Step 3.6: Summary and recommendations

In this final step of the PIR, a summary of all the main results should be prepared and presented as part of a comprehensive written report (see outline below). Detailed policy and institutional recommendations should be developed based on the analysis, validated and improved through consultations with stakeholders. Recommendations should be as detailed as possible, citing legislation, policies, organizations, and sectors; and actionable, providing specific options for correcting or improving a situation. The PIR report will guide the BIOFIN team as the subsequent assessments get underway. It should provide useful information for a range of stakeholders in the biodiversity sector and beyond. In addition to the PIR report, we recommend formulating a policy brief to better present the main conclusions and recommendations.

Communicating the PIR and its recommendations effectively is important. The main report and the policy brief should make clear who the target audience is, and where possible the reports should be presented as part of broader communication campaigns on biodiversity finance (see Chapter 2 for more guidance on communication).

The Suggested PIR Report Outline:

1. Executive Summary – including key findings and recommendations for policymakers
2. Introduction
  • Overview of BIOFIN

  • Background information on the Policy and Institutional Review, including abbreviated information on the context

  • The objectives of the PIR

  • Institutional arrangements and contributors to the report

  • The methods used to collect data and the structure of the report

3. Biodiversity Vision, Strategies
  • Summary of national visions and strategies for biodiversity

  • National development plans, green growth plans, etc. and the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services towards sustainable development in a country

  • Citations of existing economic, fiscal policy, and other studies, and information on how nature contributes to current GDP (and green GDP when available)

  • Summary of the availability of economic valuation evidence for the country, subdivided by sectors, ecosystems and households/communities/businesses whose value are affected.

  • Sectoral dependencies on, impacts on, risks to, and opportunities for, biodiversity

4. Trends, Drivers and Sectoral Linkages
  • Biodiversity-positive and negative trends in the country

  • Describe the drivers of change in biodiversity, including, institutions, policies and markets

5. The Biodiversity Finance Landscape
  • Overview of the national and state budget process and major government subsidies that impact biodiversity

  • Identification of biodiversity-based revenues

  • Summary of biodiversity finance solutions identified in the country

6. Institutional Analysis
  • Institutional arrangements between and among the institutions responsible for biodiversity-related finance

  • Biodiversity finance-related capacities and needs per priority organization

  • Stakeholder engagement plan

7. Summary of Key Recommendations
  • Overall conclusions and recommendations

  • Legal and policy recommendations

  • Changes in sectoral policies and practices that would help reduce biodiversity loss, and/or improve biodiversity finance

  • Institutional/organizational and capacity development recommendations

  • Observations on the potential of existing finance solutions

  • Opportunities for improvements in the budgeting and planning process

  • Key national entry points, including a rationale for their selection, and the associated agencies and organizations for each entry point

Technical Appendices can contain further detail, including from the:

8. Biodiversity Policy and Institutional Review (in table format where possible)
  • Details of the sectoral analysis

  • Detailed list and analysis of all policies, laws and regulations reviewed

  • Detailed list of all revenues inventoried

  • Detailed list and description of each government subsidy reviewed

  • Complete listing of all economic valuation studies

  • A summary description of all current finance solutions

  • Detailed list and description of all stakeholders identified and consulted throughout the PIR

9. Glossary of terms

This section should define all technical terms used in the report.

10. References

This section should include all references cited in the report, ideally with web links.


  1. Note the focus is on biodiversity finance and not biodiversity per se.

  2. Examples: UNDP (2012). Climate Public Expenditure and institutional Reviews (CPEiRs): Approaches and Lessons Learned. Available from:

  3. Food and Agriculture organization (FAO) (2013). Fire Management Working Papers. Available from

  4. Pant, D., & Samad, M. (2010). Synthesis of IWMI work in Nepal (Vol. 138). IWMI. Available from:

  5. Albrecht, J., Schumacher, J., & Wende, W. (2014). The German Impact-Mitigation Regulation. Envtl. Pol'y & L., 44, 317.

