Biodiversity Finance Reporting Methodologies Experiences from Switzerland

1. Division Biodiversity Finance Reporting Methodologies Experiences from Switzerland Thursday, 19.06.2014

2. Agenda • Domestic Investments in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services • Public Investments • Investments of NGOs and Foundations • Private Sector Investments • International Investments in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services • Public Investments • Investments of NGOs and Foundations • Private Sector Investments • Lessons Learnt

3. Domestic Investments – Public Sector • Challenges • No methodology • Strongly decentralized government • No seperate budget line • New methodology needed • Transparency • Practicality • No double accounting • Incentive for mainstreaming Development of a biodiversity-factor

4. Domestic Investments – Biodiversity Coefficient

5. Domestic Investments – NGOs and Foundations • Increase visibility of contributions from non-govt. stakeholders • Comparable, transparent and practical methodology • Currently revising methodology

6. Domestic Investments – Private Sector • Methodology • Questionnaire and Federal Statistics Survey • Corporate Social Responsability Reports • Interviews with different corporate representatives • Challenges • Lack of data and coherence • Confidentiality of data • No seperate budget line for biodiversity • No seperation of domestic and international flows • Results • Data not accurate and reliable enough to report it

7. International Investments – Public Sector Bilateral Contributions Basic Data: OECD CRS Challenges Core contributions Multilateral vs. Multi-bilateral Eligible funds and organisations No markers MDB methodology Multilateral Contributions • Methodology: OECD DAC Rio-Markers • Challenges • Eligibility criteria • Application of markers • Lack of basis for quantification of markers • List of eligible activities

8. International Investments – NGOs and Foundations • Methodology • Annual reports and public annual financial statements • Inverviews with representatives • Challenges • Seggregation of national and international flows • Biodiversity relevant investments • Conclusion • Dialogue with stakeholders to develop transparent, practical and comparable methodology

9. International Investments – Private Sector • Methodology • Survey and Questionnaire with Domestic Investments • Challenges • Data coherence and availability • No seperation of domestic and international flows • Results • Data not accurate and reliable enough to report it • Enhanced Dialogue

10. Lessons learnt • Need for Rio-Marker revisions • Switzerland is active within the Task Team of OECD DAC • Challenge to report investments of the private sector and NGOs/foundations finance due to lack of data and definitions • Switzerland is engaged in enhanced dialogue with Stakeholders • Clarification of indicators and increased transparency needed to ensure comparability and reliability of data • No monitoring and evaluation of impact