English - Convention on Biological Diversity

Currently, the Ministry dealing with Plan Implementation collates the annual plans and budgets proposals sent by theplanning cells in line ministries. The Department of National Planning and the budget division of the Treasury have thepower to veto and determine the actual allocation of funds to the various agencies. Part of the problems of obtainingadequate budgetary allocation is inadequate institutional capacity for negotiation and preparation of strong projectproposals and realistic budgets during the annual national budget allocation process.The Forest Department depends on external funding for 60-70% of their programmes, but could become considerablyindependent if at least funds from timber supplied to the State Timber Corporation are channelled back to theDepartment. In contrast 50% of funds gained by the Department of Wildlife Conservation from the National Parks isreleased back to the Wildlife Preservation Fund (WPF) since 2002. Given the paucity of national funding available forbiodiversity conservation and management, some conservation agencies lack capacity to access external funding foraction needed for biodiversity conservation, and some lack capacity to maximise the funds provided. This has a spin-offeffect as poor performance reduces further chances to secure donor funding, and necessitates repeatedly seeking morefunds to achieve the same long-term conservation goals.2.4.2 External fundingDue to limitations in national funding, state agencies dealing with biodiversity conservation consequently dependheavily on external project funding, but these activities tend to come to an abrupt halt after the projects cease due tolack of institutional funding from the national budget, and are not generally sustained in the long-term. A review ofnational and donor funding for biodiversity conservation carried out in 1995 showed that 92% of funds for biodiversityconservation funding from 1991-1994 were from external sources. Of the balance 8% from in-country sources, 99.6%was government funding. At the time, much of the external donor funding (62.3%) was from 12 bilateral donors, thatalso funded a majority of the projects. Great Britain was the main donor followed by USA (Dela, 1995). At present, thegovernment contribution has increased, and while all major projects depend on external donor funding, the maindonors are multilateral donors with GEF funds accounting for much of the projects.Financial Allocation for Focal Areas160140120100806040200Biodiversity Climate change POPs Multi-focalGEFCo-financing0%41%15%BiodiversityClimate changePOPsMulti-focal44%Figure 2.3: Total GEF allocation per Focal Area for Sri Lanka in US $million (1992-06) showing allocation for biodiversity conservationFigure 2.4 : Percentage of the GEF allocation for Sri Lanka per FocalArea in US $ million (1992-2006) showing % allocation for biodiversityconservationSource: National GEF Strategy for Sri Lanka, MoENR, 2006Fourth National Report to the CBD: Sri Lanka 52