Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Protected area / relocation · European Union · 1992–2027

Natura 2000: the EU network of protected sites, its financing gap and the state of protected nature

Nature's voice · report
In 2018 the Court of Justice found that forest management operations authorised by Poland result in the loss of a part of my Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 forest, a site of 63,147 hectares.
Did nature suffer? Yes. Harm is on record. Accounts differ ↓
In my name
  • Commission estimate from Member States' frameworks, average EUR 3.4 billion a year; minimum estimate with data gaps 23.8 billion euros were spent in my name. What was measured is below what was promised. estimate European Commission
Recorded
  • Between 2013 and 2018, 81% of my habitat assessments under the Habitats Directive were in poor or bad conservation status, according to the European Environment Agency. European Environment Agency
  • Of my habitats in unfavourable status in 2013–2018, 36% were deteriorating and 9% improving, according to the European Environment Agency. European Environment Agency
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured · 4 disputed · 1 unclear See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Whether Natura 2000 is funded to its needs
  • Government and regulators European Commission (SWD(2023) 99): Actual 2014–2020 funding of around EUR 6.7 billion a year against 2021–2027 needs of about EUR 10 billion a year indicates a continuing gap, likely larger than shown. European Commission
  • Government and regulators European Court of Auditors (2017): EU funds were not well mobilised; there was a lack of reliable information on costs and financing needs; less than 20% of the 2010 cost estimate was financed by the EU in 2007–2013. European Court of Auditors
  • Researchers Hermoso et al. (2018): Funding was covering only a fifth of the estimated cost of the network. Journal of Applied Ecology
Whether the network is improving the state of protected nature
  • Government and regulators European Commission (2015, as quoted by the ECA): Clear indications that the network plays a major role in stabilising habitats and species with an unfavourable status, but overall status had not changed significantly between 2007 and 2012. European Court of Auditors
  • Government and regulators European Environment Agency (2020): 15% of habitat assessments good and 81% poor or bad in 2013–2018; 36% of unfavourable habitats deteriorating against 9% improving. European Environment Agency
  • Researchers Pellissier et al. (2020): Bird abundance increased with Natura 2000 coverage in almost half of 155 species, but for most species the relationship was not evident once land cover was accounted for. Conservation Biology
Whether logging at Puszcza Białowieska was a conservation measure
  • Government and regulators Government of Poland: The operations were needed to stop the spread of the spruce bark beetle and were conservation measures. Court of Justice of the European Union
  • Courts Court of Justice of the EU (C-441/17): No appropriate assessment was carried out; the operations result in loss of a part of the site and cannot constitute conservation measures; Poland failed to fulfil its obligations. Court of Justice of the European Union

The EU's Natura 2000 network, set up under the Birds and Habitats Directives, covers over 27,000 sites on nearly one-fifth of EU land. The Commission estimated actual funding at around EUR 46.7 billion in 2014–2020 against needs of about EUR 10 billion a year for 2021–2027 and states a continuing gap; the European Court of Auditors found in 2017 that EU funds were not well mobilised, and in 2020 the European Environment Agency reported 81% of habitat assessments in poor or bad status.

around EUR 46.7 billion (EUR 6.7 billion a year) estimateEstimated actual funding for Natura 2000, 2014–2020
Commission estimate from Member States' prioritised action frameworks (SWD(2023) 99), about half from the EU; the same document gives 2021–2027 needs of about EUR 10 billion a year and states a continuing gap. The figures are minimum estimates with data gaps.

Status As of April 2023: the Commission estimates 2021–2027 Natura 2000 needs at about EUR 10 billion a year and states a continuing funding gap; the latest EU-wide status figures in the sources reviewed cover 2013–2018.

