Investing in Sustainable Agriculture: What BIOFIN Reveals About Central India’s Efforts

Abstract

Globally, both natural and human-induced activities are accelerating biodiversity loss and land degradation, posing a significant threat to food security. Implementing sustainable biodiversity management in the agriculture sector provides a solution by enabling long-term food production, along with preserving environmental health. In this context, biodiversity finance emerges as a valuable tool to strengthen the agricultural sector and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the Indian context, Madhya Pradesh stands out for its agricultural relevance but faces challenges between productivity and conservation, posing significant challenges and a threat to the state’s long-term sustainability. This study applies to the Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) framework to assess government investments in sustainable agriculture and agricultural biodiversity conservation from 2016 to 2022. Of the INR 21,197.55 crore (~USD 2.46 billion) allocated, approximately INR 4202.03 crore (19.8%) (~USD 0.49 billion) directly supported biodiversity-related agricultural initiatives. While sustainability-focused schemes saw a sharp rise in investment from 26.4% to 87.55%, allocations for conservation awareness declined. No financing gap was identified for achieving targets under the Madhya Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2018–2030). The study proposes a BIOFIN aligned investment strategy emphasizing landscape-level management, payment for ecosystem services, and institutional coordination to ensure long-term agricultural sustainability.

1. Introduction

Agricultural production systems are increasingly impacted by natural calamities and anthropogenic pressures, posing significant risks to food security [1,2]. As the sector faces complex challenges and emerging opportunities for sustainable development, integrating biodiversity finance principles into agricultural investments becomes essential [3,4]. Such integration will be important for sustainable agriculture to ensure food security, enhance climate resilience, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and align with broader sustainability goals [4,5,6]. Sustainable agriculture requires a multidimensional framework encompassing innovative practices, inclusive policies, and advanced technologies to address food insecurity, promote environmental stewardship, and ensure the long-term viability of food systems [7,8,9].

