Management of the World Bank Group welcomes the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) report, Biodiversity for a Livable Planet: An Evaluation of World Bank Group Support for Biodiversity, Fiscal Years 2010–24, and thanks the team for addressing the comments provided. The evaluation assesses Bank Group support to client countries to address biodiversity loss from 2010 to 2024. This is a critical agenda as the Bank Group has articulated a strong corporate commitment to support a livable planet dependent on biodiversity outcomes and aligned with the Global Challenge Programs. Management thanks the IEG team for its ongoing collaboration and considerable contributions.

Management welcomes the evaluation’s recognition of the Bank Group’s strong commitment to biodiversity and a livable planet, and the importance of a One Bank Group approach to biodiversity. Management notes that the Bank Group is scaling sustainable forest landscapes and ecosystem-based solutions to support development, climate, and biodiversity goals through the Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity and the PROGREEN trust fund, a multidonor trust fund focused on sustainable and resilient landscapes. Marine biodiversity is a central part of the blue economy agenda promoted by PROBLUE, a multidonor trust fund dedicated to supporting a healthy and productive ocean. The World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency are also signatories to the Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet, which underscores the importance of addressing biodiversity loss, promoting nature mainstreaming and positive investments, and tracking progress. The evaluation calls to “scale proven biodiversity-positive production models” and to “create economic incentives for biodiversity-positive production.” Management notes, however, that it provides limited guidance on how these measures could be implemented within the current Bank Group operational model and encourages the IEG team to provide more actionable lessons on leveraging institutional synergies across the Bank Group.

Management finds IEG’s review of the Country Partnership Frameworks and Country Climate and Development Reports highly relevant and appreciates the attention given to these strategic documents. The report underscores the need to strengthen the integration of biodiversity into country strategies because only two Country Partnership Frameworks included biodiversity as one of the indicators. High-level strategies and international pledges are not consistently reflected in country or sectoral priorities, which may weaken the effectiveness and consistency of downstream interventions. This finding will require institutional attention, noting that the introduction of more concise Country Partnership Frameworks and one Bank Group Scorecard necessarily limits the specific inclusion and measurement of additional nature outcomes.

Recommendations

Management agrees with the first recommendation to assist clients in identifying, financing, and measuring biodiversity outcomes. Management has long recognized the need for systematic measurements of biodiversity outcomes that are accurate, cost-effective, and scalable. There have been inherent challenges in finding solutions, including the relatively short project time frame (usually only up to five years) to measure biodiversity outcomes that typically take decades to materialize, and the desire for indicators that can be universally applied across many different ecosystems. Management has been engaged with numerous initiatives to identify improved biodiversity indicators, including cooperation with other multilateral development banks to identify biodiversity indicators in nature finance reporting, discussions with partners such as the Global Environment Facility to complement the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool with additional biodiversity outcome indicators, and internal efforts to identify biodiversity indicators to be integrated into diverse sets of relevant Bank Group projects. For example, the use of tree cover change as a proxy for biodiversity outcomes has several challenges and limitations already shared in the Bank Group management comments to IEG. Management is hopeful that recent technological advancements (for example, artificial intelligence, drones, improved satellite-based Earth observation, bioacoustics monitoring, and so on) will provide new alternatives to solve this long-standing issue at scale. In the meantime, management has ensured that biodiversity (while not directly measured) was included in the new Bank Group Scorecard through the indicator on millions of hectares of terrestrial and aquatic areas under enhanced conservation and management. Furthermore, management agrees with the opportunity for better use of existing country diagnostics (for example, Country Climate and Development Reports) to identify biodiversity-related entry points.

Management agrees with the second recommendation to engage, empower, and protect Indigenous Peoples and local communities to achieve sustainable and inclusive biodiversity outcomes at scale. Management is appreciative of highlighting existing Bank Group engagement in this sector, including the Bank Group report, Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and projects where Indigenous Peoples and local communities were included and directly supported in conservation activities. As the report indicates, lands managed by Indigenous Peoples often experience less deforestation, slower biodiversity loss, and improved restoration and carbon storage compared with lands managed by external parties. Management agrees that there is value in engaging with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, leveraging their expertise in projects, and supporting the enabling conditions for Indigenous Peoples to continue producing biodiversity conservation outcomes within their territories.

Management agrees with the third recommendation on proactively replicating and scaling proven biodiversity-positive production models that deliver positive ecological, economic, and social outcomes. Management acknowledges the need for more systematic mainstreaming of biodiversity, especially in productive sector investments by the World Bank and IFC. Management appreciates the identification of progressive pilot projects that demonstrate that biodiversity-positive outcomes are compatible with poverty reduction and increased revenues. A thorough analysis of how these good project examples could be replicated and scaled up, especially in the context of IFC and World Bank investments, will provide actionable lessons for Bank Group institutional learning.

Management agrees with the fourth recommendation on actively addressing the gaps in offset projects regarding staff capacity, information disclosure, and project life cycle monitoring and supervision. Management recognizes that the effectiveness of biodiversity offsets is closely linked to both internal and client capacity constraints, as well as the inherent technical, financial, and operational challenges of implementing offsets in practice. Management appreciates the recognition of IFC’s efforts to build internal capacity with global and regional technical leads for biodiversity who provide support, guidance, and consistency for projects implementing its Performance Standard 6.1 Management further notes that in FY 2025, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency hired its own senior biodiversity specialist to provide leadership on these issues and that the new and unified structure of Bank Group environment and social functions is expected to improve the sharing of knowledge and experience across staff and strengthen the overall human capital of the Bank Group. Management acknowledges the finding that financing offsets is a challenge, especially in public sector projects where the costs of establishing and maintaining offsets are often not included in project financing. As a result, clients are not always committed to financing offsets in the long run. The report states that offset information is not being updated “after project Board approval, undermining transparency.” Management notes that this statement is not entirely accurate. For the most recent projects, offset information is being updated and monitored by the Bank Group environment and social staff after commitment. However, in some instances, these results may not have been publicly disclosed. Management acknowledges that systematic public disclosure of post-Board updates about biodiversity offsets by borrowers and the Bank Group could be improved to meet the Bank Group’s commitment to transparency during project monitoring.