What?
An EU-wide network of protected sites designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives, financed through existing EU funds and national budgets. European Court of Auditors
Where?
All EU Member States; over 27,000 sites on nearly one-fifth of EU land and 10.5% of EU seas (end of 2023). European Commission, DG Environment
When?
Habitats Directive 1992; 2020 biodiversity target set in 2011; current financing period 2021–2027. European Court of Auditors
Who?
Gained
  • Recipients of EU funds counted toward Natura 2000 (rural development, cohesion, LIFE, fisheries and Interreg programmes) — Received the EU share of an estimated EUR 23.8 billion in 2014–2020, mostly through rural development (EUR 16.3 billion EU share) European Commission
Lost
None on record
Harmed
  • Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site, Poland — The Court of Justice found in 2018 that forest management operations result in loss of a part of the site Court of Justice of the European Union
  • Habitats protected under the Habitats Directive — 81% of habitat assessments in poor or bad status in 2013–2018 (EEA) European Environment Agency
Why?
The directives require Member States to ensure no deterioration of the sites and to maintain or restore protected species and habitats at a favourable conservation status. European Court of Auditors
How?
Member States designate sites, adopt conservation measures and prioritised action frameworks of funding needs; financing comes from EU funds (EAFRD, ERDF/CF, LIFE, EMFF, Interreg) and national budgets; the Commission supervises and can take infringement cases to the Court of Justice. European Commission
In proportion The ECA states that less than 20% of the EUR 5.8 billion annual cost estimated in 2010 was financed by the EU in 2007–2013. European Court of Auditors
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Natura 2000 is the network of sites designated by EU Member States under the Birds Directive (special protection areas) and the Habitats Directive of 1992 (sites of Community importance and special areas of conservation). Member States must ensure no deterioration of the sites and take the conservation measures needed to maintain or restore protected species and habitats at a favourable conservation status, according to the European Court of Auditors (ECA). In 2017 the ECA described a network of over 27,000 sites covering more than 18% of EU land and around 6% of its sea area. The Commission now describes over 27,000 sites on nearly one-fifth of the continent's land area and about one-tenth of its surrounding maritime zones; the European Environment Agency (EEA) put marine coverage at 10.5% at the end of 2023. In 2011 the Commission's biodiversity strategy aimed at halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020; its first target, on the nature directives, was to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats they cover and achieve a significant and measurable improvement.

The EU has no dedicated Natura 2000 fund: money comes from existing EU funds, chiefly rural development (EAFRD), regional and cohesion funds and LIFE, and from national budgets. A 2010 study for the Commission put the annual cost of managing the network at EUR 5.8 billion; the ECA reported that less than 20% of this was financed by the EU in 2007–2013, and that Member States in its survey reported EU expenditure on Natura 2000 of between EUR 400 million (2007) and EUR 2 billion (2013) a year. In April 2023 the Commission published an EU-wide assessment based on Member States' prioritised action frameworks (PAFs). It estimated 2014–2020 EU funding for Natura 2000 at EUR 23.8 billion, an average of EUR 3.4 billion a year (EAFRD EUR 16.3 billion, ERDF and Cohesion Fund EUR 4.6 billion, LIFE EUR 1 billion, EMFF EUR 0.4 billion, mainly Interreg EUR 1.3 billion, as EU shares), plus at least EUR 22.9 billion of co-funding and national money, and total actual funding of around EUR 46.7 billion, or EUR 6.7 billion a year. It called these minimum estimates, said part of the funding benefits the network only indirectly, and stated "a continuing gap" with 2021–2027 needs of about EUR 10 billion a year.

The 2023 assessment gave the best estimate of EU27 needs for 2021–2027 as EUR 10.1 billion a year (EUR 6.6 billion recurrent, EUR 3.5 billion annualised one-off); its upscaled table totals EUR 10,225.7 million and the Commission's web page states EUR 10.2 billion. Of this, EUR 4.8 billion is for maintaining and restoring the network, EUR 2.5 billion for green infrastructure beyond it, EUR 2.1 billion for horizontal and administrative measures and EUR 0.8 billion for species measures. For 23 Member States, needs rose 75% from EUR 4.9 billion (2010) to EUR 8.6 billion. The Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 states that at least EUR 20 billion a year should be unlocked for spending on nature. The EU budget's biodiversity ambition is 7.5% of annual spending in 2024 and 10% in 2026 and 2027; the Commission estimated it was on track for 8% in 2024 but only about 9% in 2026–2027. In 2020 the ECA found that the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity, which made up 66 billion of the 86 billion planned for biodiversity in 2014–2020, was unreliable.