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in synergy with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 2: Zero Hunger by 2030, emphasizes agriculture’s pivotal role in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development [9,10,11]. In response to persistent financing challenges, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) launched the Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) in 2012 to quantify biodiversity finance gaps and mainstream conservation into national development strategies and sectoral planning [11,12,13,14]. The BIOFIN brought together government and private organizations to create multiple funding options for protecting the environment, reducing disaster risks, and fighting climate change [15]. The BIOFIN is a framework that has four main elements that help countries improve how they fund for biodiversity conservation [10,16]. Among them (i) Policy and Institutional Review (PIR) looks at current laws, policies, and institutions to see how they support or limit biodiversity funding [16]. It helps identify areas for improvement and ways to better integrate biodiversity into national development plans [16]. (ii) Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER) analyses past and present spending—both public and private—on biodiversity. It tracks where money is going, how effectively its used, and uncovers hidden or indirect investments [16]. (iii) Finance Needs Assessment (FNA) estimates how much funding is needed to meet biodiversity goals [15,16]. It compares this with current budgets to highlight shortfalls and guide future resource planning. (iv) Biodiversity Finance Plan (BFP) combines insights from the above steps into a practical strategy [16]. It outlines how to raise new funds and use existing ones more efficiently to support biodiversity [15]. India also has legal commitments to Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABT), achieve the UN’s sustainable development goals, and strive to protect its biodiversity and genetic resources [17,18,19,20]. Madhya Pradesh, a state in central India with a rich diversity of indigenous crops [21], ranks first in the nation for the production of pulses (32% of nation’s output) and oilseeds (22%), and holds the second position in total food grain output (12%) [21]. Despite this high productivity, the agricultural sector’s emphasis on doubling farmers’ income [22] has posed significant risks (e.g., extinction of native crop varieties) to agricultural biodiversity [23]. Furthermore, slowly declining seed sovereignty of farmers may lead to the extinction of many endogenous cultivars, threatening agricultural biodiversity and food security [24]. While the BIOFIN framework has been implemented in over 40 countries globally, including 10 of the world’s 17 most biodiverse nations (Brazil, Indonesia, Colombia, China, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, India, and Ecuador), to address biodiversity finance gaps and mainstream conservation into national planning [10], its operationalization at subnational levels remains relatively underexplored. In India, the BIOFIN has been piloted in states like Uttarakhand and Punjab, where a State Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and Resource Mobilization Strategy were developed to align with national biodiversity goals [25,26,27]. BIOFIN India measured how much government social schemes like MGNREGA and RKVY invested in biodiversity conservation in the Dehradun district of Uttarakhand from 2018 to 2019 to help integrate biodiversity into policy decisions [27]. However, few studies have applied the BIOFIN methodology specifically to agricultural biodiversity at the state level [25,28]. This study addresses that gap by applying the BIOFIN methodology to Madhya Pradesh, a central Indian state distinguished by its rich agricultural biodiversity and leading agricultural output in pulses and oilseeds [29,30,31]. By mapping existing funding schemes, it identifies investment gaps and opportunities to strengthen support for sustainable agricultural practices in the state. The findings aim to demonstrate how targeted financial interventions may conserve indigenous crop varieties, promote sustainability, enhance food security, and improve rural livelihoods [30]. As Madhya Pradesh grapples with the challenges of modern agriculture, this research underscores the essential role of public sector biodiversity financing in cultivating resilient and ecologically sustainable farming systems. The relevance is heightened by the state’s ongoing implementation of agricultural schemes aimed at doubling farmers’ income while incorporating biodiversity conservation [30]. The Government of Madhya Pradesh has invested in the modernization of input use, reduction in production costs, yield enhancement, and income support, strategically designed to foster sustainable agricultural biodiversity [28,31]. These initiatives contribute toward achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABT), National Biodiversity Targets (NBT), and State Biodiversity Targets (SBT) [18,19,20]. The objectives of this study are (i) to examine the investment strategies of the state’s Ministry of Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Development, with a focus on aligning public sector financing with biodiversity conservation priorities, and (ii) comprehensive policy analysis of government schemes and programs, identifying their status, financing gaps, and resource needs within the Department of Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh, to support the conservation and sustainable enhancement of agricultural biodiversity in the state.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study took place in Madhya Pradesh, Central India (21°17′–26°52′ N, 74°08′–82°49′ E), which covers 308,000 km² (covering 9.38% of India’s 3.28 M km²) [32]. The state’s biodiversity spans ecosystems such as plateaus, ravines, ridges, valleys, and plains, divided into four lowland zones in the north and north-west of Gwalior, Malwa Plateau, Satpura, and Vindhya and ranges across 11 agro-ecological zones that support diverse crop cultivation.

2.2. BIOFIN Methodological Framework

In alignment with the BIOFIN guidelines presented in the 2018 workbook (BIOFIN Workbook 2018) [33], we adapted and customized the framework to suit the specific objectives of our study, following recommendations by Rachel et al. (2021) [34]. The key parameters defined include: (i) a clear articulation of ‘biodiversity expenditure’; (ii) classification of various biodiversity-related spending categories; (iii) inclusion of both direct and indirect costs relevant to biodiversity; and (iv) alignment of expenditures with national and international biodiversity targets. Utilizing the BIOFIN framework, we analyzed public sector investment mechanisms in the agricultural domain to evaluate conservation financing for agricultural biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh (Supplementary Materials). Our assessment followed the three core stages of the BIOFIN process: (i) Policy and Institutional Review (PIR); (ii) Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER); and (iii) Biodiversity Finance Needs Assessment (FNA), enabling us to identify financial gaps and formulate targeted financing strategies for agricultural biodiversity and sustainability (Figure 1). The schemes were aligned and mapped with five BIOFIN categories (BIOFIN Workbook 2018) [33] or thematic fields: (a) Conservation, where schemes supported core conservation issues); (b) Sustainability or Sustainable Use, where schemes supported sustaining crop varieties conservation efforts; (c) Education and Awareness, where schemes supported creating the awareness of sustainable agriculture practices and conservation of agriculture biodiversity; (d) Policy, where schemes supported the planning process; and (e) Access and Benefit Sharing, where schemes supported the promotion of benefit sharing after commercial utilization of biological resources.

