000 if the country is to attract investments for pro-biodiversity conservation investments.

f)    Key biodiversity sectors notably fisheries, wildlife and water ought to explicitly be designated as priority sectors in the ZDA Act for potential investments in such sectors to qualify for fiscal incentives. The specific qualifying areas of investment outlined in the second schedule of Statutory Instrument No.17 of 2014-ZDA Act also needs to be revised to include these pro-biodiversity conservation investment areas.

g)    There has been a concentration on regulatory, fiscal, debt and grant instruments to finance biodiversity conservation in Zambia. It is essential to begin focussing on innovative financing instruments notably those that are market oriented (offsets, carbon markets, green or social and development Impact Bonds, impact investments etc), supported by risk mitigation instruments such a sovereign/public guarantees as well as disaster risk and related insurance products.

a)    Between 2010 to 2017, donor funding financed 73% of Zambia’s national budget towards environmental protection. Government needs to take leadership in financing environmental protection given the dwindling Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).

b)    Between 2010 to 2018, budgetary allocation towards environmental protection remained at an average of 0.6% of the total national budget against 2.29% allocated towards agriculture subsidies over the same period (Farmer Input Support Programme-FISP). Given the failure of FISP to deliver against its primary objectives of increasing productivity and poverty reduction over the years of its existence, it is recommended that this subsidy be reformed i.e. greening it.

c)    Fiscal revenue that are derived from environmental or biodiversity fiscal measures must not be pooled in the consolidated account. Instead, they should have a separate account earmarked to fund environmental or biodiversity conservation projects only.

d)    Non-tax revenues collected by Ministries, Provinces, and Spending Agencies (MPSAs) charged with biodiversity conservation must be allowed to retain a substantial component of the revenue collected (i.e. 60%) to be ploughed back into biodiversity conservation.

e)    The minimum investment threshold of US$500,000 for investments to qualify for incentives under the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) Act is too high. This needs to be revised downwards i.e.$50,000 if the country is to attract investments for pro-biodiversity conservation investments.

f)    Key biodiversity sectors notably fisheries, wildlife and water ought to explicitly be designated as priority sectors in the ZDA Act for potential investments in such sectors to qualify for fiscal incentives. The specific qualifying areas of investment outlined in the second schedule of Statutory Instrument No.17 of 2014-ZDA Act also needs to be revised to include these pro-biodiversity conservation investment areas.

g)    There has been a concentration on regulatory, fiscal, debt and grant instruments to finance biodiversity conservation in Zambia. It is essential to begin focussing on innovative financing instruments notably those that are market oriented (offsets, carbon markets, green or social and development Impact Bonds, impact investments etc), supported by risk mitigation instruments such a sovereign/public guarantees as well as disaster risk and related insurance products.

a)    Biodiversity loss has reached unprecedented levels in Zambia mainly due to anthropogenic activities in pursuit of economic gains. The sectors most affected by biodiversity loss are forestry, fisheries, wildlife and water.

b)    Economic drivers form a larger share of factors that affect biodiversity loss in Zambia, with agricultural expansion alone accounting for 90% of forest cover loss due to subsistence and commercial agriculture production. There is need to ensure that agriculture sector is compelled to collaborate with other biodiversity sectors such as forestry and wildlife. Extensive clearing of forests and woodlands for agriculture, use of wood in tobacco curing (e.g.in Eastern Province), require collaborative engagements with the forestry sector over sustainable utilisation of wood.

c)    Annual deforestation rate in Zambia is in the range of 79,000 to 270,000 ha of the total forest cover largely due to an increase in the urbanization rate of 3.2% per annum which is likely to compound the deforestation rates as the need to develop infrastructure in such areas such as housing, energy, transport and irrigation increases.

d)    Threats to forest resources are exacerbated by policy and regulatory factors such as the recent degazettion of six (6) forest reserves, predominantly for infrastructural development purposes. There is need for government to avoid this continued degazettion of forests. This also calls for the Government to extensively engage different stakeholders on potential impacts of such policy pronouncements.

e)    Apart from being the main polluters of Zambia’s ground and surface water, some of the mining companies conduct illegal mining activities in game management areas and national parks without carrying out environmental impact assessments. As a result, this disrupts animal populations in the protected areas, hence the need to ensure adherence to the provisions of the law before commencement of such activities.

f)    Key biodiversity sectors such as forestry, wildlife and fisheries have inadequate funding with total funding to environmental protection less than 50 percent of the budgeted amounts. Inadequate funding limits the sectors’ capacity to effectively carry out monitoring and control activities.

g)    Inadequate staffing is another issue affecting key biodiversity sectors i.e. the fisheries department had 18 percent (430 out of 2437 in 2014) of the total staff establishment while the Department of National Parks & Wildlife had a staff establishment of 76 percent of the total staff establishment which also limits the effectiveness of these departments to carry out monitoring and control activities