1.1 Please indicate the amount of resources provided by your country in support of biodiversity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition.
Please indicate, as appropriate, the nominal amount of financial resources provided by source as well as the total amount. Please also indicate your degree of confidence in the estimated amount or, alternatively, provide a range of estimates.
Switzerland Franc (CHF)
in thousands
Year
ODA
OOF
Other flows
Total
2006
40,860
8,930
49,790
2007
40,480
12,950
53,430
2008
42,020
14,210
56,230
2009
36,040
14,450
50,490
2010
48,330
18,200
66,530
Average (baseline)
41,546
0
13,748
55,294
Bilateral
Multilateral
Disbursements
Directly related
Indirectly related
Directly related
Indirectly related
OECD DAC Rio markers
40%
High
Low
Switzerland provides biodiversity related development assistance in the form of grants and therefore does not record any other official flows
Data of 2006:
Of the total amount 20.574 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 9.623 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 10.68 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The category “other flows” contain 8.93 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs:zooschweiz, Birdlife Switzerland, WWF and Pro Natura
Data of 2007:
Of the total amount 18.142 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 11.65 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 10.69 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The category “other flows” contain 12.95 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs:zooschweiz, Birdlife Switzerland, WWF and Pro Natura.
Data of 2008:
Of the total amount 18.499 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 12.372 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 11.15 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The category “other flows” contain 14.21 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs: zooschweiz, Birdlife Switzerland, WWF and Pro Natura.
Data of 2009:
Of the total amount 16.788 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 8.228 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 11.06 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The category “other flows” contain 14.45 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs: zooschweiz, Birdlife Switzerland, WWF and Pro Natura.
Data of 2010:
Of the total amount 17.122 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 18.55 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 12.69 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The category “other flows” contain 18.2 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs: zooschweiz, Birdlife Switzerland, WWF and Pro Natura.
For further information, please refer to Switzerland's "Submission of Information for the Review of implementation of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization" of October 2014.
Additional methodological comments for the numbers 2011-2015 (no comment box available below...):
Switzerland only provides biodiversity related development assistance in the form of grants and therefore does not have any other official flows to report.
Data of 2011:
Of the total amount 11.74 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 14.73 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 8.97 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The core contributions to multilateral organisations (even if they do biodiversity related work) were not included in the sum, unless the biodiversity relevant part was assessable. The contributions from FOEN are not all considered ODA in the regular OECD DAC reporting, therefore they are included as OOF because they are relevant international investments generating direct or indirect biodiversity benefits in developing countries. The category “other flows” contain 7.6 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs: Birdlife Switzerland, pro Natura, WWF Switzerland and Zoo Switzerland (zooschweiz).
Data of 2012:
Of the total amount 14.32 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 23.01 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 8.75 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The core contributions to multilateral organisations (even if they do biodiversity related work) were not included in the sum, unless the biodiversity relevant part was assessable. The contributions from FOEN are not all considered ODA in the regular OECD DAC reporting, therefore they are included as OOF because they are relevant international investments generating direct or indirect biodiversity benefits in developing countries. The category “other flows” contain 8.6 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs: Birdlife Switzerland, pro Natura, WWF Switzerland, Helvetas/Intercooperation and Zoo Switzerland (zooschweiz).
Data of 2013:
Of the total amount 29.49 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 23.38 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 8.75 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The core contributions to multilateral organisations (even if they do biodiversity related work) were not included in the sum, unless the biodiversity relevant part was assessable. The contributions from FOEN are not all considered ODA in the regular OECD DAC reporting, therefore they are included as OOF because they are relevant international investments generating direct or indirect biodiversity benefits in developing countries. The category “other flows” contain 7.9 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs: Birdlife Switzerland, pro Natura, WWF Switzerland, Helvetas/Intercooperation and Zoo Switzerland (zooschweiz).
Data of 2014:
Of the total amount 26.38 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 25.83 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 8.91 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The core contributions to multilateral organisations (even if they do biodiversity related work) were not included in the sum, unless the biodiversity relevant part was assessable. The contributions from FOEN are not all considered ODA in the regular OECD DAC reporting, therefore they are included as OOF because they are relevant international investments generating direct or indirect biodiversity benefits in developing countries. The category “other flows” contain 12.6 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs Birdlife Switzerland, pro Natura, Helvetas, Zoo Switzerland and WWF Switzerland.
Data of 2015:
Of the total amount 20.22 million CHF were ODA bilateral directly related, 17.59 million CHF were ODA bilateral indirectly related and 8.90 million CHF were ODA multilateral directly related. The core contributions to multilateral organisations (even if they do biodiversity related work) were not included in the sum, unless the biodiversity relevant part was assessable. The contributions from FOEN are not all considered ODA in the regular OECD DAC reporting, therefore they are included as OOF because they are relevant international investments generating direct or indirect biodiversity benefits in developing countries. The category “other flows” contain 12.7 million CHF international biodiversity related investments from the following NGOs Birdlife Switzerland, pro Natura, Helvetas, Zoo Switzerland and WWF Switzerland.