(i) 

Policy and Institutional Review (PIR):

Schemes and programs were reviewed using budget documents, annual reports, official websites, detailed demand/grant records, and consultations with the Department of Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh, for the years 2016–2017 to 2021–2022, with biodiversity attribution. Biodiversity-relevant schemes were tracked across financial years using BIOFIN categories to assess their presence and continuity.

(ii) 

Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER):

The Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER) was undertaken to generate precise estimates of funding allocated for agricultural biodiversity conservation in Madhya Pradesh. Expenditure data were compiled from the Detailed Demand for Grant (DDG) documents and budget books of the Department of Farmers’ Welfare and Agricultural Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh, covering the period from 2016–2017 to 2021–2022 (Supplementary Materials). The review followed a fund flow tracking approach coupled with biodiversity attribution (e.g., % of funds directly advancing CBD objectives) analysis of identified schemes. Since not all expenditure under a given scheme directly contributes to biodiversity conservation, it was essential to determine the attributable share for each scheme. Using the BIOFIN methodology, we identified the ‘attributable share’ of expenditures linked to agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture. In consultation with the agriculture department experts, we mapped focus areas, targets, and scheme components to determine relevant budget allocations (Classification involved multidisciplinary expert review using CBD-aligned criteria). The approach involved analyzing biodiversity-related investments and classifying the budget using modified RIO Markers into ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ categories based on their contribution to biodiversity outcomes. Each scheme was classified into two categories, ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’, based on its contribution to biodiversity objectives. The ‘indirect’ category was further sub-classified into: Indirect Very High, Indirect High, Indirect Medium, Indirect Low, and Indirect Marginal (Schemes with incidental biodiversity co-benefits (e.g., large infrastructure projects), reflecting varying levels of relevance based on scheme mandates aligned with CBD goals (

Table 1. Attribution methodology for determining the percentage of identified schemes and programs related to the conservation of agricultural biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India.

Category	Biodiversity Attribution	% of Expenditure	Focus
Direct	Very High	100–90% (avg. 95%)	Main goal is biodiversity, aligned fully with CBD * objectives
Indirect: Very High	High	90–75% (avg. 82.5%)	Biodiversity is a main goal, with strong supportive objectives
Indirect: High	Medium	75–50% (avg. 62.5%)	Biodiversity is a significant but shared focus
Indirect: Medium	Moderate	50–25% (avg. 37.5%)	Balanced with non-biodiversity goals
Indirect: Low	Low	25–5% (avg. 15%)	Main focus elsewhere, but some biodiversity benefits
Indirect: Marginal	Very Low	5–0% (avg. 2.5%)	Minor biodiversity impacts, safeguarded in large non-biodiversity schemes

* Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) objectives: (i) the conservation of biological diversity, (ii) the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and (iii) the equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

). Scheme and program-specific guidelines were employed to ascertain direct or indirect biodiversity attribution. The actual expenditures incurred under each identified scheme were extracted from budget documents, and the biodiversity-attributed expenditure representing biodiversity finance was calculated accordingly.

(iii) 

Financial Need Assessment (FNA):

The Financial Need Assessment (FNA) was conducted as part of the Madhya Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (MPBSAP), 2018–2030 [35]. The FNA estimates were based on MPBSAP costed action plans for agricultural biodiversity (2018–2030) [35]. The biodiversity finance gap, calculated as the difference between the Financial Needs Assessment (FNA) and the Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER), was derived from available FNA data. This gap was evaluated across key sectors and schemes associated with achieving State Biodiversity Targets (SBTs). While the identified gap does not directly support the prioritization of planning activities, its magnitude, along with the biodiversity relevance of specific schemes and programs, provides critical insights for identifying appropriate financing solutions and developing the Biodiversity Finance Plan (BFP).

