Gabon

Why the $700 billion funding gap for biodiversity is dangerous nonsense: Implications for the oceans and small-scale fisheries

Why the $700 billion funding gap for biodiversity is dangerous nonsense: Implications for the oceans and small-scale fisheries

Closing the funding gap for biodiversity conservation is one of the critical topics at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), hosted in Colombia in October 2024. The funding gap has been estimated at $700 billion in Goal D of the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, based on a report, “Financing Nature”, published in 2020. Taking the example of fisheries and ocean conservation, this article shows the $700 billion figure is based on highly dubious calculations and assumptions. The author argues the funding gap report is not a serious effort to estimate the needs for supporting conservation efforts. Instead, it is a performative publication marketing opportunities for private investment and market-based mechanisms. Therefore, the $700 billion figure should be rejected by those opposed to the continuing financialisation of conservation.

Gabon’s Odious Debt-for-ocean Swap: The implications for ocean governance

Gabon’s Odious Debt-for-ocean Swap:  The implications for ocean governance

This article covers TNC’s recent debt-for-ocean swap with Gabon, involving US$500 million worth of debt. In exchange, the Gabonese government has committed to protect up to 30% of the oceans. The author looks in detail at the deal (Part 1) and the conservation commitments (Part 2), explores the problems with this deal in terms of debt justice and of ocean governance, and develops its implications for coastal communities.

Financing the 30x30 agenda for the Oceans: Debt for Nature swaps should be rejected

Financing the 30x30 agenda for the Oceans: Debt for Nature swaps should be rejected

Joint statement - In the delivering on 30x30 and financing conservation, debt for nature swaps are gaining momentum. However, debt swaps should be rejected as they lack transparency and give undue power to foreign organisations over the policies of marine resources management of developing and small-island states.