The ECA's 2017 audit (24 sites in five Member States) concluded that the network had not been implemented to its full potential: Member States were not managing it sufficiently well, conservation measures were often delayed or inappropriately defined, the Member States visited did not adequately assess projects affecting sites, EU funds were not well mobilised, there was a lack of reliable information on costs and financing needs, and monitoring could not show the network's effectiveness. The EEA's 2020 State of nature report, covering 2013–2018, found 15% of habitat assessments in good conservation status and 81% poor (45%) or bad (36%); over a quarter of species (27%) were in good status. Among habitats with unfavourable status, 9% were improving and 36% deteriorating. A peer-reviewed study (Pellissier et al., 2020) found bird abundance increasing with Natura 2000 coverage in almost half of 155 species and for 27 of 104 butterfly species, but for most species these relationships were not evident once land cover was accounted for. Hermoso and colleagues (2018) wrote that funding covered only a fifth of the network's estimated cost.

Court rulings have addressed site protection. In Case C-441/17 the Court of Justice of the EU ruled on 17 April 2018 that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives at the Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site (63,147 ha), where Poland had authorised in 2016 almost a tripling of timber harvesting in the Białowieża district and in 2017 removal of trees on about 34,000 hectares to fight the spruce bark beetle. The Court found that the authorities had not carried out an appropriate assessment, that the operations "results in loss of a part of" the site and could not be conservation measures as Poland had argued, and upheld the Commission's action in its entirety; it had ordered interim measures on 20 November 2017.

  1. 1992Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) adopted on 21 May; Natura 2000 established under it and the Birds Directive
  2. 2007Puszcza Białowieska approved as a site of Community importance
  3. 2010Study for the Commission puts the annual cost of managing the network at EUR 5.8 billion
  4. 2011EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 sets the aim of halting biodiversity loss by 2020
  5. 2017ECA Special Report 1/2017: network not implemented to its full potential (adopted 11 January); Commission sues Poland over Białowieża (20 July); interim order (20 November)
  6. 2018Court of Justice rules against Poland in C-441/17 (17 April)
  7. 2020ECA finds CAP biodiversity tracking unreliable (19 May); EEA State of nature report (19 October); Pellissier et al. study published
  8. 2023Commission assesses 2021–2027 Natura 2000 needs at about EUR 10 billion a year and states a continuing funding gap (13 April); EEA: 10.5% of EU seas covered by end of year

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“the Natura 2000 network had not been implemented to its full potential”

“EU funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network.”

“There are clear indications that the Natura 2000 network is playing a major role in stabilising habitats and species with an unfavourable status”

“indicates a continuing gap between the 2014-2020 levels of funding and the 2021-2027 annual needs of approximately EUR 10 billion identified in the PAFs”

“15% of habitats have a good conservation status, with 81% having poor (45%) or bad (36%) conservation status at EU level.”

“the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity is unreliable”

“Consequently, the Court upholds the action brought by the Commission in its entirety.”

“when land-cover covariates were accounted for these positive relationships were not evident”

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Whether Natura 2000 is funded to its needs
Government and regulators
European Commission (SWD(2023) 99)

Actual 2014–2020 funding of around EUR 6.7 billion a year against 2021–2027 needs of about EUR 10 billion a year indicates a continuing gap, likely larger than shown.

European Commission
Government and regulators
European Court of Auditors (2017)

EU funds were not well mobilised; there was a lack of reliable information on costs and financing needs; less than 20% of the 2010 cost estimate was financed by the EU in 2007–2013.

European Court of Auditors
Researchers
Hermoso et al. (2018)

Funding was covering only a fifth of the estimated cost of the network.

Journal of Applied Ecology
Whether the network is improving the state of protected nature
Government and regulators
European Commission (2015, as quoted by the ECA)

Clear indications that the network plays a major role in stabilising habitats and species with an unfavourable status, but overall status had not changed significantly between 2007 and 2012.

European Court of Auditors
Government and regulators
European Environment Agency (2020)

15% of habitat assessments good and 81% poor or bad in 2013–2018; 36% of unfavourable habitats deteriorating against 9% improving.