3. Results and Discussion

We observed a reduction in the total number of schemes from 44 to 37. A simple linear regression analysis (R² = 0.92; β₁ = −1.4) indicates an average annual decline of approximately 1.4 schemes. The R² values range from 0.85 to 0.95, indicating reliable trends. There is a shift toward higher attribution categories, suggesting improved targeting of prioritization in financing biodiversity-related schemes.

I. 

Policy and Institutional Review (PIR)

By the end of the financial year 2021–2022, a total of 37 agricultural sector schemes were identified in Madhya Pradesh under the BIOFIN categories: 16 focused on Conservation, 16 on Sustainability, and 5 on Education and Awareness. No schemes were recorded under the Policy or Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) categories during this period. Compared to 2016–2017, the number of Conservation schemes declined by 37.5%, and Sustainability schemes declined by 6.25%, while the Education and Awareness, Policy, and ABS categories showed no change. Overall, the total number of schemes decreased by 18.92% (

Table 2. Status of schemes for conservation of agriculture biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India, from 2016 to 2022.

Category	Schemes Available in 2016–2017	New Launched Schemes	Schemes Closed	Available Schemes in 2021–2022	% Change
Conservation	22	5	11	16	−37.50%
Sustainability	17	7	8	16	−6.25%
Education and Awareness	5	1	1	5	0%
Policy	0	0	0	0	0%
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)	0	0	0	0	0%
Total	44	13	20	37	−18.92%

). During this period, 11 major Conservation schemes were discontinued; however, several new initiatives were launched, including the Agroforestry Sub-Mission, Natural Farming Yojna, Millet Mission, State Agroforestry Yojna, and National Mission on Natural Farming. In the Sustainability category, all 16 schemes were purposefully assessed for their relevance to sustainable agriculture. Although eight of these schemes were closed, seven new ones were introduced: Sub-Mission on Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture Monitoring, Modelling and Networking; Sub-Mission on Farm Water Management; National Food Security Mission (Director, Agriculture); Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojna; Fertilizer Control Laboratory; Soil Health Working Plan; Establishment of Biogas and Gobar Gas Plants; Sub-Mission on Agriculture Extension (ATMA); and Sub-Mission on Seed and Planting Material. Based on biodiversity attribution levels, the 37 schemes were classified into direct and indirect categories. Indirectly attributed schemes accounted for 97.3% of the total, while directly attributed schemes contributed only 2.70%. Between 2016 and 2017 and 2021–2022, the number of schemes under Direct (100–90%), Indirect Very High (90–75%), Indirect High (75–50%), and Indirect Medium (50–25%) categories showed an upward trend. In contrast, schemes classified as Indirect Low (25–5%) and Indirect Marginal (5–0%) declined in number during the same period (

Table 3. The number of schemes with biodiversity attributed for conservation of agriculture biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India from 2016 to 2022.

Biodiversity Attribution	Conservation		Sustainable		Awareness		Policy		ABS		Total		Percentage of Total Schemes		Difference Changes
	2016–2017	2021–2022	2016–2017	2021–2022	2016–2017	2021–2022	2016–2017	2021–2022	2016–2017	2021–2022	2016–2017	2021–2022	2016–2017	2021–2022	From 2016–2017 to 2021–2022
Direct 100–90 (95%)	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2.27	2.70	+0.43
Indirect Very High 90–75 (82.5%)	2	3	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4	9.09	10.81	+1.72
Indirect High 75–50 (62.5%)	1	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	4	4.55	10.81	+6.27
Indirect Medium 50–25 (37.5%)	8	6	7	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	14	34.09	37.84	+3.75
Indirect Low 25–5 (15%)	6	1	3	5	3	2	0	0	0	0	12	8	27.27	21.62	−5.65
Indirect Marginal 5–0 (2.5%)	4	2	4	1	2	3	0	0	0	0	10	6	22.73	16.22	−6.51
Total	22	16	17	16	5	5	0	0	0	0	44	37	100	100

). The regression slopes were positive for the Direct, Very High, High, and Medium attribution categories, and negative for the Low and Marginal categories. This suggests an improvement in the targeting of biodiversity-related schemes. The increasing emphasis on higher attribution categories reflects enhanced prioritization in biodiversity financing, potentially aligning with evolving policy frameworks and ecological imperatives.