For further details consult the additional data sheets.
Year
ODA
OOF
Other flows
Total
2011
35,440
1,380
7,570
44,390
2012
46,080
1,780
8,580
56,440
2013
61,620
1,260
7,870
70,750
2014
61,120
1,260
12,650
75,030
2015
46,700
1,470
12,700
60,870
Methodological information:
High
High
Low
Some measures taken
We have been engaged in an enhanced dialogue with civil society organizations and therefore have included their international biodiversity related financial flows in our data sheet (see above) under “Other flows”. Switzerland believes that they provide a very important contribution to the implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets domestically and internationally and highly appreciates the contributions of its civil society. We do not believe that the investments of our civil society organizations should be used to meet our doubling commitment.
Several efforts to cooperate with the private sector to asses private sector investments in Biodiversity have been taken but with very little results. Currently this is not a first priority for the Swiss Government as there are many methodological challenges The systematic tracking of private sector flows has been proven to be very difficult due to lack of definitions, challenges of distinction of domestic and international private flows, confidentiality arrangements and data availability. Switzerland is still interested to collaborate with the private sector to mobilize additional resources for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Some inclusion achieved
Yes, Switzerland has started to include biodiversity in its priorities and plans. For more detailed information also consider chapter 2 of the 5th national report, in particular the chapter on the implementation of the CBD through the legal framework (chapter 2.2) and Box 7 indicating several cross cutting strategies and programs also targeting conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Some assessments undertaken
Switzerland has started to invest in the assessment of biodiversity values. Chapter 1.6 of the 5th National report of Switzerland refers to some social, cultural and economic values of biodiversity. For further details also consult the section on the assessment of progress towards Aichi target 2 in the 5th National Report.
Switzerland Franc (CHF)
in millions
Year
Domestic expenditures
Overall confidence
2006
674
Medium
2007
763
Medium
2008
826
Medium
2009
904
Medium
2010
909
Medium
2011
926
Medium
2012
1,011
Medium
2013
1,048
Medium
2014
1,170
Medium
2015
1,212
Medium
Average
944
Medium
Numbers above cover
Expenditures directly related to biodiversity
Expenditures indirectly related to biodiversity
Government budgets – central
Yes
Yes
Government budgets – state/provincial
Yes
Yes
Government budgets – local/municipal
Yes
Yes
Extra-budgetary
NoYes
NoYes
Private/market
NoYes
NoYes
Other (NGO, foundations, academia)
Yes
Yes
Collective action of indigenous and local communities
NoYes
NoYes
Data quality: 2006-2010 data => public data has medium quality and other flows low; 2011-2015 central goverment data has very high quality and the rest is medium
Comment: see additional data sheets for further information, the baseline data has been improved since the provisional reporting and therefore the baseline data has also been revised based on the improved methodology (improved tracking of direct central investments and revised biodiversity factor for agriculture) to make the data comparable to the maximum extent possible.
Data 2006-2010: please refer to Switzerland's "Submission of Information for the Review of implementation of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization" of October 2014 and the revised uploaded datasheets for the public data.
Data 2011-2014: please consider the uploaded additional data sheets, which were submitted together with our first financial reporting framework.
The strong discrepancy of the expenditures on state/provincial level between the baseline (2006-2010) reported in the submission of October 2014 and the revised uploaded datasheets and the more recent reporting (2011-2014) is based on the increase in the biodiversity factor (from 25% to 50%) for “species conservation and landscape protection” on provincial level due to an increased engagement of the federal state governments in this area.
The strong discrepancy of the expenditures from others between the baseline (2006-2010) reported in the submission of October 2014 and the revised uploaded datasheets and the more recent reporting (2011-2015) is based on the fact that the financial flows of academia were no longer considered under the category “other” but as public flows and are included in the public figures. In addition, a more conservative approach was chosen and only the lower bound assumption was used for the estimation of the biodiversity factor.
No such assessment necessary
Year
Contribution
Overall confidence
Average
0
No value selected
Methodological information:
Conceptual and Methodological Framework for Evaluating the Contribution of Collective Action to Biodiversity Conservation
Other
Please indicate your annual estimated funding need (for instance, based on your revised NBSAP) and calculate the estimated funding gap by subtracting estimated available resources. Indicate actions for priority funding.
Please start with the year which is most appropriate for your own planning purposes.
