Public finance allocation does not reflect biodiversity priorities

Closing the biodiversity finance gap requires increasing funding for nature-positive activities and making nature-negative activities less viable. This would reduce the need for expenditure on conservation and protection from the outset, especially for restoration efforts after the fact. Current financial flows to nature-positive activities are undermined by the considerably larger amount of funds flowing to nature-eroding activities. We used publicly available datasets to assess the allocation of public funds between nature-positive and nature-negative sectors, looking at both within-country and beyond-border spending. On average, high-income countries have the lowest gap between nature-negative and nature-positive expenditure, with lower middle- and low-income countries having the widest gap. However, high-income countries performed just as poorly when sending funds overseas as aid. The implication here is that prioritising sustainability only up to the national level will likely have a net negative outcome for global sustainability. • Important moment in history for biodiversity conservation goals. • Finance is a key lever and challenge to achieving these goals. • Countries prioritise nature-negative expenditure within and outside their borders. • This shows lack of prioritisation of biodiversity despite commitment to global goals. • Coordinated global finance mechanism needed to ensure net sustainability outcomes.