Abstract
Despite ongoing debates about the viability of sustaining economic growth while maintaining environmental integrity, international sustainability agendas increasingly propose reconciling socio-economic development and global environmental goals. Achieving these goals is impeded by limited funding and a lack of information on where financial flows to integrate environment and development are targeted. We analyze World Bank and Global Environment Facility data to investigate the extent and distribution of such funding across the tropics. We find a misalignment between funding flows and need with highly biodiverse, low development (HBLD) countries receiving no more funding than non-HBLD countries. Countries with low biodiversity receive more funding than highly biodiverse countries and there was no statistical association between a country's development status and funds received. Rather than environment-development need, funding appears to be driven by governance and political-economic factors. Future research should investigate how such factors and funding flows are associated with conservation and development outcomes. This study analyzes 381 projects of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) concluded between 1995 and 2013 to show how much money is spent on joint conservation and development in the tropics, where the money is directed, whether it is directed to areas of greatest environmental and development need, and finally what factors drive funding allocation decisions. The total extent of funding was US$16.5 billion across 75 countries, representing approximately US$870 million per year. Countries with high biodiversity and low human development receive no more funding for integrated conservation and development than other countries. Notably, countries with a low biodiversity status receive relatively more funding than highly biodiverse countries and there was no association between development need and funds received. Therefore, we find that neither biodiversity nor human development status explain funding allocation, but rather that governance and political-economic factors are most likely more influential. This study analyzes the extent and distribution of World Bank and GEF funding for joint conservation and development in the tropics, whether it is directed to areas of greatest environmental and development need, and finally what factors drive funding allocation decisions. Total spending was US$16.5 billion across 75 countries. We find that neither biodiversity nor HDI status are driving funding allocation, but rather that governance and political-economic factors are most likely more influential. © 2020 The Authors
Highlights
Contemporary international commitments recognize, more than ever before, the importance of reconciling social and environmental agendas to address global sustainability challenges.[1,2,3]Several of the 20 internationally agreed Aichi biodiversity targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity incorporate a social or economic component (e.g., Targets 1, 2, and 3) and Target 11 calls for a more equitable approach to conservation
Article framed around the pledge to ‘‘leave no one behind’’—a recognition of the need to support those people furthest behind first— and the commitment to inclusivity is well established in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rhetoric, with an understanding that goals need to be addressed in a holistic manner
Contrary to our hypotheses this study shows that HBLD areas across the tropics receive no more funding for integrated conservation and development than non-HBLD countries
Summary
Article framed around the pledge to ‘‘leave no one behind’’—a recognition of the need to support those people furthest behind first— and the commitment to inclusivity is well established in SDG rhetoric, with an understanding that goals need to be addressed in a holistic manner. This agenda has been widely endorsed by national governments (officially adopted by 193 countries) and is largely considered to be a more equitable approach to development relative to predecessors
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.