The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Group recently published its Natural Capital and Biodiversity Mainstreaming Action Plan. The plan outlines objectives and actions to integrate biodiversity into the Bank’s strategies and projects while supporting LAC countries in embedding the protection of biodiversity into their public policies. This action plan is an important step for the IDB, providing a more coherent framework to consolidate biodiversity mainstreaming efforts. It covers a two-year period (2024-2025) and the IDB has stated that it will ultimately be aligned with the bank’s Climate Change Action Plan, both set to undergo simultaneous reviews before 2026. Additionally, it sets a positive precedent for other multilateral development banks (MDBs), as the IDB was the first MDB to develop a dedicated Biodiversity Action Plan, based on the Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks: Nature, People and Planet.
However, IDB’s new Action Plan risks falling short of expectations due to its limited ambition, conceptual vagueness, and absence of actionable steps and measurable milestones. The IDB Working Group, a group of multiple organizations from the region and internationally who have been focusing on advocacy for improvements at the IDB, developed a report outlining concerns and recommendations for the IDB’s approach for the Bank to consider as they develop a new iteration of the plan.
Some of the main concerns are:
- Poor stakeholder engagement: Although the action plan mentions the critical importance of public participation in the conservation and sustainable management of nature, in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the document was developed without engaging CSOs, communities, or Indigenous communities in a meaningful way.
- Lack of Ambition: The IDB has limited aspirations in its plan, committing only to a vague “increase” in the volume of projects without setting any numeric goals or milestones for biodiversity-dedicated projects and co-benefits. The Action Plan also pledges that the Biodiversity Cluster will assist project designers in four projects per year, a number which seems too low given the vast volume of the IDB’s portfolio.
- No clarity on biodiversity approach: The IDB has yet to define central technical elements, such as the concept of “Nature Positive” and how it plans to operationalize the plan to adopt concrete measures to mainstream biodiversity across the bank’s sectors, subregional initiatives, and projects. This process should leverage lessons from past operations, including project evaluations and MICI complaints. The IDB also still needs to clarify how it plans to operationalize the inclusion of sustainability indicators into the Country Strategies and Country Development Challenges. Meanwhile, IDB should not only assess the positive impacts on biodiversity, but also assess the harm caused by its projects.
- Flawed approach to biodiversity: The approach of Natural Capital adopted by the Action Plan is based on the idea that nature is a resource that can be used as a means to generate economic development. However, we believe that nature is not a capital stock to be exploited or depleted. Instead, we propose that the IDB return to the previous approach of ecosystem functions and services, which refers to the integrity of the ecosystems and the benefits they provide to our society.
Based on those concerns, the IDB Working Group developed the following recommendations:
- Allow for public participation: Conduct a robust stakeholder consultation process in the formulation of the new version of the Action Plan (2026 - 2030), confirming the participation of affected communities, civil society, and other relevant actors.
- Increase the ambition: Given the high valuation of nature in the LAC region, the IDB needs to set ambitious yet achievable goals to promote nature conservation and protect ecosystem services. This should include special consideration of marginalized communities and Indigenous Peoples. The IDB needs to allocate resources to the Biodiversity Cluster and set indicators for monitoring progress.
- Integrate knowledge on biodiversity: Biodiversity knowledge should be shared across the bank’s sectors, initiatives, and projects, including sub-regional initiatives, leveraging lessons from past experiences to optimize policy and project formulation. It is essential to incorporate biodiversity management considerations throughout the entire project cycle — from selection, design, and implementation to monitoring, evaluation, and information generation for continuous learning.
- Align with Global Biodiversity Framework and MDBs principles for biodiversity conservation: The IDB should use an approach of biodiversity conservation in line with the Global Biodiversity Framework and promote standardized methods for nature valuation. There should be a robust definition of “Nature Positive” in order to assess and report on its biodiversity-centered contributions and biodiversity co-benefits. This approach should also be developed through a collaborative process with stakeholders.
As the IDB plans to review the biodiversity action plan this year, ahead of its new iteration in 2026 - 2030, it is important that they consider these recommendations and enable public participation of civil society and other key stakeholders.