Switzerland Franc (CHF)
in millions
Year
Funding need
Estimated available resources
Estimated funding gap
Actions for priority funding
2015
1,120
1,120
0
no implementation of new measures yet
2016
1,120
1,120
0
no implementation of new measures yet
2017
1,247
1,120
127
Ecological infrastructure (new/upgrade of protected areas, wildlife corridors, etc), sustainable use, species conservation
2018
1,247
1,120
127
Ecological infrastructure (new/upgrade of protected areas, wildlife corridors, etc), sustainable use, species conservation
2019
1,247
1,120
127
Ecological infrastructure (new/upgrade of protected areas, wildlife corridors, etc), sustainable use, species conservation
2020
1,247
1,120
127
Ecological infrastructure (new/upgrade of protected areas, wildlife corridors, etc), sustainable use, species conservation
2015-2016 data:
Funding need and available resources per year, because no implementation of new measures yet:
Central: 724, Provinces: 299, Municipalities: 97 => Total: 1’120
2017-2020 data:
Funding need per year:
Central: 771, Provinces and Municipalities: 476 =>Total: 1’247
The funding gap is based on the current available resources and the costing of the foreseen measures in the Swiss NBSAP. To calculate the funding gap it is estimated that the current public funding level on all levels will not be decreased and the costing was done for the central government level and the provincial level.
The full implementation of the Swiss NBSAP will not be completed before 2040. The costing of the full NBSAP implementation therefore goes beyond 2020 and the main implementation phase is to be expected after 2020. According to the costing of the Swiss NBSAP the average annual funding gap beyond 2020 will in average be 139 million CHF/year for the central government and 177 million CHF/year for the federal state governments for the period 2021-2040.
Please provide a brief synthesis of your finance plan, by indicating, in the table below, your planned resource mobilization, by source, and their respective planned contributions towards your identified finance gap.
Switzerland Franc (CHF)
in millions
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Expected funding gap
0
0
127
127
127
127
Domestic sources (total)
0
0
39
69
96
98
Additional public budget sources allocated for the NBSAP implementation
39
69
96
98
International sources (total)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Remaining gap
0
0
88
58
31
29
The Federal Council adopted the Action Plan for the Swiss Biodiversity Strategy on 6 September 2017 and decided to provide additional budgetary resources to cover a significant part of the implementation of the Action Plan.
Some measures taken
We have been engaged in an enhanced dialogue with civil society organizations but it is challenging for them to estimate their future investments. It is not foreseen that the finance gap identified will be filled through funds of the civil society. Switzerland believes that civil society organizations provide a very important contribution to the implementation of the Swiss Biodiversity Strategy and Aichi Biodiversity Targets, both domestically and internationally, and highly appreciates the contributions of its civil society, which go beyond the activities identified through the funding gap.
Several efforts to cooperate with the private sector to asses private sector investments in Biodiversity have been taken but with very little results. Currently this is not a first priority for the Swiss Government as there are many methodological challenges. The systematic tracking of private sector flows has been proven to be very difficult due to lack of definitions, challenges of distinction of domestic and international private flows, confidentiality arrangements and data availability. Switzerland is still interested to collaborate with the private sector to mobilize additional resources for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Most methodological details are also referenced in the Swiss "Submission of Information for the Review of Implementation of the Strategy for Resource
Mobilization" https://www.cbd.int/financial/oda/switzerland-additional-information-en.pdf from 2013.
Comment on collective action (because no comment box appeared):
Switzerland is not assessing the role of collective action. There are no indigenous and local communities as understood by the CBD in Switzerland. There is collective action in the form of informal in-kind contributions of many civil society organizations, but this collective action is currently not tracked.
Comment on availability of financial resources for achieving targets (because no comment box appeared):
The Federal Council adopted the Action Plan for the Swiss Biodiversity Strategy on 6 September 2017 that includes a national finance plan for additional funding for biodiversity.
Comment on methodological choices on domestic expenditure review (because it didn't show in the review summary):
See additional data sheets for further information, the baseline data has been improved since the provisional reporting and therefore the baseline data has also been revised based on the improved methodology (improved tracking of direct central investments and revised biodiversity factor for agriculture) to make the data comparable to the maximum extent possible. We currently do not have the statistical financial data for 2017 from the federal state and local government level available therefore they can not be reported.
Data 2006-2010: please refer to Switzerland's "Submission of Information for the Review of implementation of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization" of October 2014 and the revised uploaded datasheets for the public data.
Data 2011-2014: please consider the uploaded additional data sheets, which were submitted together with our first financial reporting framework.
The strong discrepancy of the expenditures on state/provincial level between the baseline (2006-2010) reported in the submission of October 2014 and the revised uploaded datasheets and the more recent reporting (2011-2014) is based on the increase in the biodiversity factor (from 25% to 50%) for “species conservation and landscape protection” on provincial level due to an increased engagement of the federal state governments in this area.
The strong discrepancy of the expenditures from others between the baseline (2006-2010) reported in the submission of October 2014 and the revised uploaded datasheets and the more recent reporting (2011-2016) is based on the fact that the financial flows of academia were no longer considered under the category “other” but as public flows and are included in the public figures. In addition, a more conservative approach was chosen and only the lower bound assumption was used for the estimation of the biodiversity factor.