European Environment Agency
Researchers
Pellissier et al. (2020)

Bird abundance increased with Natura 2000 coverage in almost half of 155 species, but for most species the relationship was not evident once land cover was accounted for.

Conservation Biology
Whether logging at Puszcza Białowieska was a conservation measure
Government and regulators
Government of Poland

The operations were needed to stop the spread of the spruce bark beetle and were conservation measures.

Court of Justice of the European Union
Courts
Court of Justice of the EU (C-441/17)

No appropriate assessment was carried out; the operations result in loss of a part of the site and cannot constitute conservation measures; Poland failed to fulfil its obligations.

Court of Justice of the European Union

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Natura 2000 described as playing "a major role in stabilising habitats and species with an unfavourable status".
    European Commission (2015), as quoted by the ECA · European Court of Auditors
  • Natura 2000 described as providing ecosystem services "worth around EUR €200–300 billion per year".
    European Commission, DG Environment · European Commission, DG Environment
  • Annual financing needs of the network stated as "€10.2 billion euro a year".
    European Commission, DG Environment · European Commission, DG Environment

Recorded

  • ECA (2017): less than 20% of the EUR 5.8 billion annual cost estimated in 2010 was financed by the EU in 2007–2013; lack of reliable information on costs and financing needs.
    European Court of Auditors
  • Commission (2023): actual 2014–2020 funding around EUR 46.7 billion (EUR 6.7 billion a year), half from the EU, against 2021–2027 needs of about EUR 10 billion a year; the gap is likely larger because some funding benefits the network only indirectly.
    European Commission
  • EEA (2020, period 2013–2018): 15% of habitat assessments good, 81% poor or bad; 9% of unfavourable habitats improving and 36% deteriorating.
    European Environment Agency
  • ECA (2020): the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity is unreliable.
    European Court of Auditors
  • Court of Justice (2018): forest management operations at Puszcza Białowieska result in loss of a part of the Natura 2000 site; Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives.
    Court of Justice of the European Union
  • Pellissier et al. (2020): positive relationships between Natura 2000 coverage and abundance for many birds and some butterflies, not evident for most species once land cover was accounted for.
    Conservation Biology

In nature's name

What was promised in nature's name, the money that moved, and what was measured.

Promised

  • “halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible” — European Commission, EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (May 2011), as quoted by the European Court of Auditors (2011) European Court of Auditors
  • “to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status” — European Commission, target 1 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, as quoted by the European Court of Auditors (2011) European Court of Auditors
  • “at least EUR 20 billion a year should be unlocked for spending on nature” — EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, as stated by the European Commission (2020) European Commission

Money moved in nature's name

WhatKindAmountPeriod
EU funding for Natura 2000 under EAFRD, ERDF/CF, LIFE, EMFF and other programmes, 2014–2020
European Union
European Commission		Spent€23.8bn estimate2014–2020
Co-funding and national programmes for Natura 2000, 2014–2020
EU Member States
European Commission		Spent€22.9bn estimate2014–2020
Total actual funding for Natura 2000, 2014–2020
European Union and Member States
European Commission		Spent€46.7bn estimate2014–2020
EAFRD funding for Natura 2000 (EU share), 2014–2020
European Union (rural development)
European Commission		Spent€16.3bn estimate2014–2020
ERDF and Cohesion Fund funding for Natura 2000 (EU share), 2014–2020
European Union (cohesion policy)
European Commission		Spent€4.6bn estimate2014–2020
LIFE funding for Natura 2000 (EU share), 2014–2020
European Union (LIFE)
European Commission		Spent€1bn estimate2014–2020
Interreg and other EU programmes for Natura 2000 (EU share), 2014–2020
European Union
European Commission		Spent€1.3bn estimate2014–2020
EMFF funding for Natura 2000 (EU share), 2014–2020
European Union (fisheries fund)
European Commission		Spent€400m estimate2014–2020
EU expenditure on Natura 2000 reported by Member States, 2007
European Union
European Court of Auditors		Spent€400m2007
EU expenditure on Natura 2000 reported by Member States, 2013
European Union
European Court of Auditors		Spent€2bn2013
Spending on nature to be unlocked under the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030
European Union (target)
European Commission		Pledged€20bnper year from 2021
EU budget planned for biodiversity, 2014–2020
European Union
European Court of Auditors		Budget€86bn2014–2020