  6. Bitrán, R., Gómez, P., Escobar, L., & Berman, P. (2010). Review of World Bank's Experience with Country-Level Health System Analysis. Available from:

  7. Swiderska, K., Roe, D., Siegele, L., & Grieg-Gran, M. (2008). The governance of nature and the nature of governance: policy that works for biodiversity and livelihoods (Vol. 8). IIED. Available from:

  8. Convention on international Trade in Endangered Species of Wild fauna and flora (CiTES) (2013). National laws for implementing the Convention. Available from:

  9. See:

  10. Khan, M. S. H. (2012). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Available from:

  11. UNCCD, Z. N. L. D. (2012). United Nations convention to combat desertification. See:

  12. Such as: United nations framework on Convention of Climate Change (UNFCC) (2014). National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).] See:

  13. Available from:

  14. Natural Capital Coalition (2016). Natural Capital. Available from:

  15. Ozdemiroglu, E., & Hails, R. (2016). Demystifying Economic Valuation. Available from:

  16. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem (iPBES) (2013). Decision iPBES-2/4: Conceptual framework for the intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available from:

  17. Cumming, T. L., Shackleton, R. T., Förster, J., Dini, J., Khan, A., Gumula, M., & Kubiszewski, I. (2017). Achieving the national development agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through investment in ecological infrastructure: A case study of South Africa. Ecosystem Services, 27, 253-260. Available from:

  18. Blignaut, J., Marais, C., Rouget, M., Mander, M., Turpie, J., Klassen, T., Preston, G., 2008. Making markets work for people and the environment: employment creation from payment for ecosystem services, combating environmental degradation and poverty on a single budget while delivering real services to real people. Second Economy Strategy: Addressing IneHey in the high rainfall catchments and riparian zones of South Africa on total surface water yield. Water SA 22, 35–42.

  19. See: Wood, A., Stedman-Edwards, P., & Mang, J. (2013). The root causes of biodiversity loss. Routledge.

  20. See a very useful academic review: Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J., & O'Connor, M. (2009). The DPSIR framework for Biodiversity Assessment. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 12-23. See:

  21. EEA (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. Technical report No 25. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  22. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2007). Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe, EEA Technical Report no. 11/2007, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. ISBN 978-92-9167-931-7 Available from:

  23. The nature of revenues from PES is complex, as a standard broad definition of PES (a system for provision of environmental services through conditional payments to voluntary providers) covers a range of finance flows. A PES is a cost to the buyer and source of revenue to the seller. Governments and public agencies, and private and third sector stakeholders can be both buyers and sellers, so revenues can accrue to each of them and be identified in the list of revenues.

  24. See:

  25. See:

  26. This is also one objective of the BER and FNA.

  27. Williamson, T. (2011). Reforms to Budget formulation in Uganda: The challenges of building and maintaining and a credible process, overseas Development institute (oDi), London

  28. Forbes, A., Iyer, D., & Steele, P. (2015). Mainstreaming Environment and Climate for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development: A Handbook to Strengthen Planning and Budgeting Processes. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative. Available from: m:

  29. IMF (n.d.) Budget Preparation. Available from:

  30. Williamson, T. (2011). Reforms to Budget formulation in Uganda: The challenges of building and maintaining and a credible process, overseas Development institute (oDi), London.

  31. Flores, M., & Bovernick, A. (2016). Guide to improving the budget and funding of national protected areas systems. Lessons from Chile, Guatemala and Peru. United Nations Development Programme, New York. Available from:

  32. Bovarnick, A., and others (2010). Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Available from:

  33. OECD (2005). Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Challenges for Reform. Available from

  34. Lehmann, M., ten Brink, P., Bassi, S., Cooper, D., Kenny, A., Kuppler, S., ... & Shine, C. (2011). Reforming Subsidies. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in National and International Policy Making. Available from: m:

  35. Based on an OECD presentation, Karousakis, K., ‘Greening Harmful Subsidies’ at the 3rd Global BIOFIN conference, March 2018, with updated numbers provided by the OECD Secretariat. OECD (2018a), OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris,;

  36. IMV (2005). Environmentally Harmful Subsidies – A Threat to Biodiversity. Available from:

  37. Weerahewa, J., Kodithuwakku, S. S., & Ariyawardana, A. (2010). The fertilizer subsidy program in Sri Lanka. Food policy for developing countries: Case studies, ed. P. Pinstrup-Andersen and F. Cheng. Ithaca: Cornell University. Retrieved August, 26, 2014. Available from:

  38. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative (2015). Mainstreaming Environment and Climate for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development: A Handbook to Strengthen Planning and Budgeting Processes. Annex A. Available from: