Biodiversity—the diversity of life at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels—is essential to sustaining human well-being, economic stability, and climate resilience, yet it is declining at a rate unprecedented in human history. Biodiversity underpins food security by supporting soil fertility, crop yields, and marine productivity, while increasing resistance to pests, disease, and climate risk. It also plays a vital role in climate mitigation and adaptation. Yet mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, plants, and marine life are vanishing tens to hundreds of times faster than in the past 10 million years (IPBES 2019), and wildlife populations have dropped by 73 percent on average in just five decades (WWF 2024). More than 85 percent of wetlands have been lost, half of coral cover has disappeared, and one-third of global tree species are now at risk of extinction. These losses threaten the functioning of ecosystems that provide food, water, shelter, energy, medicine, and income—especially for the 79 percent of people living below the global poverty line who depend on nature (IIED 2014). High levels of biodiversity loss increase the likelihood of crossing ecological tipping points, with irreversible consequences for livelihoods, economic development, disaster exposure, and climate stability.

The international community has committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, but progress remains below target. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011–20) laid the foundation for global action to address the drivers of biodiversity loss, but most goals were not met. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, renewed ambition, aiming to conserve and manage at least 30 percent of all land and oceans by 2030. Yet a significant financing gap persists, particularly in directing resources to developing countries to implement commitments and to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

The World Bank Group has articulated a strong corporate commitment to supporting a livable planet that is dependent on biodiversity outcomes. The Corporate Scorecard tracks biodiversity-dependent indicators such as changes in natural capital wealth, the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable limits, and the percentage of terrestrial and aquatic areas under protection. The Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity seeks to scale sustainable forest landscapes and ecosystem solutions for development, climate, and biodiversity outcomes. The Bank Group is a signatory to the Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet, which emphasizes tackling nature and biodiversity loss, making nature-positive investments, and reporting on progress. In Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Bank Group renewed its focus on biodiversity and nature, pledging to pursue a whole-of-economy approach to address drivers of biodiversity loss (World Bank Group 2021). Blue Biodiversity: Investing in Our, and Our Ocean’s, Future highlights the importance of conserving aquatic biodiversity for social and economic benefits (World Bank 2024a). These initiatives build on more than 30 years of biodiversity commitments.

This evaluation asked: How well is the Bank Group supporting clients to address biodiversity loss? We answer this question through two subquestions: (i) How is the World Bank addressing biodiversity challenges through conservation-focused activities? and (ii) How well are the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) supporting activities with potential biodiversity benefits in key production sectors, and are those activities likely to achieve such benefits? A third question on managing risks to biodiversity was integrated into questions (i) and (ii) and addressed in the portfolio review of biodiversity offsets.

As per the Approach Paper, institutional coverage was based on portfolio presence. The evaluation covers World Bank conservation activities (FY 2010–24, chapter 2); World Bank and IFC production activities (FY15–24, chapter 4); and Bank Group experience with biodiversity offsets (FY15–24, chapter 5). It also examines strategic aspects across the Bank Group, notably on country engagement and links to climate change (chapter 3). The evaluation covers national, not global, convening efforts and excludes IFC’s Biodiversity Finance Reference Guide because of its nascency.

We used a mixed methods approach that included literature reviews, AI-powered project identification, portfolio, geospatial and case analyses, and interviews. We developed an AI-powered classification tool based on keywords from the literature, enhanced with machine learning and manual verification, to identify portfolios. We assessed conservation activities against international best practice, using literature underpinning the Global Biodiversity Framework. In the absence of ecological monitoring data, we used results monitoring, and geospatial analyses to examine tree cover, as a proxy. While not sufficient, analyses of tree cover enabled us to test assumptions about the efficacy of protected forested areas; this was the first time such analyses had been done at the World Bank. Two expert literature-based reviews focusing on resource governance and Indigenous Peoples were commissioned to enhance the analyses. We conducted exploratory case studies to contextualize the mainstreaming analyses in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Mozambique, Peru, and Viet Nam. We also conducted a review of Bank Group experience with biodiversity offsets (see appendix A).

Biodiversity Conservation

Although insufficient to achieve all biodiversity goals, conservation remains a key component of global biodiversity efforts, as also reflected in the World Bank’s portfolio. Protected areas are 33 percent more effective at reducing habitat loss than unprotected areas, although there is wide variability (Li et al. 2024). As such, a key biodiversity conservation approach used by the World Bank is support for protected areas. The evaluation identified and mapped 526 World Bank–supported protected area sites (out of 880 identified sites) in 130 projects approved between FY10 and FY24.

We examined geographic representativeness and found that the World Bank prioritizes biodiversity conservation in areas with high species richness, with 85 percent of 880 protected sites located in dry (45 percent) and humid (40 percent) tropics. Conservation funding for deserts, drylands, mangroves, temperate forests, and flooded grasslands remains low, despite their ecological importance and role in carbon sequestration—a pattern reflected in global conservation finance.

There is weak monitoring and therefore limited evidence of biodiversity outcomes. There is a lack of robust monitoring and reporting on biodiversity outcomes in World Bank and IFC interventions. As a result, the ability to credibly demonstrate and learn from biodiversity gains or losses is constrained. This shortfall is rooted in both project design and strategic gaps, including a lack of biodiversity experts able to support clients in incorporating appropriate ecological change metrics into projects at the preparation stage and accounting for these changes over time. Measuring biodiversity, forest recovery, and ecosystem resilience is inherently a long-term challenge, so monitoring frameworks need to be designed accordingly. In practice, the Bank Group has relied on process indicators that verify important biodiversity-related activities (such as management effectiveness and certification processes put in place) but that are insufficient to measure biodiversity outcomes.

Tree cover data show that, in the context of rapid deforestation globally, World Bank–funded protected areas in tropical forests have on average succeeded in maintaining tree cover. A systematic review of 52 peer-reviewed studies confirms that tree cover change is a valid proxy for biodiversity in tropical forest ecosystems, reporting significant positive correlations between tree cover and biodiversity indexes. Forests—especially tropical ones—harbor a large share of terrestrial biodiversity, and changes in tree cover correlate with changes in species richness and ecosystem health. Tree cover reflects ecosystem structure and connectivity, both of which are critical for sustaining diverse biological communities. While it is a coarse proxy, it is often used when consistent, large-scale biodiversity data are lacking. Of the 526 protected area sites that we were able to map, 448 are in tropical forest areas. Using geospatial analyses, we estimate that the 448 sites, on average, maintained tree cover at a rate of +2.0 percent after project closure and +3.1 percent during and just after implementation.

The World Bank has applied landscape and seascape approaches to address biodiversity loss and increase resource productivity, though most projects lack reporting on species composition, ecological change, or tenure security. These approaches use territorial planning to integrate land, water, and biodiversity considerations, emphasizing coordination, stakeholder engagement, and decentralized management—an approach seen in about half of the World Bank’s conservation-focused projects. Effective land- and seascape strategies require clear ecological objectives, spatial integration, cross-sector coordination, outcome monitoring, long-term funding, and active management of trade-offs. However, few projects report on species composition (such as the use of diverse, native species) or document vegetation change or the securing of land and resource rights. While two-thirds of projects aim to strengthen community land and resource rights, only five track improvements in rights or tenure security (IPBES 2019; UNCCD 2019).

