Annex C. Sector classifications

In the CRS, data on the sector of outflows’ destination are recorded using purpose codes (OECD, n.d.[1]), reflecting the specific area of the recipient’s economic or social structure that the transfer is intended to foster. Some contributions are not susceptible to allocation by sector and are reported as non-sector allocable aid. For this analysis, as seen in Table C.1, some purpose codes were reclassified into sector areas, seeking to depict activities captured through purpose codes within sector areas that are related by descriptions or functions.

Additional methodologies for tracking ODF spending and activities that are related to biodiversity are included in this report, namely to identify whether activities support marine or terrestrial biodiversity; Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) and Ecosystem-based Mitigation (EbM); Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT); capacity development; and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). The following sub-sections provide details on the approaches used.

To assess the financial flows targeting marine and terrestrial biodiversity, the SDGs 14 (marine) and 15 (terrestrial) tags could be used. However, reporting on these was only introduced in 2019 for 2018 flows. In this report, for bilateral donors a more granular approach is applied, based on data tracked through the Biodiversity Marker and SDGs 14 and 15 tags:

  • First, a number of purpose codes found in the “Indicative Table for the Rio Marker for Biodiversity” (OECD, 2019[2]) can be directly identified as being marine or terrestrial related and, as such, are assigned to one of the two categories (see Table C.1 for the list of purpose codes).

  • Second, for other purpose codes that cannot be directly assigned to marine or terrestrial categories, a keyword search is applied to the remaining eligible purpose codes corresponding to the “Indicative Table for the Rio Marker for Biodiversity”. A complete list of biodiversity-related keywords can be found in Table C.2. This search will help assign activities to either marine or terrestrial categories. In some cases, activities may concern both categories – a third category reflects such cases. When activities cannot be assigned through this method, a manual review is applied.

  • Lastly, once filters are applied, all projects were assessed to verify their positive contribution to biodiversity (e.g. do no harm to biodiversity).

The recent definition adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly allows for the operationalisation of the concept through the CRS (UNEP, 2022[5]). The definition refers to “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits, and recognises that NbS: (…) effectively and efficiently address major social, economic and environmental challenges, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, land degradation, desertification, food security, disaster risks, urban development, water availability, poverty eradication, inequality and unemployment, as well as social development, sustainable economic development, human health and a broad range of ecosystem services” (UNEP, 2022[5]). The concept of NbS is a broader term generally used for Ecosystem-based Approaches – and often used interchangeably. However, there is no globally agreed definition on what constitutes ecosystem-based approaches. For the purpose of this analysis, the umbrella concept for ecosystem approaches put forward by the CBD is retained (Lo, 2016[6]), i.e. a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Although this concept is broader, for the purpose of this report, the definition seeks to be operationalised mainly for the following subsets:

  • Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), according to CBD (SCBD, 2009[7]) refers to the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in an overall adaptation strategy – including the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR), in turn, is the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to reduce disaster risk, with the aim of achieving sustainable and resilient development (Estrella and Saalismaa, 2013[8]). As stated in (CBD, 2018[9]), while EbA and Eco-DRR are conceptually similar and overlap, the former largely addresses climate hazards and impacts, the latter addresses extreme weather events (such as tropical cyclones, floods and droughts), it also tackles events that are not necessarily linked to the effect of climate variations (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis). Yet, in practice, EbA and Eco-DRR are difficult to distinguish, and here will be identified through the combined use of the climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and biodiversity markers.

  • Ecosystem based-mitigation (EbM), according to UNEP-WCMC (Doswald and Osti, 2011[10]), refers to the use of ecosystems for their carbon storage and sequestration service to aid climate change mitigation. Emissions reductions are achieved through the protection, restoration and management of ecosystems (e.g. forest restoration, agroforestry).

These definitions were used to select purpose codes, as can be seen in Table C.3, and will be used to identify EbA and EbM for bilateral donors. The analysis will be applied to activities identified with the biodiversity Rio Marker, cross-checking with the climate change adaptation marker to delineate EbA, the DRR marker to delineate Eco-DRR, and the climate change mitigation marker for EbM.

