Selomane, OdirilweFourie, MichelleArchibald, SallyPereira, LauraSitas, NadiaZoeller, Kim2025-11-252025-11-252025-06Selomane, O., Fourie, M., Archibald, S. et al. 2025, 'Public finance allocation does not reflect biodiversity priorities', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 74, art. 101524, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101524.1877-3435 (print)1877-3443 (online)10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101524http://hdl.handle.net/2263/105488Closing the biodiversity finance gap requires increasing funding for nature-positive activities and making nature-negative activities less viable. This would reduce the need for expenditure on conservation and protection from the outset, especially for restoration efforts after the fact. Current financial flows to nature-positive activities are undermined by the considerably larger amount of funds flowing to nature-eroding activities. We used publicly available datasets to assess the allocation of public funds between nature-positive and nature-negative sectors, looking at both within-country and beyond-border spending. On average, high-income countries have the lowest gap between nature-negative and nature-positive expenditure, with lower middle- and low-income countries having the widest gap. However, high-income countries performed just as poorly when sending funds overseas as aid. The implication here is that prioritising sustainability only up to the national level will likely have a net negative outcome for global sustainability.en© 2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.BiodiversityFundingConservationPublicArticle