II. 

Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER)

The total biodiversity attributed expenditure increased from the year 2016–2017 to 2021–2022, and the attributed expenditure was highest in 2021–2022 (1025.37 INR crore or USD 0.12 billion), with the highest increase of 196.89% in 2019–2020 from the previous year 2018–2019 (

Table 4. Biodiversity Expenditure (BE) (INR crore) for conservation of agriculture biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India from 2016 to 2022.

Financial Year	BE (INR Crore)	% Change from Previous Year
2016–2017	337.2	1.62%
2017–2018	311.73	−7.55%
2018–2019	385.72	23.73%
2019–2020	1145.2	196.89%
2020–2021	996.85	−12.95%
2021–2022	1025.37	2.86%

). This was probably due to the introduction of new biodiversity-related programs or the expansion of existing ones. Additional schemes were probably included in the budget, perhaps from other departments or previous underestimations were adjusted. The drop in 2020–2021 by nearly 13% could be due to COVID-19, which likely forced funds to shift toward more urgent needs of public health and safety. It might also reflect a natural adjustment after the big increase the year before, or lower actual use of allocated funds. The small 2.86% rise in 2021–2022 suggests a slow and careful return to growth, focusing more on maintaining existing programs than expanding them. Limited funding probably continued to affect how much it could be allocated, even as ecological priorities remained important. Fluctuations in the Budget Estimates (BE) point to the absence of steady, long-term financial planning, making it harder to ensure lasting biodiversity outcomes. The sharp rise in 2019–2020 offers a valuable chance to assess how well schemes are functioning and whether available funds were effectively used, particularly under the BIOFIN categories. Comparing these estimates with actual spending (RE/AE) can reveal if such shifts reflect true implementation challenges or improved efficiency.

The investment for schemes of Sustainability in comparison to schemes of Conservation and Education and Awareness were found to be maximum and in an increasing trend (26.40 to 87.55%) during the period, whereas the schemes pertaining to Conservation and Education and Awareness categories showed a decreasing trend during the years (

Table 5. Biodiversity Expenditure (BE) (INR crore) in the BIOFIN category for conservation of agriculture biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India from 2016 to 2022.

Year.	Conservation (%)	Sustainable (%)	Awareness (%)	Total Expenditure (INR Crore)
2016–2017	247.34 (73.35%)	89.03 (26.40%)	0.83 (0.25%)	337.20
2017–2018	182.07 (58.41%)	128.59 (41.25%)	1.08 (0.34%)	311.73
2018–2019	202.53 (52.51%)	182.39 (47.29%)	0.80 (0.21%)	385.72
2019–2020	148.24 (12.94%)	996.23 (86.99%)	0.70 (0.06%)	1145.20
2020–2021	160.47 (16.10%)	835.68 (83.83%)	0.71 (0.07%)	996.85
2021–2022	126.98 (12.38%)	897.69 (87.55%)	0.70 (0.07%)	1025.37

