Latin America is, by necessity and identity, an oceanic and coastal region. Its marine–coastal ecosystems sustain livelihoods, protect infrastructure and communities from storms and erosion, and contribute to climate resilience. Yet these ecosystems continue to face increasing pressures—such as overfishing and illegal fishing, pollution, port expansion, and unplanned tourism—and, above all, a persistent gap between commitments and implementation capacity. Climate change, global in scale but with local effects, is one of the greatest threats to marine–coastal ecosystems, affecting critical habitats, driving biodiversity loss, and reducing the ability of ecosystems to provide essential services for food security, climate stability, ocean-based value chains, and the cultural development of coastal communities.
This gap becomes critical when viewed against the 2030 Agenda. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for at least 30% of terrestrial areas, inland waters, and marine–coastal zones to be effectively conserved and managed by 2030, with connectivity and equitable governance (the 30×30 target). At the same time, countries’ NDCs and NBSAPs are raising the bar: declarations are no longer enough—implementation and demonstrated results are required.
In this context, the IUCN Green List Standard is not a “decorative label.” It is a technical framework that strengthens the quality of protected and conserved areas through criteria on good governance, sound planning and design, effective management, and conservation outcomes. From a financial perspective, this matters because blue finance—public, private, and blended—is moving toward investments that carry lower risk, greater traceability, and stronger credibility in delivering results.
1) The real problem: not just “lack of money,” but lack of conditions to mobilize it
Across many countries, diagnostics and priorities are clear for ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, and coastal wetlands. Yet these priorities rarely translate into coherent strategies, financial instruments, or investment-ready pipelines. Three bottlenecks recur across the region:
• Financing gaps and dependence on public budgets: marine–coastal priorities tend to be underfunded; private capital is not yet mobilized at scale.
• Fragmented governance and misaligned incentives: dispersed mandates (environment, fisheries, finance, transport, tourism, planning), harmful subsidies, and incomplete regulatory frameworks hinder sustainable investments (including blue carbon, where applicable).
• Low “bankability” of proposals: ideas and projects abound, but robust investment packages—with safeguards, clear governance, MRV, and appropriate risk–return structures—remain scarce.
In short: financing demand exists, but the supply of investable opportunities remains limited. Recognizing nature-related risks and dependencies in productive sectors is essential; prosperous economies depend on healthy ecosystems and well-managed conservation areas. Ideas and projects must mature toward financial sustainability through blended finance and technical assistance, closing gaps to meet quality standards and managing financial risks to access capital.
2) Where the Green List fits: an “enabler” to reduce risk and build confidence
Blue finance increasingly requires verifiable signals of management capacity and governance quality. The Green List provides a clear and comparable architecture: 4 components, 17 criteria, and over 50 indicators defining what “success” in conservation and management looks like.
a) Verifiable governance (institutional risk)
The Green List requires evidence of legitimacy, transparency, participation, and responsiveness, helping reduce institutional risks and sustain policy continuity over time.
b) Effective management (operational risk)
The standard emphasizes planning, monitoring, threat management, and evaluation of outcomes, reducing the probability of operational failures—especially relevant in marine–coastal interventions with high transaction and monitoring costs.
c) Demonstrable outcomes (performance risk)
By requiring demonstrated conservation results and associated benefits, the Green List strengthens impact narratives and supports future financing efforts.
3) The Green List and the evolving financial conversation: traceability, MRV, TNFD and TCFD
The financial sector is rapidly integrating nature-related considerations into decision-making. The TNFD encourages organizations to assess, disclose, and act on their dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities related to nature, aligned with pillars on governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics/targets. TCFD focuses on climate-related risks and opportunities.
This increases the demand for:
• Consistent data
• MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification)
• Evidence that conservation is being managed effectively and equitably
By structuring governance, planning, management, and results, the Green List can serve as a bridge between conservation language and financial risk language, enabling territories and agencies to engage financiers with more clarity and credibility.
4) A concrete opportunity to deliver 30×30, NDCs and NBSAPs (beyond “coverage”)
The 30×30 target emphasizes effectiveness and equitable governance—not just hectares. Latin America has advanced in coverage, but quality of management and governance remains the central challenge.
The Green List can add value in three ways:
• Improving performance of protected areas and OECMs (quality/effectiveness), aligning management with NBSAP goals.
• Strengthening credibility for climate and biodiversity finance by reducing risk and demonstrating sustained results.
• Structuring portfolios and investments, prioritizing sites with enabling conditions and supporting a more robust, investment-ready pipeline.
5) Examples from South America
• Colombia: Green List sites such as Gorgona and Malpelo reinforce a message of strong management standards in high-biodiversity areas, supporting dialogue with cooperation agencies and development banks.
• Ecuador: the Galápagos National Park has begun its Green List pathway, signaling a commitment to international management standards in an iconic marine–coastal landscape.
Latin America does not suffer from a lack of ambition, but from a lack of investable implementation: enabling frameworks, operational governance, MRV, and investment-ready pipelines. In this context, the Green List can be a strategic enabler: raising quality, reducing risk, and translating marine–coastal priorities into more credible conversations with financiers, contributing to 30×30, NDCs, and NBSAPs with a focus on effectiveness.