Our Key Takeaways from the 11th EAPAC Regional Dialogue

At the 11^th EAPAC Regional Dialogue in Da Nang, more than 120 experts and government representatives from Europe, Asia, and the Pacific came together to share innovations, challenges, and breakthroughs in biodiversity finance.

The discussions revealed how countries are moving from planning to action—strengthening national ownership, experimenting with new fiscal and market tools, and integrating biodiversity across broader development priorities.

From rethinking subsidies to advancing inclusive and gender-responsive finance, participants highlighted how data, partnerships, and storytelling are driving a new generation of Biodiversity Finance Plans that align with global targets and deliver measurable impact for people and nature.

Alignment and Ownership:
Biodiversity Finance Plans deliver real impact when they are nationally owned, aligned with global targets, and embedded across broader development priorities—avoiding siloed approaches.

Blended and Innovative Finance:
Countries are combining fiscal, market, and risk-based instruments—from ecological fiscal transfers and debt-for-nature swaps to insurance and blended finance—to diversify funding and de-risk investments in nature.

Inclusive and Equitable Finance:
Integrating gender equality and community participation strengthens biodiversity outcomes, ensuring that women, youth, and local voices drive nature-positive economies.

Data, Evidence, and Transparency:
Mapping biodiversity budgets, tracking expenditures, and reforming subsidies based on sound data and policy alignment are critical to unlock and sustain biodiversity finance.

Partnerships and Storytelling:
Collaboration across governments, private sector, and large sections of the general public, especially young people who are signaling their concerns for the environment, supported by strong champions and compelling narratives, turns biodiversity finance from a technical agenda into a shared societal movement.

Biodiversity Finance Plans: Building Ownership, Alignment, and Impact

Find champions among your stakeholders — let the champions speak for you.” – Niran Nirannoot, Thailand

The single biggest takeaway from this session: developing biodiversity finance plans that have impact requires us to align them with national and global targets, avoiding siloed approaches.

Countries emphasized the need to balance risk by combining low-hanging finance solutions with high-risk, high-reward strategies, identify existing policies that can trigger finance rather than reinventing mechanisms, and use blended approaches to reform subsidies instead of labeling them as harmful. Strengthening partnerships with the private sector — while ensuring transparency, developing clear exit strategies, and going beyond CSR — was seen as key to long-term success. Participants also noted the importance of advocating for biodiversity within broader public financing areas such as infrastructure, education, and poverty reduction.

Effective biodiversity finance plans depend on collaboration between governments, local communities, and the private sector, supported by strong scientific and legal foundations. Speakers urged practitioners to find champions among stakeholders who can advocate for biodiversity finance, and to document and share both lessons and innovations. Storytelling and social media were highlighted as powerful tools to humanize biodiversity finance and make it more accessible to the public.

Financing Nature: Fiscal and Market Solutions that Deliver Results

Fiscal and market innovations are vital to shifting biodiversity finance from planning to implementation, with strong policies, transparent systems, and peer learning enabling scalable results.

Countries across Asia and the Pacific showcased diverse fiscal and market-based tools driving measurable biodiversity outcomes. Indonesia highlighted the importance of budget tagging and expenditure tracking systems to ensure resources flow effectively toward biodiversity goals. Malaysia’s Ecological Fiscal Transfers demonstrated how incentivizing subnational governments can expand forest and biodiversity conservation. Mongolia’s Law on Natural Resource Use Fees ensures those using natural assets contribute directly to sustainable management. Thailand introduced results-based budgeting for local biodiversity projects, and India showcased a suite of fiscal and market instruments that integrate biodiversity across government investment schemes.

Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan underscored the tourism sector’s potential, linking ecological certification and sustainable tourism to revenue and resilience even amid crises like COVID-19.

Double Wins for Nature: Climate Finance and Gender Equality

This session explored how climate finance can deliver social and gender co-benefits when biodiversity is at its core. Examples from Fiji and Kazakhstan highlighted how investing in forests, ecosystems, and degraded land restoration can both sequester carbon and improve local livelihoods. Integrating biodiversity into interministerial coordination platforms, such as INFFs, was recognized as essential to align climate and development goals.

Gender equality emerged as a critical success factor. Thailand’s initiatives on gender-inclusive biodiversity finance — from hosting community meetings with childcare to empowering women in local decision-making — demonstrated practical ways to amplify women’s voices. Vietnam and Sri Lanka shared how community tourism and certification programs create new income streams for women, while participants from Indonesia, Armenia, and the Pacific reflected on systemic gender barriers such as land tenure and representation. As participants noted, inclusive finance not only empowers women and youth but strengthens the social foundation for nature-positive economies.

Rethinking Subsidies in the EAPAC Region

Quotes captured the spirit of the session: “Mapping subsidies is the first step, but the hardest part is proving their impact on biodiversity” (Hervé Barois), and “Nature-based solutions must be based on nature, not human convenience” (Dr. Kitichate Sridith).

