Anchoring our natural and cultural heritage within debt conversions for nature

Sovereign debt concerns moved back to the forefront of global policy discussions at the 2026 World Bank Spring Meetings, against a backdrop of heightened macroeconomic volatility. The 2025 World Bank Debt Score Card identified 58 countries at high risk of or in debt distress, 2025 saw a 23% decline in foreign aid – the largest annual contraction on record, and UN Agencies face significant budget reductions.  

Together, these trends underscore the need to scale innovative financing mechanisms, including sovereign debt conversions with nature components and outcome-based financial instruments that can be structured and managed by the World Bank and other multilateral development banks. Meanwhile, the 2025 IUCN World Heritage Outlook shows how 15% of natural World Heritage sites are highly at risk from a lack of sustainable financing. 

Recent experience demonstrates the feasibility of such approaches, as highlighted at a panel convened by Duke University during DC Climate Week which discussed practical next steps for scaling sovereign biodiversity and adaptation finance and delivering measurable outcomes. 

Since 2016, several debt-for-nature swaps and outcome-linked bonds have delivered measurable conservation and fiscal benefits, including:  

• 2016: Seychelles was able to restructure its debt in exchange for redirecting investments to marine conservation, including an endowment fund that is capitalised with 150,000 USD over 20 years to support conservation priorities such as Aldabra Atoll, a World Heritage site. 

• 2021: Belize’s national debt was reduced by 12% of its GDP and the savings from refinancing will generate about 180 million USD over 20 years, including for the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System, a World Heritage site. 

• 2023: Ecuador’s debt was reduced by nearly 1 billion USD while a new endowment fund will provide about 12 million USD annually in perpetuity for the conservation of the Galapagos Islands, a World Heritage site. 

IUCN Members such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) have played a critical role in structuring and enabling these transactions. IUCN, as official advisor for natural World Heritage also contributes by supporting countries and MDBs in defining credible, science-based key performance indicators that underpin outcome-based payments and strengthen investor confidence.  

In Belize, for example, the IUCN Green List is supporting improvements in marine protected area management effectiveness, with technical support from IUCN to prioritize mangrove reserves requiring increased protection. The IUCN Green List standard is currently also informing the design of Indonesia’s Coral Bond.  

Looking ahead, the existing examples of sovereign debt conversions and their positive impacts for World Heritage sites present a compelling opportunity to further scale debt conversions for nature and thematic or outcome-based bonds.  

First, the World Heritage Convention is with 196 States Parties one of the most universally ratified treaties which already provides a framework to grant assistance in the form of low-interest or interest-free loans (Art. 22). Both ODA-eligible countries and MDB shareholder countries have already committed to conserve World Heritage sites “to the utmost of its own resources”, providing a stable normative and political foundation for blended and concessional finance.   

Second, all but 26 countries host one or more World Heritage sites, including most of the 58 countries currently at high risk of or in debt distress. These sites encompass cultural monuments and natural parks that deliver crucial ecosystem services, support climate resilience, and generate substantial economic value, including from tourism. 

Third, financing needs at World Heritage sites are inherently actionable. Compared to broader priorities set out in NDCs or NBSAPs, detailed place-based conservation priorities for World Heritage sites have already been developed through UNESCO, IUCN, and national authorities, enabling rapid deployment and verification of outcomes in support of the implementation of NDCs and NBSAPs.  

Fourth, World Heritage governance aligns well with the “whole of government” approach increasingly promoted by the GEF. Responsibility for World Heritage typically spans multiple ministries—including environment, culture, education, finance, tourism, and foreign affairs—often coordinated through interministerial mechanisms. This creates a natural entry point for integrated policy and financing solutions. 

Fifth, most World Heritage properties generate significant benefits, including beyond site boundaries. These include ecosystem services at landscape and seascape level, livelihoods and job creation, climate mitigation and adaptation benefits, and tourism revenues that contribute to fiscal sustainability when effectively managed.  

Finally, World Heritage offers a unique platform for outcome‑based finance with robust monitoring and accountability. KPIs could be tracked through the existing oversight mechanisms coordinated by UNESCO, drawing on IUCN’s independent scientific evaluations through standardized monitoring and reporting processes.  

Payment‑triggering outcomes could include, for example:  

By building on standardized global processes, independent scientific oversight, and internationally recognized assets, World Heritage‑based debt conversions could provide MDBs, donors, and investors with a scalable, credible, and results‑oriented pathway to address debt vulnerabilities while delivering global environmental benefits.