Conclusions

The Bank Group has laid a credible foundation for biodiversity action but now faces a critical implementation test: translating its high-level commitments into measurable biodiversity outcomes that deliver on human well-being, food security, sustainable production, and jobs. The Bank Group has reframed its development vision to include a “livable planet,” articulated biodiversity-related corporate indicators tied to land and marine resource-use targets, and launched high-profile initiatives such as the Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity, signaling that biodiversity is no longer peripheral but central to its development mandate. The 2021 Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet and the World Bank’s embrace of “nature-smart development” reflect growing recognition that biodiversity underpins climate mitigation, ecosystem resilience, and human welfare. Turning this vision into action will require connecting nature and climate objectives more systematically and financing integrated solutions that sustain ecosystems and the services they provide.

Without stronger ecological monitoring, consistent inclusion of IPLCs, broader biome coverage, and renewed investment in sustainable conservation financing, the World Bank’s contributions to biodiversity conservation will fall short of supporting countries in achieving the 30×30 target under the GBF. The World Bank has supported more than 880 protected areas, primarily in tropical forests. Tree cover analysis suggests that these investments have likely helped maintain biodiversity, but the absence of ecological outcome monitoring means actual biodiversity gains remain unverified. Moreover, the World Bank has not systematically engaged IPLCs or strengthened their tenure rights, despite clear evidence of their effectiveness as stewards of biodiversity. Finally, the World Bank has not maintained its leadership in sustainable conservation financing, which is important to the durability of conservation gains after projects close.

The integration of biodiversity in production sectors remains ad hoc and underleveraged, despite proven opportunities for scale. World Bank and IFC operations show that it is possible to reconcile biodiversity goals with economic growth, jobs, food security, and climate aims across agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. However, the current approach remains fragmented, with biodiversity integration being concentrated in a few country contexts and progressive firms rather than embedded across the portfolio.

Biodiversity-positive outcomes in production sectors are more likely when World Bank and IFC support is grounded in four enabling conditions (or factors of effectiveness). First, interministerial collaboration and robust information flows—particularly between agricultural and environmental ministries—are essential to overcoming fragmentation and scaling integrated solutions. Second, aligning public and private finance with emerging sustainability regulations and markets (such as the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products) helps create real economic incentives for biodiversity protection. Third, and relatedly, resource users are more likely to adopt biodiversity-positive practices when financial instruments reduce up-front costs and buffer risk and when they have secure land and resource tenure and rights. Finally, identifying entry points where production systems are reaching ecological limits—such as degraded soils due to overexploitation—offers opportunities to promote biodiversity-positive approaches that regenerate natural capital and ensure long-term productivity and jobs.

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used across the Bank Group to manage residual environmental impacts, yet their effectiveness remains limited because of weak institutional capacity, lack of transparency, and inconsistent implementation. Offsets are unevenly and inconsistently updated or transparently monitored after project approval, and the methodologies used to estimate biodiversity loss and gains are often unclear, falling short of international best practice. These gaps undermine the credibility of offsets and reduce the likelihood that they will deliver their intended conservation outcomes. Significant institutional, technical, and financial strengthening is required to ensure that offsets function as credible, outcome-based conservation tools.

Implications

Based on these conclusions, we propose four recommendations to help the Bank Group support clients in achieving their livable planet goals. These recommendations align with the Bank Group’s mission to end poverty on a livable planet, which reframes natural capital as a foundational asset for prosperity, jobs, resilience, and debt sustainability. The Corporate Scorecard necessitates a focus on biodiversity to achieve livable planet goals, including changes in renewable natural-capital wealth, the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable limits, and the percentage of terrestrial and aquatic areas under protection. Delivering on the Bank Group’s jobs agenda requires agrifood, fisheries, and forest value chains that remain productive as ecological limits tighten. Soil depletion, water stress, and declining fish stocks are already flattening yield curves and raising input costs; continued input-intensive growth risks lower long-term productivity and higher fiscal burdens.

Clients are counting on the Bank Group to help them deliver on their global biodiversity goals, including commitments to conserve 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans by 2030. This commitment hinges on the equitable participation of IPLCs, whose territories overlap with a large share of the planet’s remaining high-biodiversity areas. The Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet and the Bank Group recognize IPLCs as essential stewards and commit to meaningful engagement, benefit sharing, and rights-based approaches.

A focus on sustainable production will likely be a central feature of the new country engagement model. As most clients prioritize the sustainable use of their natural resources in CPFs, it is likely that the Bank Group will be asked to play a strong role in helping clients to implement their sustainable growth strategies over the long term. As the Bank Group rethinks and evolves its country engagement approach (World Bank 2025d), there will be opportunities to embed integrated climate and nature objectives where they matter most, including for growth, jobs, and macro-stability. By adopting a whole-of-economy, nature-smart approach, country engagements can harness the comparative strengths of the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA to create enabling environments, steer private capital, and de-risk investments toward sustainable models that deliver measurable economic, environmental, and social outcomes.

Recommendations

The Bank Group should assist clients to identify, finance, and measure biodiversity outcomes. To support this goal, the Bank Group should strengthen its internal capabilities. This will involve: (i) utilizing existing country diagnostics (for example, CCDRs and CPFs) to identify biodiversity-relevant entry points; (ii) integrating biodiversity finance initiatives into broader economic development strategies and making explicit the linkages between commitments and finance across biodiversity, climate, and land degradation; (iii) conducting ecological monitoring including by using a combination of technology (for example, earth observation tools) and validation methods (for example, habitat and species monitoring, soil health analysis) to improve measurement and reporting; and (iv) addressing internal biodiversity capacity constraints.

The World Bank should engage, empower, and protect IPLCs to achieve sustainable and inclusive biodiversity outcomes at scale. This entails (i) internalizing and raising awareness about the role of Indigenous Peoples as effective stewards of biodiversity-rich landscapes; (ii) enhancing the identification of IPLCs and placing these groups at the center of biodiversity solutions; (iii) strengthening resource rights to ensure sustainable biodiversity outcomes; and (iv) in conservation efforts, enhancing collaboration between social development, Indigenous Peoples specialists, and environmental teams.

The World Bank and IFC should proactively replicate and scale proven biodiversity-positive production models that deliver positive ecological, economic, and social outcomes. This involves (i) finding opportunities to introduce new production and agribusiness methods, supported by policies, regulations, and incentives that encourage biodiversity investment; (ii) tailoring successful interventions to local ecological and cultural contexts; (iii) augmenting the capacity of extension networks and revisiting advice provided by firms; and (iv) helping raise consumer awareness and demand for sustainable products. When piloting new approaches, underpin projects with robust monitoring, reporting, and adaptive learning systems to help teams track and adapt.

The World Bank, IFC, and MIGA should actively address the gaps in offset projects regarding staff capacity, information disclosure, and project life cycle monitoring and supervision. The Bank Group should establish functional, recognized, and appropriately resourced biodiversity focal points across the Bank Group to provide access to experts and opportunities for sharing, peer review, and learning from offset practice. Third-party verification for high-risk or high-impact projects, as a good practice, is encouraged.