). Before 2019–2020, funding was relatively balanced between Conservation and Sustainable Use efforts (Table 5). From 2019 to 2020 onward, however, Sustainable Use programs began to dominate, accounting for over 85% of total allocations. This shift likely reflects a significant policy or program realignment potentially involving the inclusion of broader rural or agricultural sustainability schemes under biodiversity financing frameworks. For example, the Natural Farming Scheme launched in the state directly incentivized farmers to reduce chemical inputs and adopt ecologically sound practices. This scheme not only aligned with the state’s biodiversity conservation objectives but also acted as a financial reallocation strategy, redirecting subsidies and public funds toward sustainable agriculture. When linked with the BIOFIN framework, such policy interventions represent a “realignment of public expenditure” (a key BIOFIN finance solution). Instead of introducing entirely new financial inflows, the government repurposed existing allocations toward biodiversity-positive practices. This linkage effect helps explain the sharp rise in sustainability-based investments, as the state began embedding biodiversity considerations into its agricultural, rural development, and climate adaptation programs. During the same period, Conservation funding declined sharply from 52.51% in 2018–2019 to just 12.38% by 2021–2022, both in proportion and actual amount. This pattern may indicate a strategic pivot toward landscape-level ecological restoration through sustainable use models, or a redirection of conservation-specific resources into multi-sectoral development programs. Education and Awareness initiatives remained persistently underfunded, receiving less than 0.5% of allocations each year. This points to minimal emphasis on community engagement and behavioral change, an often overlooked yet critical pillar of effective biodiversity conservation. Notably, there were no recorded allocations toward Policy or Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) throughout the entire period. This absence may suggest either limited mainstreaming of these areas or gaps in financial reporting related to governance and legal frameworks. The post-2019 funding pattern aligns with the BIOFINs emphasis on integrating biodiversity into broader development agendas; however, this approach may reduce the visibility and accountability of direct conservation outcomes. These evolving patterns are well suited for visualizations like stacked area charts or polar plots to highlight the redirection of funds over time. Overall, the data underscores the need to champion greater investment in awareness and policy mechanisms essential for shaping long-term behavioral and institutional shifts in biodiversity governance.

III. 

Financial Need Assessment

The Financial Need Assessment (FNA) was calculated using MPBSAP, which was used for the year 2019–2020 to 2021–2022 (MPBSAP, 2018–2030). Each year, actual biodiversity spending (BER) surpassed the estimated financial need (FNA), resulting in a positive funding gap (

Table 6. Financial Need Assessment (FNA) and Biodiversity Expenditure Review (BER) (INR in crore) for conservation of agriculture biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India from 2016 to 2022.

Financial Year	FNA (Need) (INR Crore)	BER (Actual Spending) (INR Crore)	Financial Gap (BER-FNA) (INR Crore)
2019–2020	740.34	1145.16	+404.82 Cr
2020–2021	810.92	996.85	+185.93 Cr
2021–2022	891.27	1025.37	+134.10 Cr

). This trend points to a promising level of biodiversity integration likely through bundled or co-benefit schemes that go beyond dedicated allocations; however, the size of the surplus has steadily declined from INR 404.82 crore in 2019–2020 to INR 134.10 crore by 2021–2022 (Table 6). This narrowing gap may indicate better alignment between projected needs and actual outlays, a nearing of optimal allocation levels, or a gradual slowing of biodiversity finance growth. The significant surplus in 2019–2020 likely corresponds to the exceptional budget spike noted earlier, potentially driven by large-scale rural or agricultural programs with biodiversity co-benefits. As the margin shrinks, it becomes increasingly important to assess whether this elevated spending is translating into tangible conservation outcomes, rather than administrative expansion or inefficient deployment.

IV. 

Gaps on Biodiversity Finance and Implementation

Despite the presence of surplus funds within the agriculture sectors, the conservation-focused schemes declined sharply, while indirect attribution dominated expenditures. The current portfolio of biodiversity-related schemes remains insufficient to comprehensively achieve Madhya Pradesh’s National Biodiversity Targets (NBTs) and State Biodiversity Targets (SBTs), as highlighted in

Table 7. Gaps found in the existing schemes and program for conservation of agriculture biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in Madhya Pradesh, India from 2016 to 2022.