What was measured

Measured below the promise

The 2020 promise was to halt the deterioration in the status of species and habitats covered by the directives. The EEA's 2013–2018 assessment, compiled from Member States' reports, found 81% of habitat assessments poor or bad and more unfavourable habitats deteriorating (36%) than improving (9%). An independent peer-reviewed study (Pellissier et al., 2020) found higher bird abundance with more Natura 2000 coverage for almost half of 155 species, but for most species not once land cover was accounted for. The Commission's statement that the network plays a major role in stabilising habitats is its own. The ECA found in 2017 that monitoring could not show the network's effectiveness.

Habitat assessments in good status
15% (2013–2018)
EEA; 81% poor or bad European Environment Agency
Unfavourable habitats improving vs deteriorating
9% vs 36%
EEA, 2013–2018 European Environment Agency
Bird species with abundance increasing with Natura 2000 coverage
Almost half of 155
Pellissier et al. 2020; not evident for most species once land cover accounted for Conservation Biology
Butterfly species with a positive relationship
27 of 104
Pellissier et al. 2020 Conservation Biology

Operation Ongoing · Network in place; Member States' prioritised action frameworks cover 2021–2027. European Commission

Findings on record

  • Court or regulator ruling Court of Justice of the European Union (2018-04-17) · Case C-441/17 Commission v Poland (press release 48/18): “implementation of the active forest management operations at issue results in loss of a part of the Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site” Court of Justice of the European Union
  • Official audit European Court of Auditors (2017-01-11) · Special Report No 1/2017: “EU funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network.” European Court of Auditors
  • Official audit European Court of Auditors (2020-05-19) · Special Report 13/2020: “the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity is unreliable” European Court of Auditors
  • Official audit European Environment Agency (2020-10-19) · EEA Report 10/2020, State of nature in the EU (2013–2018): “15% of habitats have a good conservation status, with 81% having poor (45%) or bad (36%) conservation status at EU level.” European Environment Agency
  • Peer-reviewed study Pellissier et al., Conservation Biology (2020-05-14) · doi:10.1111/cobi.13434: “when land-cover covariates were accounted for these positive relationships were not evident” Conservation Biology
  • Peer-reviewed study Hermoso, Villero, Clavero and Brotons, Journal of Applied Ecology (2018) · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13116: “currently only covering a fifth of the estimated cost of the network” Journal of Applied Ecology
  • Own admission European Commission (2023-04-13) · SWD(2023) 99 final: “indicates a continuing gap between the 2014-2020 levels of funding and the 2021-2027 annual needs of approximately EUR 10 billion identified in the PAFs” European Commission

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: EUR · Window: Mixed — see each line. Figures cover different periods and are not compared as a ratio. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • European Commission (2015; 13 April 2023): Stated in 2015 that there are clear indications the network plays a major role in stabilising habitats and species with an unfavourable status; in 2023 stated a continuing gap between funding and needs and that the gap is likely larger than its figures show. · European Commission
  • Government of Poland (2018): Argued before the Court of Justice that the Białowieża forest management operations were conservation measures needed to stop the spread of the spruce bark beetle; the Court rejected this. · Court of Justice of the European Union

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

  1. 2017–2018Claimant won
    Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest), Case C-441/17
    Court of Justice of the European Union · International court · European Commission → Republic of Poland

    Infringement action brought on 20 July 2017 over forest management operations authorised in 2016 and 2017 at the Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site. Interim measures ordered on 20 November 2017. On 17 April 2018 the Court declared that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives, finding no appropriate assessment and that the operations result in loss of a part of the site. Court of Justice of the European Union

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Habitat assessments in good conservation status, 2013–2018
15%
EEA; 81% poor (45%) or bad (36%)
Species assessments in good conservation status, 2013–2018
27%
EEA; up 4 points on 2007–2012
Unfavourable habitats improving / deteriorating
9% / 36%
EEA, 2013–2018
Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site
Loss of a part of the site
Court of Justice, C-441/17, 2018