Activities targeting SDGs 15.7 and 15.c for 2018-20 flows were used to identify efforts to stop poaching and trafficking of protected species, as well as the trading of wildlife products (UN, 2018[11]). In addition, illegal wildlife trade (IWT) was identified using a keyword search. These were selected based on a range of IWT-related definitions by (CBD, 2021[12]); (World Bank, 2019[13]); (IUCN, 2022[14]); (Wright et al., 2016[15]); (BBOP, 2012[16]); and (CITES, n.d.[17]). The search was applied to DAC members, see Table C.4.

A methodology was developed to account for the amounts corresponding to biodiversity-related capacity development. As such, the analysis is based on activities tagged with the Biodiversity Marker, SDG 14 and SDG 15, and biodiversity-related purpose codes, which are classified in the CRS as sector budge support, technical assistance, technical co-operation and scholarships/training costs (co-operation modalities D01, D02 and E01). These activities are filtered for a number of purpose codes that contribute to developing biodiversity-related capacities in partner countries, as defined by the CBD’s Long-term Strategic Framework 2020 (CBD, 2020[18]). Accordingly, capacity development is the process whereby people, organisations and society as a whole, unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time, in order to achieve biodiversity results. Using this overarching definition, purpose codes were classified using the CBD’s levels of capacity, namely: enabling environment, organisational level, and individual level. A number of additional purpose codes were also retained, when the CRS purpose code definition pointed towards biodiversity-related capacity development (see Table C.5).

The methodology chosen to depict ODF targeting Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs) builds upon a keyword search based on a range of definitions provided by (IUCN, 2022[19]); (CBD, 2008[20]); (UN, 1982[21]); (BBOP, 2021[22]); (IFC, 2012[23]); (Corrigan and Hay-Edie, 2013[24]); and (Rainforest Foundation Norway, 2021[25]). These are applied to DAC members reporting on the Biodiversity Marker, SDGs 14 and 15 and the biodiversity-related purpose codes (see Table C.6).


[22] BBOP (2021), Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Glossary, (accessed on 19 April 2022).

[16] BBOP (2012), Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Glossary, (accessed on 20 April 2022).

[12] CBD (2021), Glossary for the first draft of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, (accessed on 20 April 2022).

[18] CBD (2020), Draft elements of the long-term strategic framework for capacity development to support implementation of the post 2020-global biodiversity framework, (accessed on 19 April 2022).

[9] CBD (2018), Voluntary Guidelines for the design and effective implementation of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction,

[20] CBD (2008), Biodiversity glossary, (accessed on 19 April 2022).

[17] CITES (n.d.), Wildlife Crime, (accessed on 20 April 2022).

[24] Corrigan, C. and T. Hay-Edie (2013), A toolkit to support conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities: building capacity and sharing knowledge for indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs), UNEP-WCMC,

[10] Doswald, N. and M. Osti (2011), Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation and mitigation – good practice examples and lessons learned in Europe, Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Federal Agency for Nature Conservation,

[8] Estrella, M. and N. Saalismaa (2013), Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR): An Overview, In: CBD (2018). Voluntary Guidelines for the design and effective.

[23] IFC (2012), IFC Sustainability Framework,

[19] IUCN (2022), Glossary of definitions, (accessed on 19 April 2022).

[14] IUCN (2022), IUCN glossary of definitions, (accessed on 20 April 2022).

[6] Lo, V. (2016), Synthesis report on experiences with ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

[2] OECD (2019), Indicative table for the Rio Marker for Biodiversity, (accessed on 25 April 2022).

[4] OECD (n.d.), Database on Policy Instruments for the Environment, (accessed on 29 April 2022).

[3] OECD (Forthcoming), Estimating official development assistance in support of the sustainable ocean economy.

[1] OECD (n.d.), Purpose Codes: sector classification,

[25] Rainforest Foundation Norway (2021), Falling short. Donor funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to secure tenure rights and manage forests in tropical countries (2011-2020),

[7] SCBD (2009), Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change,

[11] UN (2018), Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals, (accessed on 29 April 2022).

[21] UN (1982), Study of the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations, United Nations Economic and Social Council,

[5] UNEP (2022), “Nature-based Solutions for supporting sustainable development”, UNEP/EA.5/Res.5, (accessed on 24 April 2022).

[13] World Bank (2019), Illegal Logging, Fishing, and Wildlife Trade : The Costs and How to Combat it, World Bank,

[15] Wright, E. et al. (2016), Analysis of international funding to tackle illegal wildlife trade (English), World Bank Group,

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2023

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at