Category	Issues and Gaps	Action
Conservation	Frequent budget restructuring continues to challenge consistent planning and implementation. There is a lack of targeted programs supporting organic farming and the management of native agricultural varieties. Conservation efforts remain fragmented, with no integrated initiatives for safeguarding landraces and wild relatives. Furthermore, preserving the natural habitats of region-specific traditional varieties alongside their documentation and geographical indexing across on-farm and off-farm landscapes requires urgent and coordinated action	The identified gaps underscore the importance of consistent funding and institutional continuity in conservation efforts. Leveraging biodiversity finance instruments such as attribution analysis can illuminate overlooked scheme components, guiding precise and impactful resource allocation.
Sustainable Use	Advance sustainable agricultural practices by introducing incentive-based programs that empower farmers to prevent land degradation and conserve indigenous crop varieties. Integrate climate change adaptation strategies within existing schemes to build resilience. Additionally, address the absence of reliable market linkages for traditional crops to ensure economic viability and encourage cultivation	Climate-sensitive schemes must align local vulnerabilities (e.g., soil degradation, climate) with targeted incentives that recognize and reward ecological stewardship. Strengthening financial linkages to support resilient, sustainable market ecosystems is pivotal for long-term impact.
Education and Awareness	Strengthen agricultural biodiversity through dedicated education and awareness initiatives that emphasize conservation-centric practices. Establish targeted programs focused on the effective management and eradication of invasive alien species to safeguard native agro ecosystems.	Empowering community-level education through engaging visuals, experiential learning in farmer field schools, and strategic digital outreach can significantly boost biodiversity awareness. Targeted infographics showcasing the impact of invasive species and promoting native crop alternatives offer a compelling medium for informed action.
Policy	Reform agricultural policies to actively encourage farmers to cultivate native and local crop varieties. Introduce regulatory frameworks that support the long-term conservation and sustainability of these indigenous resources. Further, establish provisions to recognize and designate Biodiversity Heritage Sites that safeguard region-specific agricultural diversity and traditional practices	Effective policy advocacy demands data-rich narratives that spotlight the ecological significance and cultural heritage of native crops. Supporting these insights with visual maps and transitions across related schemes can drive informed decision-making and bolster conservation initiatives
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)	Conduct systematic surveys and document agriculture-related traditional knowledge, ensuring its rigorous validation. Prioritize the protection of farmers’ rights and actively explore Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) opportunities within the agricultural sector to foster equitable and sustainable resource use.	To ensure effective implementation, ABS frameworks should be contextually tailored and linked to pilot initiatives that demonstrate equitable benefit-sharing. Utilizing stakeholder-centric visuals and simplified validation flowcharts can demystify legal processes and enhance comprehension across diverse audiences

. Many ongoing programs lack clear alignment with the Madhya Pradesh Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (MPBSAP 2018). This disconnect undermines the strategic use of existing financial resources, limiting their ecological effectiveness. Existing schemes often offer generic environmental support, but few provide targeted actions that directly address biodiversity conservation, such as native crop preservation, restoration of degraded habitats, or protection of traditional livestock breeds. While budgetary provisions exist, several schemes demonstrate low absorption rates due to weak implementation mechanisms, limited administrative capacity, and unclear beneficiary targeting. This results in unspent funds rather than tangible ecological outcomes. Scheme-level tracking of biodiversity impact is minimal. Without robust performance indicators or reporting frameworks, assessing progress toward NBTs and SBTs becomes difficult, impeding adaptive policy reform. The current landscape is overly reliant on direct government transfers. There is a need to diversify biodiversity finance through mechanisms like payment for ecosystem services (PES), green bonds, or blended finance models that can complement public expenditure. Programs rarely incorporate participatory planning with indigenous and local communities despite their role as frontline stewards of biodiversity. This results in poor localization and limits the cultural sustainability of the schemes. To ensure long-term ecological impact, it is essential to not only design new schemes that are responsive to biodiversity goals but also to enhance the absorption capacity and strategic coherence of existing initiatives. Strengthening governance, transparency, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms will be critical moving forward. The study underscores the need for better alignment of financial resources with biodiversity priorities rather than merely increasing allocations.

V. 

Specific Gaps in Existing Schemes and Programs

a. 