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Court ruling existsOfficial audit findingPeer-reviewed findingOwn admission

Nature

  • Disputed Whether Natura 2000 is funded to its needs
  • Disputed Whether the network is improving the state of protected nature
  • Disputed Whether logging at Puszcza Białowieska was a conservation measure

Record

  • None on record None on record: EU-wide results of the 2019–2024 reporting cycle under the nature directives; the latest EU-wide status figures in the sources reviewed cover 2013–2018.
  • Insufficient Insufficient: the funding figures for Natura 2000 are minimum estimates. The Commission notes data gaps in the frameworks (Denmark missing; partial data for the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, Romania and some Italian and Spanish regions) and that part of the funding counted benefits the network only indirectly.
  • Disputed Disputed: EU funding available in 2007–2013 is given as EUR 400 million (2007) to EUR 2 billion (2013) a year in the ECA survey and EUR 550–1,150 million a year in a 2011 study cited by the Commission; the Commission's 2014–2020 estimate of EUR 3.4 billion a year is, in its words, much larger than previous estimates.
  • Unclear Unclear: annual financing needs for 2021–2027 are given as EUR 10.1 billion (SWD text), EUR 10,225.7 million (SWD upscaled table) and EUR 10.2 billion (Commission web page).
  • Not measured Not measured: the network's overall effect on the conservation status of species and habitats, separated from other factors; the ECA found in 2017 that monitoring was not adequate to show the network's effectiveness.

Did the harm stop?

The sources reviewed do not show harm stopped across the network: the EEA reported more deteriorating than improving unfavourable habitats in 2013–2018. At Białowieża the Court ordered interim measures in November 2017 and ruled against Poland in April 2018; the state of the site after the ruling is not in the sources reviewed.

Who paid?

EU funds (mainly EAFRD, ERDF and Cohesion Fund, LIFE, EMFF and Interreg) and Member States' budgets, about half each in 2014–2020 according to the Commission's estimate.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators✓ Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers

Government and regulators

  3. Financing Natura 2000
    European Commission, DG Environment ·
  4. Natura 2000
    European Commission, DG Environment ·
  6. Habitats and species: latest status and trends
    European Environment Agency · 2023-04-04
  7. Natura 2000 barometer dashboards
    European Environment Agency ·

Courts

Researchers

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Science and environment

Hectare (ha)
A unit of area equal to 10,000 square metres, about 2.5 acres. 100 hectares make one square kilometre.

Carbon and conservation finance

Standard-setter and registry
An organisation that writes the rules for carbon credits, approves projects, and records when credits are issued and retired. Such bodies typically charge fees per credit.
Similar cases
Protected area / relocation · Green subsidy or budget claim · Brazil · 2008–2026
Amazon Fund (Fundo Amazônia), managed by BNDES: donations, projects, the 2019–2022 freeze and the restart
Same type: Protected area / relocation, Green subsidy or budget claimSame regionCourt: won by claimant
Tanker / shipping · Green subsidy or budget claim · Protected area / relocation · Indonesia · 2010–2022
Norway–Indonesia REDD+ partnership: the 2010 Letter of Intent, payments made and Indonesia's 2021 termination
Same type: Green subsidy or budget claim, Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature disputed
Finance, funds and markets · Green subsidy or budget claim · Protected area / relocation · Brazil · 2011–2026
Bolsa Verde (Brazil): quarterly payments to families for forest conservation, 2011–2016 and the 2023 relaunch
Same type: Green subsidy or budget claim, Protected area / relocationHarm to nature disputed
Tree planting · Green subsidy or budget claim · Protected area / relocation · China · 1978–2026
China's Three-North Shelterbelt Programme ("Green Great Wall"), 1978 to 2050
Same type: Green subsidy or budget claim, Protected area / relocationHarm to nature disputed
Tree planting · Protected area / relocation · Green subsidy or budget claim · India · 2015–2026
India's National Mission for a Green India (Green India Mission), 2015 to 2026
Same type: Protected area / relocation, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature disputed