Back

The Global Environment Facility approach for allocating biodiversity funding to countries

Mcowen, C.; Burgess, N. D.; Ash, N.; Baquero, A.; Fonseca, G.; Harfoot, M.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Kapos, V.; Ravilious, C.; Sayor, C.; Tallowin, O.; Sabita Teelucksingh, S.; Weatherdon, L.; Wyatt, S.

2022-12-12 ecology
10.1101/2022.12.07.519459 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the globe and some areas have greater potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation than others. Whilst there are multiple ways to determine priority areas for conservation, for a global institution like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the funding mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the largest multilateral source of funding for developing countries focused on enhancing biodiversity outcomes and promoting sustainable use, it is important to fund the top-ranked countries whilst also ensuring that all eligible countries are able to undertake some biodiversity conservation actions in accordance with the Convention. To this end, the GEF uses the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) to allocate funding in separate funding rounds to eligible countries. This country focus means that all prioritization analyses need to be undertaken within that political framework, while also considering the intrinsic patterns in biodiversity that dont respect national borders. We present the 2018 update of the biodiversity component of GEF-STAR, investigate how the weighting system affects the ranking of countries. We show that top ranked and bottom ranked countries are robust to changes in the weighting of analytical elements, but the weighting can significantly alter the importance of middle ranking countries, affecting their funding allocation. This analysis has been used by the GEF, along with other data, to allocate over $1 billion in biodiversity funding (GEF-7 = $1.2 billion) to improve country and global prospects for conservation. However, this large funding allocation for conservation needs to be set against the vastly larger funding flows that decrease natural values around the world, and the need for systems level change remains evident across the entire planet.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.8%
2
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.9%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.8%
4
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
6
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.5%
7
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
8
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
9
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.6%
12
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
14
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
17
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
18
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
21
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
24
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%