Inadequate attribution despite allocations

Schemes like Green Agriculture, Natural Farming Yojna, and Millet Mission maintain consistent funding but minimal biodiversity attribution. Despite the state’s rich agricultural biodiversity (e.g., indigenous millets and pulses), few initiatives actively promote or conserve native varieties.

b. 

Erratic conservation scheme support

Post-2019–2020, conservation-focused programs (e.g., Balram Talab Yojna, Annapurna Yojna) show declining or discontinued funding. In situ and ex situ conservation of traditional germplasm and livestock breeds remain largely overlooked.

c. 

Climate adaptation schemes: relevant but dormant

Schemes like the Sub-Mission on Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture Monitoring display zero biodiversity attribution, despite inherent links to climate resilience. Adoption of climate-smart tools (e.g., Happy Seeder) is constrained by costs, low awareness, and implementation challenges.

d. 

Organic and agroecological programs underleveraged

The promotion of Organic Farming and the National Mission on Natural Farming show negligible attribution, indicating limited policy traction and farmer uptake. Livestock development and agroforestry programs remain underfunded or inactive, despite their role in resilient food systems.

e. 

Governance and Participation Gaps

Most schemes lack performance tracking, hindering impact assessment and course correction. Participatory planning with indigenous communities is rarely institutionalized, creating a disconnect between conservation goals and actual fund flows.

4. Conclusions

This study examines how biodiversity finance supports sustainable agriculture and conservation in Madhya Pradesh, India. From 2016 to 2022, the state allocated INR 21,197.55 crore (USD 2.46 billion). This allocation was nearly four times greater than the INR 5159.88 crore (USD 0.73 billion) invested in livestock conservation and sustainable production within the state [36]. These investments support national and global sustainable goals (i.e., SDGs 2 and 15); however, there is not much clear evidence showing real improvements in biodiversity. This highlights the need for strong systems to monitor biodiversity results along with financial spending for long-term impact assessments suggested the evaluation of genetic diversity indicators against expenditure trends. There is the need to link funding with ecological data and flexible financial plans that can adjust as conservation needs and knowledge generation change. This research identifies funding gaps and underscores the need for comprehensive financial strategies, incentives for eco-friendly practices, Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), and inclusive governance. Notably, the Policy and ABS categories registered zero progress from 2016 to 2022, reflecting systemic challenges in operationalizing the ABS framework, which requires coordination among State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). Although regulatory amendments and institutional strengthening efforts are underway, legal petitions, particularly from the pharmaceutical and herbal industries in Madhya Pradesh, seeking exemptions have stalled implementation. Furthermore, Section 40 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 [37], which exempts widely traded agricultural commodities, has compounded the issue. Weak enforcement, limited stakeholder awareness, absence of budget tagging for ABS activities, and inadequate tracking systems have collectively resulted in underreporting, poor resource mobilization, and low prioritization across departments. To protect agricultural biodiversity and promote sustainability, public policies should be updated to conserve indigenous crop diversity (e.g., extinction of native varieties), which is vital for food security and rural livelihoods [23]. The introduction of high-yield crop varieties has threatened native species, prompting increased investment in conserving local crops, disease control, and traditional farming methods [38]. Declining use of livestock, increased agrochemical reliance, reduced productivity of native crops, and unsustainable land use further endanger agricultural biodiversity [24]. Native crop losses necessitate targeted financing for in situ conservation. This study primarily relies on government investment data and, therefore does not capture financial contributions from the private sector, NGOs, or community-based initiatives. We suggest mapping financial flows from private sector CSR investments and NGO-led conservation projects, exploring the potential of public–private partnership (PPP) models in biodiversity financing, and assessing how blended finance mechanisms could complement government allocations to meet biodiversity targets more effectively. In addition, the following strategic actions are needed (i) rebalancing conservation vs. sustainability funding, (ii) embedding ABS in farmer compensation schemes, and (iii) co-designing programs with tribal communities. Addressing these challenges calls for strategic funding and new initiatives to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainability of Madhya Pradesh’s agricultural heritage for future resilience.