The World Bank infrequently identifies and engages Indigenous Peoples in its conservation efforts, and when it has, activities have been concentrated in just a few countries. Indigenous Peoples manage over a quarter of the world’s land, including 40 percent of protected areas and one-third of intact forests. These lands experience less deforestation, slower biodiversity loss, and improved restoration and carbon storage compared with lands managed by external parties (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2023; Fa et al. 2020; Garnett et al. 2018). However, they are also severely threatened. The World Bank’s biodiversity Approach Paper deems the identification, engagement, and protection of IPLCs central to positive biodiversity outcomes. Using LandMark data, our geospatial analysis found that only 6 percent of World Bank conservation areas overlap with lands held or used by IPLCs, covering 12 sites in Indigenous territories and 23 within community lands in eight countries. Using a second data set that more thoroughly includes Indigenous lands in Africa (Garnett et al. 2018), we identified 83 project sites—14.2 percent of World Bank conservation areas—within Indigenous Peoples lands. These are in Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, Mozambique, Panama, Peru, and Zambia.

The share of conservation-focused projects that identify, engage, and protect IPLCs in conservation, as measured by Environmental and Social Framework policies specific to Indigenous Peoples, indicates a relative decline when compared with the share under the safeguard policies. The proportion of conservation projects that apply Operational Policy 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) and the subsequent Environmental and Social Standard 7 (Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities) has declined from 52 percent (Operational Policy 4.10) to 25 percent (Environmental and Social Standard 7). This trend is most evident in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most conservation projects are based. Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa under the Dedicated Grant Mechanism for IPLCs—which aims to provide direct support for their participation in sustainable forest management—also lack environmental and social risk management policies specific to Indigenous Peoples.

Biodiversity and Climate

The increased focus on climate change in Bank Group country engagements has not been coupled with a similar increase in focus on biodiversity, despite strong interlinkages. Most Country Partnership Frameworks (CPFs) are strongly aligned with global climate agreements, but no CPFs refer to global biodiversity agreements or national biodiversity frameworks. The Bank Group does not optimize biodiversity benefits in the 72 percent of CPFs that have climate and nature objectives and rarely captures biodiversity-related results in CPFs. Optimizing and capturing biodiversity benefits is essential for CPFs with portfolios comprising a significant proportion of land under enhanced management on the Corporate Scorecard—in Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, and Senegal. Only 25 percent of Country Climate and Development Reports seek to restore habitats, while 80 percent recommend using natural habitats for carbon capture.

Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Sectors

Although they are few, cases where biodiversity has been integrated into agriculture and agribusiness activities demonstrate that economic–ecological win–wins are possible. Sustainable production practices are powerful means to address the drivers of biodiversity loss while achieving more sustainable yields and income gains. A small share of the World Bank’s agriculture lending (17 of 247 projects) explicitly applied and measured biodiversity-friendly practices such as plant and crop diversity, organic soil matter, reduced agrochemical use, and certified practices. Evaluated projects showed both positive biodiversity and economic results, with notable examples in China, Panama, and Viet Nam. Twenty-seven of 107 IFC investments promoted sustainable practices, using traceability and certification schemes and indicators. Notable efforts include support for deforestation-free soy production in Brazil and certifications for a fiberboard plant in Aisa and a fruit producer in South Africa. These examples occurred in vertically integrated businesses where companies had strong sustainability commitments. IFC had setbacks in more complex landscape-level efforts, such as supporting deforestation-free cocoa in West Africa. One-quarter of IFC’s agriculture and agribusiness-related advisory projects (17 of 67) supported more sustainable practices (such as crop rotation, soil management, avoided deforestation, and certification or traceability schemes), but a lack of appropriate indicators limits our ability to validate biodiversity-related results.

The World Bank is advancing elements of fisheries management with potential biodiversity gains, but there is uneven application across Global Practices, and most projects are struggling to reconcile the long-term need for enhanced fisheries management with short-term food security and income needs. Projects emphasizing good fisheries management tend to originate in the environmental practice, but even in these cases, marine ecosystem health is rarely measured. The small-scale fisheries sector faces the challenge of balancing the control of fishing activities with food security and employment aims. A notable World Bank fisheries project that demonstrated income and employment benefits while reducing fishing pressure is the South-West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth project in East Africa. IFC has helped Ecuador become a leading producer of sustainable and profitable commercial aquaculture.

