Biodiversity finance committed by members of the International Development Finance Club (IDFC) rose 79% to $14.2 billion in 2025, but cumulative commitments remain less than half the network’s $100 billion target for 2027, according to a report published on 26 October by Climate Policy Initiative. The findings highlight a widening gap between development banks’ growing recognition of nature-related risks and the scale of financing needed to protect ecosystems, with implications for African countries seeking capital to conserve forests, restore degraded land and strengthen the resilience of economies dependent on natural resources.
The report, IDFC Green Finance Mapping 2026: Biodiversity Analysis, found that member institutions had committed a cumulative $49 billion to biodiversity since 2022. Although all seven institutions reporting biodiversity finance recorded increases in 2025, the combined total remains well below the five year ambition. The figures suggest that growing institutional attention to nature has yet to translate into financing at the pace required to meet the club’s stated objective.
The IDFC is a network of national and regional development banks whose financing supports infrastructure, economic development and environmental objectives. Its biodiversity tracking includes projects dedicated to nature as well as investments that deliver both climate and biodiversity benefits. The latest analysis shows that funding directed solely towards biodiversity tripled from $2.3 billion in 2024 to $7 billion in 2025, while finance addressing both climate and nature rose 27% to $7.1 billion.
The increase was concentrated among a small number of institutions. According to the report, China Development Bank committed $6.2 billion to activities focused exclusively on biodiversity, while higher commitments from Germany’s KfW Development Bank and the Japan International Cooperation Agency also contributed to the rise. Biodiversity finance from OECD-based institutions covered by the analysis tripled to $3.6 billion in 2025.
That concentration matters because aggregate growth can obscure differences in how financing is distributed across countries, sectors and ecosystems. The report does not establish how much of the $14.2 billion reached Africa, meaning the global increase should not be interpreted as evidence that African conservation programmes received a comparable rise in funding. For governments across the continent, the central question is whether global development finance commitments can be converted into accessible capital for projects addressing local environmental and economic priorities.
Africa’s exposure to biodiversity loss extends beyond conservation. Agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tourism and water supply depend on functioning ecosystems, while land degradation and the loss of natural habitats can undermine rural incomes, food production and the resilience of infrastructure. Protecting watersheds, restoring degraded landscapes and maintaining forest cover can therefore generate economic benefits alongside environmental gains, including more reliable water supplies, reduced erosion and support for livelihoods that depend on natural resources.
Yet these benefits do not automatically produce projects that lenders can finance. Conservation and restoration initiatives often require long preparation periods, reliable ecological data, clear land and resource rights, credible governance arrangements and ways to demonstrate results over time. Revenues may also be uncertain or arrive over longer periods than conventional infrastructure investments. For public institutions already operating under fiscal pressure, the costs of preparing projects and maintaining them over time can be difficult to absorb without concessional finance or technical assistance.
Read also: https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/idfc-green-finance-mapping-2026/
The IDFC report identifies these constraints among its own members. Of 20 institutions responding to its 2026 stocktake, seven had a biodiversity or nature strategy in place and five were developing one. Only four had set quantified targets. Fifteen reported using safeguards, due diligence or exclusions to manage biodiversity risks at project level, but only two assessed nature-related risks across their portfolios. Members also cited shortages of biodiversity data, technical capacity, bankable projects and client demand as barriers to expanding finance.
For African governments and development finance institutions, these findings point to a challenge that begins before financing is approved. Projects may have clear conservation objectives but struggle to meet lenders’ requirements for feasibility studies, baseline measurements, governance arrangements and monitoring systems. Strengthening environmental agencies, research institutions and local project developers could help close that gap, particularly where national budgets are insufficient to fund project preparation independently.
The financing structure also matters. Grants can support early stage work and community participation, while concessional loans may be suitable for projects with identifiable economic returns. Blended finance, guarantees and partnerships with private investors could help distribute risks where revenues are uncertain. However, these instruments are not interchangeable, and debt-based financing may be unsuitable for conservation activities that generate public benefits but limited direct income.
The report found that ten responding IDFC institutions had not yet mobilised private finance for biodiversity. Existing financing instruments remain concentrated in grants and loans, while project preparation and blended finance arrangements could help address barriers to private participation. The report also recommends that institutions move beyond broad commitments towards measurable targets, such as the proportion of portfolios screened for nature-related risks and the area of ecosystems protected or restored.
For Africa, mobilising private capital will require careful consideration of who receives the benefits and who carries the costs. Community-led conservation, sustainable agriculture and watershed restoration may produce benefits across entire regions, but local communities can face restrictions on land use or bear the immediate costs of changing production practices. Financing models that do not address land rights, benefit-sharing and local participation risk weakening the legitimacy and durability of projects.
Development banks can play a role by financing early stage studies, supporting public institutions and helping establish transparent standards for measuring ecological outcomes. African governments, meanwhile, need clear project pipelines, credible environmental data and regulatory arrangements that allow investors to assess risks without compromising community rights or public interests. Regional cooperation could also help countries share technical expertise and develop comparable methods for measuring ecosystem benefits.
The report’s findings arrive as biodiversity finance becomes increasingly connected to climate policy, infrastructure planning and corporate risk management. Ecosystem degradation can affect agricultural productivity, water availability and the long-term viability of investments, making nature-related risks relevant to lenders beyond those funding conservation directly. Development banks that incorporate these risks into project appraisal could identify potential liabilities earlier, while financing restoration and protection where the economic case is established.
Still, a rise in commitments does not by itself demonstrate that ecosystems are improving or that local communities are receiving greater benefits. The report measures financing commitments and institutional progress, not the final ecological or social outcomes of every project. Assessing whether money produces measurable results will require transparent reporting, consistent baselines and monitoring that can distinguish promised outcomes from those achieved.
The IDFC’s $100 billion ambition therefore remains both a financing target and a test of institutional delivery. For African countries, progress will depend not only on the amount development banks commit globally, but also on whether projects can secure suitable terms, whether public agencies have the capacity to implement them and whether the benefits reach the ecosystems and communities most exposed to environmental decline.
The full IDFC Green Finance Mapping 2026 report, covering climate and other environmental finance alongside biodiversity, is scheduled for publication on 6 November. Its wider findings may provide further insight into how development finance is being allocated across environmental priorities. For now, the biodiversity analysis points to a clear constraint: institutional strategies are advancing, but the scale and accessibility of financing remain central challenges for turning nature commitments into durable economic and environmental outcomes.
