A new report from UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre has tracked funding from hundreds of projects that boost marine biodiversity in critical habitats and found private sector funding to be minuscule.
UNEP’s WCMC’s new global database and associated report compiled public data from 2015 until 2022 on projects related to marine restoration. The report breaks down where funding originates from and which locations and types of projects it went to. The researchers found that since 2015, €3.35 billion has been invested in seascape restoration across 237 projects.
“Calls for increased action to safeguard and restore our ocean are growing, but we need to ensure actions are evidence-based. To make the best use of what funding we have available increased transparency and knowledge sharing is essential. We need to know what is being done, how, by who, for what reason and if it is working,” said Chris McOwen, report author and UNEP-WCMC’s lead marine scientist in a statement.
Global marine protection and restoration was in the spotlight back in March, when countries agreed to a new “High-seas treaty to protect 30% of the ocean”. This was seen as a critical step following the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 2 to achieve at least 30% of marine areas under restoration and Target 3, which aims for at least 30% of marine areas to be protected, both by 2030.
HOW BIG IS THE FISH
Governments and international bodies are the largest sources of funding, providing more than 89% (€2.91) of cash combined, according to the report. Whereas the private sector supplies just 1% (€49 mln) of total global funding for marine restoration.
Governments were also the largest beneficiaries for the funding, taking more than €2.15 bln.
Whilst the amounts are cumulatively substantial, the total amounts spread over the course of the time period considered equate to €478 mln ($516 mln) a year invested in marine restoration. The GBF is targeting $20 bln to be invested annually for all habitat types of biodiversity by 2025 from international financial resources under Target 19, suggesting that funding for vital marine areas needs a significant uptick in allocations to meet its share.
Coral reefs are the big winner with 67 projects receiving funding but mangroves receive the most funding at €479 mln. The report’s authors put the attention on mangroves down to the coastal habitats’ potential to sequester large amounts of carbon through ‘blue carbon’ schemes that have resonated with a number of funders.
“The spotlight is now clearly on the marine restoration agenda and coordinated international work to safeguard our oceans and their vital role in ensuring the health of people and the planet,” said David Thomas, programme director at UNEP-WCMC, in a statement.
“This report is a first step to better intelligence on ocean action – and we want it to inform funders and conservationists and inspire more strategic action.”
The report’s authors highlighted two sizeable projects that have boosted mangrove restoration funding. Indonesia’s Mangroves for Coastal Resilience Project has a total budget of €411 mln and makes up most of the funding allocated to mangrove projects. Pakistan’s “Ten Billion Tree Tsunami” project is also a high-profile contributor but the funding goes beyond coastal and marine habitats, the authors note.
Some 53 projects include multiple habitat types with the most common combination being coral reef and seagrass projects, and 53 projects also had multiple goals with biodiversity conservation being the most common, representing €3.1 bln of the €3.35 bln allocated.
COMMITMENT AND CAPACITY CAVEATS
The report caveats the progress made in understanding and conducting marine restoration.
“While our understanding of coastal and marine habitats continues to increase, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge of where key habitats are, where they were historically located, and what condition they are in,” said the report’s authors.
Detailed mapping and restoration potential for mangroves is relatively solid, although most other seascape habitats lack data.
“For coral reefs, there is no comprehensive global mapping effort to identify potential restoration areas, while also accounting for feasibility, cost, benefits and long-term suitability in the context of a changing climate,” stated the authors. Other key habitats such as seagrass, salt marsh and kelp lack even more data.
Failure rates are high with marine restoration. The authors aimed to shine a light on the social and political context of high-level commitments to marine restoration as a critical factor for their success. They argue that often the ecological and environmental context can be more heavily prioritised by practitioners but for restoration to be truly effective, meaningful engagement with local stakeholders leads to greater long-term success.
By Tom Woolnough – tom@carbon-pulse.com
** Click here to sign up to our weekly biodiversity newsletter **
