Respondents
The study author approached a significant number of donor agencies to participate in the study, starting with those that had previously participated in the 2021 report. The final result was a total of 61 donor respondents, 20 of which were new participants. Of the 61 respondents, 98 percent provided survey responses via the questionnaire (see Table 3). Data for donors who did not respond were collected from secondary sources as in the previous studies. See Appendix 2 for the mission statement of each participating donor and Appendices 3, 4, and 5 for a list of donors included in the previous studies.
Aggregate Conservation Funding by Recipient Country
From 2020-2022, Brazil received the largest amount of overall funding, representing 42 percent of total funding, followed by Peru and Colombia at 20 percent and 17 percent respectively – see Figure 2a. Over the current study period, Venezuela received just over US$1 million, representing less than 1 percent of total funding. These allocations do not correspond to the percentage of the Amazon housed in each country, as shown in Figure 2b. For example, Brazil contains more than 60 percent of the Amazon yet receives just over 40 percent. Bolivia has the third largest percentage of the Amazon within its country borders and receives 5 percent of total funding for the region. On the flip side, Peru receives 20 percent of resources directed to the Amazon despite housing 11.4 percent of the region, while Ecuador receives 7 percent and contains the smallest amount of the region at 1.6 percent.20
During the 2013-2022 period, Brazil consistently received the largest portion of funding of all the countries; however, funding for the country has decreased over the last two years falling below 2013 levels. The smallest portion of funding has been directed to Venezuela over the same period. Colombia experienced the greatest increase in funding of all the countries in the last decade, followed by Peru – both of which received higher grant distributions nearly year after year. Guyana received increased funding in 2019 through the country’s REDD+ Investment Fund, but funding decreased in the following years. For the remaining countries – Bolivia, Ecuador, and Suriname– funding levels have remained steady year after year during the 2013-2022 period – see Figure 3.
Donors
Over the most recent study period from 2020-2022, distributing yearly according to projects’ duration, US$1.88 billion were granted for conservation in the Amazon - see Figure 4. Of that amount, nearly 60 percent was given by just five donors. Norway, Germany, and the USA provided close to half of the overall funding in the region, at US$352.7 million, US$295.7 million, and US$167.7 million, respectively. The Bezos Earth Fund emerged as a new top funder during this study period with funding close to US$151.1 million, representing 8 percent of total funding. GEF financing21 accounted for 7.8 percent of all conservation funding at US$148.8 million.
Over the 2013-2022 period, the top 10 funders have stayed the same, being led by Norway and Germany. The GEF and GCF remain within this group, while the two private foundations which have given the largest amount of funding in the last decade are the GBMF and the Bezos Earth Fund – see Figure 5.
Re-grantors, organizations which receive funding from original sources and then sub-grant to other organizations, play a critical role in allocating funding on the ground. As noted previously, this study maintains the same methodology as prior studies, and tracks funding as close to the original source as possible. Therefore, data provided by re-grantors has been allocated to the original funder when possible. A specific analysis to consider these re-grantors shows the top five for the 2020-2022 period in Table 4 listed in alphabetical order. Some of these organizations had grantmaking budgets during the 2020-2022 period comparable to grant allocations of several of the top ten original source funders, demonstrating the sizable amounts of funding they manage to subsequently sub-grant.
Funding by Type of Donor Agency
A breakdown of donor contributions by type of donor confirms the continued significance of bilateral donors as well as the emergence of private foundations as an increasingly important source of conservation funding as shown in Figure 6. For the 2020-2022 period, bilateral institutions’ contributions accounted for 53 percent of total distributions, while private foundations made up 25 percent, multilateral institutions 18 percent, and international NGOs 4 percent.
Even though bilateral institutions have remained the largest category of donors over the last decade, their funding levels have gradually decreased in comparison to other types of funders over the last several years – see Figure 7. This is most likely the result of the freezing of the Amazon Fund, which caused contributions from Norway and Germany to halt. The largest increase in funding by type of donor is for private foundations demonstrating a nearly four-fold growth in average yearly donations during the last 10 years. The increase in private foundation support is largely due to the arrival of the Bezos Earth Fund, which contributed over US$150 million from 2021-2022. The share of support from multilateral institutions has also increased in comparison to other funder types over the last decade although the last two years have seen a drop in multilateral funding. International NGOs have maintained consistent average yearly donations during the previous 10 years.
Funding by Type of Grantee
A breakdown of donor contributions by type of primary grantee demonstrates that national governments received the largest proportion of funding at 30 percent during the current study period as shown in Figure 8, followed by international NGOs at 28 percent, and national NGOs at 15 percent. Subnational governments, academic institutions, and research institutions22 together received only 3 percent of conservation and management funding, and Indigenous entities, a new category added for this study, received less than 1 percent directly. These last four categories are most likely recipients of re-granting funds, especially Indigenous entities.
The destination of funding by primary grantee has changed significantly since 2013. National governments received nearly half of all funding prior to the current study period and then experienced a drop in funding in the last few years – see Figure 9. This coincides with the decrease in bilateral and multilateral funding over the last couple of years as these donors direct the majority of their funding to national governments (35 percent and 80 percent, respectively). Funding to international NGOs has grown substantially in the last decade since many private foundations – such as the Bezos Earth Fund -, and NGOs themselves (with funds raised from individuals, private sector, etc.) are opting to transfer their resources to large international NGOs, which then sub-grant to other types of recipients in Amazon countries. National NGOs have also received increased funding over the last ten years.
Allocations across Conservation and Sustainable Management Strategies
Previous studies have shown how donors’ primary conservation and sustainable management strategies have changed over time. During the first study period (2007- 2012), donors focused on legislation, policies, and law enforcement/compliance, which then shifted to protected area creation, management, and finance during the second period of analysis (2013-2015) and then to REDD+ programs and policies, protected areas creation/management, and integrated landscapes and land use planning during the third study period (2016-2019). This fourth study period (2020-2022) shows a continued donor focus on REDD+ programs and policies as well as protected areas creation/management, and increased focus on Indigenous Peoples and Lands - see Figure 10. Since bilateral and multilateral investments often involve large amounts of money geared toward one overall strategy, these institutions tend to drive what the top strategies are, as demonstrated by the case of the Amazon Fund, which receives funding from Norway and Germany who tag this funding to REDD+ programs and policies.23
Although REDD+ programs and policies have received the largest portion of funding over the years, that percentage has declined in the last three years as shown in Figure 11. This is most likely due to the pause in funding to the Amazon Fund, a REDD+ mechanism. The percentage of funding for protected areas creation and management has stayed consistent in the last decade, whereas the proportion of funding for Indigenous Peoples and Lands has increased in recent years.
