The current report, based on the work of over 100 economists/scientists, analyses the global economic implications of a 30% PA target for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and the PA/nature sector itself. (OECMs were only defined by the CBD in 2018, too recently to economically model, but we include a qualitative treatment of them.) n We carried out two analyses: a global financial one (concrete revenues and costs only); and a tropicsfocused economic one (including non-monetary ecosystem service values), for multiple scenarios of how a 30% PA target might be implemented. n Our financial analysis showed that expanding PAs to 30% would generate higher overall output (revenues) than non-expansion (an extra $64 billion-$454 billion per year by 2050). (Figure 1-2). n In the economic analysis, only a partial assessment was possible, focusing on forests and mangroves. For those biomes alone, the 30% target had an avoided-loss value of $170-$534 billion per year by 2050, largely reflecting the benefit of avoiding the flooding, climate change, soil loss and coastal stormsurge damage that occur when natural vegetation is removed. The value for all biomes would be higher.
Full Report (Pdf)
