Nele Marien, Friends of the Earth International
Discussions on resource mobilisation are once again front and centre, with debt-for-nature swaps often presented as part of the solution. Framed as a “win-win” — restructuring sovereign debt in exchange for conservation commitments — they appear to ease fiscal pressures while generating biodiversity finance. Yet evidence analysed in The Green Trap of Debt-for-Nature Swaps by Friends of the Earth International shows that the reality falls short of this promise.
First, recent swaps have delivered minimal actual debt relief. In several high-profile cases, overall debt stock reduction has been marginal relative to total public debt, while complex financial arrangements — often involving private creditors and intermediaries — reduce transparency and may generate new long-term repayment obligations. For countries facing acute fiscal stress, marginal relief does little to restore the policy space needed to invest adequately in biodiversity, climate resilience, health, and social protection. If debt servicing continues to consume large portions of public budgets, conservation finance tied to a swap does not resolve the structural constraint.
Second, debt-for-nature swaps do not address the structural drivers of indebtedness, including dependency on extractive industries and volatile commodity exports. Many biodiversity-rich countries are locked into debt cycles linked to oil, gas, mining or large-scale agricultural exports. These sectors frequently drive ecosystem destruction and social conflict. Swaps may earmark funds for protected areas or marine zones, but they do not transform the underlying economic model that generates both debt and biodiversity loss. Without tackling extractive dependency, fiscal vulnerability — and associated environmental pressures — persist.
Third, there are documented risks for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). Conservation measures linked to swaps have often reinforced top-down governance models, insufficient participation, or restrictions on land and resource access. When new conservation finance is channelled through external financial actors or conditional governance structures, accountability to local communities weakens. Implementation mechanisms comply at all times with human rights obligations and the rights of IPLCs.
From a governance perspective, the inclusion of debt-for-nature swaps in the “toolbox” of previous CBD decisions does not ensure equitable or effective biodiversity outcomes. Discussions must critically assess whether such mechanisms strengthen fiscal sovereignty and ecological justice — or create new dependencies.
The debt crisis itself is increasingly recognised as a structural barrier to achieving objectives of the GBF. Rather than focusing narrowly on financial engineering instruments, Parties may wish to initiate deeper discussions on:
-
How sovereign debt servicing constrains biodiversity investment;
-
What constitutes genuine and substantial debt relief;
-
How to prevent biodiversity finance from reinforcing extractive economic models;
-
And how all financial mechanisms can fully respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
If biodiversity loss is rooted in structural inequities in the global financial system, then implementation discussions must be equally structural in response.
Read The Green Trap of Debt-for-Nature Swaps here:
foei.org/publication/the-green-trap-of-debt-for-nature-swaps/
foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/23-FoEI-Debt-for-Nature-Swap-Report-EN-hr.pdf