Participants examined how subsidy reform could unlock transformative finance for biodiversity. Harmful subsidies remain a key driver of biodiversity loss. The BIOFIN Nature of Subsidies report was presented as a roadmap to identify, assess, and repurpose such incentives through data-driven, politically sensitive processes aligned with the UN Biodiversity Convention’s Target 18.

Country innovations showed early momentum: the Philippines is piloting the repurposing of yellow corn subsidies in hilly and ecologically sensitive areas; Mongolia is mainstreaming biodiversity into the “White Gold” program to channel loans toward sustainable agriculture; Kazakhstan working on introducing subsidies on wildlife breeding; India explores fertilizer subsidy reform; and Thailand removed harmful budget support that was directed to a seawall on private land.

Expanding Impact with support from the GEF 

With support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), 26 countries in the Eurasia and Pacific regions are developing biodiversity finance plans for the first time—laying the foundation for long-term financing that aligns national development priorities with the global biodiversity agenda. 

They are part of a 91-country cohort advancing their national Biodiversity Finance Plans through UNDP-BIOFIN’s global partnership with the GEF.  

Together with the original 41 participating countries, BIOFIN has now expanded to more than 130 countries worldwide, making it the largest global initiative of its kind. 

Debt and Equity Instruments for Biodiversity Finance

The session examined how Debt-for-Nature Swaps (DFNS) can relieve fiscal pressure while channeling funds into biodiversity and climate goals. Kyrgyzstan shared progress on a feasibility study and roadmap for implementing DFNS, highlighting mechanisms such as debt buybacks and trilateral swaps. The approach converts foreign currency debt into local investments, supporting national biodiversity strategies and SDG targets.

Participants noted challenges in negotiating with multilateral and bilateral creditors, emphasizing the need for government leadership, transparent conservation trust funds, and legal clarity. Lessons included involving finance, environment, and foreign ministries in coordination, and managing expectations given the process’s complexity. As one participant cautioned, “Debt negotiations are complex — invite rating agencies early to the conversation,” while another noted that swaps must “balance national priorities and creditor interests.”

Where the Money Goes: Mapping Biodiversity Budgets and Gaps

Mapping biodiversity expenditures and identifying financing gaps remain core analytical pillars for BIOFIN countries. Participants emphasized aligning Biodiversity Expenditure Reviews (BERs) with policy and institutional reviews and using tools like the GLOBE taxonomy to categorize biodiversity-related spending.

The main challenges include limited data, difficulty identifying private sector expenditures, and a lack of standardized reporting systems. As Bijendra Basnyat, the BIOFIN National Coordinator from Nepal, stated, “There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to the BER,” while Anabelle Plantilla, BIOFIN National Coordinator in the Philippines, noted the advantage of being embedded within government systems to access data and strengthen policy alignment.

Ocean Finance: Transboundary, Regional, and Multi-Jurisdictional Solutions

The session highlighted the Coral Triangle Initiative, which spans six countries and covers only 1.6% of the world’s oceans yet sustains 120 million livelihoods and 76% of global coral species. Participants discussed the region’s 10-year Regional Plan of Action (RPOA 2.0) and the need for prioritization among its 246 indicators.

Emerging financing solutions — including Green and Blue Bonds and Conservation Trust Funds — are helping countries mobilize sustainable funding for marine biodiversity. As participants summarized: “The idea is to cross-pollinate and learn from each other — then take that back to our countries.”

Insurance and Risk Instruments: Rethinking Insurance as a Finance Solution

This session was the highlight of Day 3, with a gamified exploration of how insurance can be repurposed as a conservation finance tool. Participants examined ways to quantify risk, design insurance schemes for biodiversity targets (e.g., species rather than livestock), and use performance standards to incentivize risk reduction.

Challenges include reaching vulnerable populations with limited purchasing power and ensuring public sector support to de-risk investments for insurers. Collective pilots remain difficult, but gamified models and public–private partnerships could help identify scalable solutions. As one participant summarized, “Insurance can be a tool for resilience — but only if we design it to reach the unreachable.”

Can Nature Have Its Role in the Infrastructure Game?

This session explored how nature-based solutions (NbS) can be integrated into infrastructure projects and financing frameworks. Participants discussed the growing interest in biodiversity credits as a supplemental funding mechanism, alongside partnerships with development banks and the private sector to co-develop finance-ready, nature-positive projects.

Key challenges include a lack of bankable project pipelines, limited cost-recovery models, and the need for technically sound designs that go beyond construction to deliver lasting environmental benefits. As Anabelle Plantilla noted, reviewing public expenditure for infrastructure like flood control through a biodiversity lens can ensure both economic and ecological resilience.