International funding for protected and conserved areas fell to $1 billion in 2025, with Africa receiving approximately $389 million, as a two-year decline in global conservation finance widens the gap between available resources and the ambition to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030.
The findings, published in the State of International 30×30 Funding: 2026 Update by Campaign for Nature, The Pew Charitable Trusts and Rainforest Foundation Norway, show that annual international funding dropped from more than $1.2 billion in 2023 to $1 billion in 2025. The report warns that bilateral, multilateral and philanthropic contributions have all fallen from recent peaks, placing additional pressure on countries seeking to expand protected areas and finance their long-term management.
For Africa, the decline raises concerns about the resources available to protect forests, wetlands, savannahs, inland waters and marine ecosystems while supporting the communities whose livelihoods depend on them. The continent received about $389 million in 2025, 32% below its average annual funding over 2022–2024. Funding to least developed countries also fell by 28%, highlighting the uneven exposure of countries with limited domestic resources to changes in international assistance.
The decline comes as governments meet in Yerevan, Armenia, for the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17), taking place from 19 to 30 October 2026. Negotiations are unfolding at a critical point in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, which includes Target 3’s commitment to conserve at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas by 2030.
The funding report identifies $6 billion annually as a benchmark for aligning international support with the 30×30 ambition. At current levels, the $1 billion recorded in 2025 represents only a fraction of that benchmark. The widening gap raises questions about whether donor governments and philanthropic institutions will provide the sustained resources needed to translate international commitments into effective conservation on the ground.
“Despite admirable leadership from select countries and philanthropists, overall funding to meet the essential 30×30 target is headed in the wrong direction,” said Brian O’Donnell, Director of Campaign for Nature. He argued that funding decisions reflect political priorities and warned that protecting nature remains insufficiently prioritised by many governments and wealthy individuals.
The implications extend beyond biodiversity protection. Healthy ecosystems support water supplies, food production, fisheries, tourism and climate resilience. In countries where agriculture and other natural-resource-dependent activities underpin employment and rural incomes, underfunded conservation can weaken the ecological systems on which economic activity depends. Protected areas that lack adequate staffing, monitoring and management resources may also struggle to control illegal exploitation, maintain habitat connectivity and respond to climate-related pressures.
Africa’s funding position is particularly significant because conservation needs vary widely across the continent. Forest landscapes require sustained investment in monitoring, restoration and community engagement, while savannahs and other terrestrial ecosystems depend on effective land management and wildlife protection. Coastal and marine areas require resources for fisheries monitoring, enforcement and ecosystem recovery. A reduction in international funding can therefore affect not only the establishment of protected areas but also the capacity to manage them over time.
The report found that international funding for terrestrial areas declined by around 30% to approximately $683 million in 2025. Marine-specific funding was more stable at about $166 million, although the report describes this level as far below what is needed. The distinction matters because the 30×30 commitment covers both land and ocean ecosystems, while the scale and cost of conservation vary across habitats and regions.
Progress assessments suggest that existing national commitments are also insufficient to meet the global target at the current pace. According to the 2026 30×30 Global Assessment, countries could reach approximately 27% of land and inland waters and around 12% of the ocean by 2030 if they deliver on their existing quantified commitments. These figures are projections, not achieved outcomes, and indicate that the gap is especially pronounced in marine conservation.
The financial picture is mixed among donor countries. Germany remained the largest bilateral donor in 2025, providing approximately $201 million, despite a decline from its recent average. Canada offered a more positive example, increasing its direct funding from $19 million in 2023 to approximately $40 million in 2025. However, the overall decline suggests that higher contributions from individual donors have not been sufficient to offset reductions elsewhere.
Philanthropic funding was 24% below its preceding four-year average, following substantial growth in earlier years. The decline across several funding channels exposes a structural challenge: conservation programmes that rely heavily on short-term grants or a narrow group of donors can face uncertainty when budgets change. Long-term ecosystem protection, by contrast, often requires predictable financing for staffing, scientific monitoring, enforcement, community participation and institutional capacity.
Steven Guilbeault, Senior Advisor at Campaign for Nature and a former Canadian environment minister, said the agreement reached in Montreal reflected an understanding that greater conservation ambition needed to be matched by increased funding for the Global South. He argued that conservation efforts had advanced, particularly in developing countries, while the promised increase in financial support had not kept pace.
The report points to several financing mechanisms that could help make conservation more durable, including Project Finance for Permanence, the Legacy Landscapes Fund, conservation trust funds and debt-for-nature conversions. These approaches can help structure longer-term funding, pool contributions from different sources and provide more predictable resources for protected areas. Their effectiveness, however, depends on sound governance, transparent financial management and clear arrangements for distributing benefits and responsibilities.
Case studies from Panama and Madagascar illustrate how international support can help countries develop more lasting conservation financing systems. In Panama, funding has supported scientific research that underpinned major expansions of marine protected areas, alongside efforts to establish long-term financing through a Project Finance for Permanence initiative. In Madagascar, international assistance has contributed to the establishment of a national conservation trust fund and supports the country’s plans to finance its 30×30 ambitions.
The report also highlights Indigenous and Traditional Territories, where funding can support territorial rights, community-led conservation, accountable governance and long-term stewardship. These approaches are relevant to African countries where Indigenous Peoples and local communities play important roles in managing landscapes and sustaining local knowledge of ecosystems. Recognition of conserved areas must be accompanied by meaningful participation, respect for rights and equitable governance if conservation is to deliver lasting results.
For African governments, the funding decline reinforces the need to strengthen domestic conservation budgets while improving coordination between national authorities, development partners, conservation organisations and local communities. International finance remains important, particularly for countries facing competing demands on public spending, but it is unlikely to close the gap without broader donor participation, more predictable commitments and financing arrangements that extend beyond individual project cycles.
Equally, increasing the number of designated protected areas will not be sufficient on its own. Target 3 requires conservation areas to be ecologically representative and connected, effectively managed and governed equitably, with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities respected. Without adequate funding for implementation, countries risk meeting formal designation targets without achieving the intended ecological and social outcomes.
Michael Owen, the report’s lead author and a partner at Sandstone Strategies, said extending the analysis through 2025 showed that a decade of growth in international conservation funding had stalled. Annual tracking, he said, is intended to help governments and donors understand where funding is going and whether support is aligned with global commitments.
The report concludes that the 30×30 target remains achievable, but reversing the funding decline will require greater ambition from governments and donors, a broader funding base, longer-term financing and stronger coordination across ecosystems and regions. For Africa, where conservation is closely connected to livelihoods, water security, climate resilience and economic development, the next four years will test whether global biodiversity commitments can be matched with the resources needed to implement them.
As COP17 continues in Yerevan, the central challenge is no longer simply securing agreement on the importance of nature protection. It is ensuring that international commitments translate into predictable finance, effective management and measurable conservation outcomes before the 2030 deadline.