Payments for forest carbon have been an important vehicle for conserving natural forests and ecosystem services landscapes. With the support of the Forest Partnership Facility, clients have achieved 188 percent of the target for avoided deforestation within landscapes, totaling 14.5 million hectares across four countries; these activities in one case contributed to an increase in average farm yields of 25 percent. Restoration targets, however, have been far from met. While clients have requested “quality carbon” and support for measuring its multiple benefits (biodiversity, climate change, and land), carbon finance programs have not supported the systematic capturing of biodiversity outcomes.

Well-implemented sustainable forest management plans should yield biodiversity benefits, but too few projects report on implementation or track and certify sustainable practices. Four of the 35 World Bank projects with sustainable forest management plans reported on actual implementation, while half reported on species composition when planting. Six of the 83 World Bank forest production projects cited certification or traceability schemes. Good practices include the Ghana Tree Crop Diversification Project, which tracked traceable tree crop area, certification in cocoa, and premiums for certified cocoa, and the Côte d’Ivoire Forest Investment Program, which planted native mahogany, tiama, and medicinal trees within cocoa agroforestry and restored native species in sensitive areas. The Rwanda Volcanoes Community Resilience Project (FY24–) mandates that at least 20 percent of species be native and empowers local communities to supply these seedlings.

Incentives for Biodiversity-Positive Production Approaches

We identified four key factors that enable integration of biodiversity into production:

• Interministerial collaboration, especially between environmental and production ministries, and channeling of new information about applied research and technologies to extension services, firms, cooperatives, and resource users.
• Alignment of public and private finance with emerging sustainability regulations and markets (such as the European Union Regulation on Deforestation-free Products) helps create economic incentives for biodiversity-positive production.
• Availability of financial instruments to reduce up-front costs, buffer risk, and secure land and resource rights and tenure.
• Identification of entry points where production systems are reaching ecological limits—such as degraded soils due to overexploitation—can promote biodiversity-positive approaches that regenerate natural capital, productivity, and jobs.

World Bank Group Biodiversity Offsets

Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used across the Bank Group to manage residual environmental impacts, yet their effectiveness remains limited because of inherent complexity, weak institutional capacity, lack of transparency, and inconsistent implementation. Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development that persist after appropriate avoidance, minimization, and restoration measures have been taken. There has been uneven and inconsistent updating of offset information after project Board approval, and the methodologies used to estimate biodiversity loss and gains are often unclear, falling short of international best practice. Although implementation status and quality vary across institutions and sectors, most implementation activities are delayed or incomplete, undermining projects’ ability to estimate that offsets will likely deliver their intended conservation outcomes.

Conclusions

The Bank Group has laid a credible foundation for biodiversity action and now faces a critical implementation test: translating its high-level commitments into measurable biodiversity outcomes that deliver human well-being, food security, sustainable production, and jobs. The Bank Group’s attention to climate change has not been coupled with a focus on biodiversity in country strategies. On conservation, ecological monitoring, inclusion of IPLCs, and investment in sustainable financing are needed to enhance the World Bank’s support for the 30×30 target agreed upon by clients under the Global Biodiversity Framework. 

The integration of biodiversity in production sectors remains ad hoc and underleveraged, despite identified opportunities for scale. World Bank and IFC cases 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 concentrated in a few country contexts and progressive firms rather than embedded across the portfolio.

The challenges identified in implementing biodiversity offsets, of which there are ongoing examples in the World Bank, IFC, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, indicate that institutional, technical, and financial strengthening is required to ensure that offsets function as credible, outcome-based conservation tools.

Based on these conclusions, we propose the following four recommendations to help the Bank Group support clients in achieving their livable planet goals.

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) using existing country diagnostics (for example, Country Climate and Development Reports 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/or 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 the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency 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 good practice, is encouraged.