{"id":67487,"date":"2020-09-28T12:46:15","date_gmt":"2020-09-28T12:46:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinadialogue.net\/?p=67487"},"modified":"2021-02-15T10:07:45","modified_gmt":"2021-02-15T10:07:45","slug":"cost-of-saving-nature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/nature\/cost-of-saving-nature\/","title":{"rendered":"How much will it cost to save nature?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Somewhere between US$103 billion and $895 billion a year \u2013 that is how much funding will be needed to \u201cbend the curve\u201d on global nature loss, according to several recent estimates.

Campaigners and academics have been striving to convince governments and the private sector that the current loss of nature \u2013 dubbed by scientists the \u201csixth mass extinction\u201d \u2013 poses a threat not just to species and ecosystems, but also to economies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, an expert panel convened by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has analysed<\/a> various estimates of the costs and benefits of conserving nature. The analysis is part of work surrounding international negotiations on a new deal for nature, which will be agreed in Kunming, China, in May 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New targets under discussion would see areas protected for nature on both land and sea increased from 17% to at least 30%. The new goals will replace the Aichi targets agreed in 2010, which the CBD recently confirmed<\/a> had mostly failed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lower funding range, of $103-178 billion, is based only on investments in expanding protected areas, the panel noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The larger range, of $631 to $895 billion, takes into account the cost of making the agricultural, fishery and forestry sectors sustainable, conserving biodiversity in urban and coastal areas, managing invasive species, and protecting urban water quality \u2013 all of which currently drive biodiversity loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite differing methodologies, the CBD expert panel noted that these estimates all reach the same conclusion: investment must increase substantially from current levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>
Large blue butterflies (Maculinea arion<\/em>) mating on wild thyme (Image: Alamy)<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The panel also stressed that continuing on current trajectories of nature destruction will lead to significant global economic costs. It pointed to an analysis<\/a> by campaign group WWF that estimates the loss of \u201cservices\u201d provided by nature, such as crop pollination and clean water supply, at nearly $500 billion a year. Investing to protect nature would save money in the longer term by reducing the amount needed to tackle problems caused by losing these services, it said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aichi funding fail<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Finance is a key issue for the new nature deal. Even though financial resources and official development assistance for biodiversity had roughly doubled to reach around $80-90 billion per year by 2020, the Aichi targets still failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only was this funding nowhere near the scale needed, but it was also swamped by subsidies for activities that harmed biodiversity, such as the production of commodities linked to forest destruction, estimated at around $500 billion a year, according to the CBD\u2019s Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 report<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, so far, finance has not been discussed at all by negotiators, according to Li Shuo, senior global policy advisor for Greenpeace East Asia. Discussions leading up to the agreement of the Aichi goals set a precedent for this \u2013 though the goals were set in 2010, the level of public international finance was not agreed until 2012. A further meeting in 2014 saw this level doubled, but that was too late considering the deadline of 2020, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRegardless of how many reports on finance are produced, they will not be useful if we don\u2019t actually talk about it in official negotiations,\u201d Li said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf they don\u2019t agree the whole finance package in one go in Kunming, then the credibility of the deal will be significantly challenged,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Filling the gap<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The CBD\u2019s finance panel recommends<\/a> a three-pronged strategy to fill the funding gap:<\/p>\n\n\n\n