《聯合國環境規劃署（UNEP）：2022年自然融資報告（英文版）（70頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《聯合國環境規劃署（UNEP）：2022年自然融資報告（英文版）（70頁）.pdf（70頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、State ofFinancefor Nature2022Time to act:Doubling investment by 2025 and eliminating nature-negativefinance flows 2022 United Nations Environment Programme ISBN:978-92-807-3990-9Job number:DEP/2488/NA This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profi

2、t services without special permission from the copyright holder,provided acknowledgement of the source is made.The United Nations Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.No use of this publication may be made for resale or any

3、 other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.Applications for such permission,with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction,should be addressed to the Director,Communication Division,United Nations Environment

4、 Programme,P.O.Box 30552,Nairobi 00100,Kenya.DisclaimersThe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country,territor

5、y or city or its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.For general guidance on matters relating to the use of maps in publications please go to http:/www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does

6、not imply endorsement by the United Nations Environment Programme or the authors.The use of information from this document for publicity or advertising is not permitted.Trademark names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement of trademark or copyright laws.The v

7、iews expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme.We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made.Maps,photos and illustrations as specified Citation United Nations Environment Progra

8、mme(2022).State of Finance for Nature.Time to act:Doubling investment by 2025 and eliminating nature-negative finance flows.Nairobi.https:/wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/41333|Cover Photo by Spencer Watson on UnsplashIAuthorsUnited Nations Environment Programme Nathalie Olsen,Ivo Mulder,Aurelia Blin E

9、conomics Of Land Degradation InitiativeWaltraud Ederer,Nina BisomWith support and analysis from Vivid Economics by McKinseyMateo Salazar,Sandra Loayza,Robin Smale,Edwin CongreaveData and analysis on protected areas funding from Dr Anthony Waldron,University of CambridgeInterview Expert GroupSam Fank

10、hauser(University of Oxford),Simon Dietz(LSE),Daniel Friess(National University of Singapore),Dorothee Herr(IUCN Blue Natural Capital),Ron Flgel(GIZ),Volker Hamann(GIZ),Christoph Nedopil Wang(Fudan University),Louise Baker(UNCCD),Pablo Muoz(UNCCD)The authors would like to thank Barron Joseph Orr(UNC

11、CD),Bryce Bray(UNEP),Dianna Kopansky(Global Peatland Initiative),Barnabas Dickson(UNEP),Sharon Gil(UNEP),Arindam Jana(UNEP),Johannes Kruse(ELD Initiative),Richard Thomas(ELD Initiative),Ron Flgel(GIZ),Claire Potdevin(UNEP),Thomas Declerq(UNEP),Romie Goedicke(UNEP FI),Pernille Olsen(Buro Happold),Jes

12、sica Smith(UNEP FI)for their insightful comments.With thanks to technical review of preliminary findings webinar participants Andrea Goertler(Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit),Andrew W.Mitchell(Global Canopy),Anil Markandya(Basque Centre for Climate Change),Chris Dickinson(Gree

13、n Climate Fund),Dorothee Herr(International Union for Conservation of Nature),Giovanni Ruta(World Bank),Ida Kubiszewski(Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London),Jenny Wong(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change),Jessica Smith(United Nations Environment Program

14、me Finance Initiative),Louise Baker(United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification),Lucy Almond(Nature4Climate),Maike Potthast(Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit),Manili Arianna(Planet Tracker),Michele Vollaro(Food and Agriculture Organization),Mirey Atallah(UNEP),Paolo Nune

15、s(FAO),Pablo Munoz(United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification),Robert Constanza(Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London),Volker Koch(GIZ)Graphic DesignOneStop.Swiss DisclaimerThe authors would like to thank the Interview Expert Group members,webinar participants,and rev

16、iewers for their valuable contributions.The content and positions expressed are,however,those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of those who provided input,nor the organizations to which they are affiliated.AcknowledgmentsWith support from:In support of:IIITable of Conte

17、ntsForewordGlossary and AbbreviationsExecutive SummaryKey messagesRecommendations1.Introduction2.Current financial flows to NbS2.1.Current Financial flows2.2.Public financial flows 2.3.Private financial flows 2.4.Changes in NbS finance flows 2.5.Investment in marine NbS and protected areas 2.6.Natur

18、e-negative financial flows Case Study:Germany repurposing of harmful flows in agriculture Case Study:Cte dIvoire greening export tariffs and repurposing revenue 2.7.Limitations 3.Financial flows needed to meet Rio Convention targets3.1.Investment needs and the finance gap Immediate needs investment

19、202325 Investment needs to 2030 NbS activities needed Cumulative investment needs to 2050 The 2C scenario 3.2.Scope and methods 3.3.The finance gap to achieve 30 x30 3.4.Benefits of closing the NbS finance gap 4.Key messages and recommendations4.1.Key messages4.2.Recommendations5.Future directionsBi

20、bliographyvviixxixv14578101215172023242626272728303132353839404447IVList of Exhibits and TablesExhibit 1:NbS to climate change,biodiversity loss and land degradation,contributing to human wellbeingExhibit 2:Public and private finance in terrestrial and marine NbSExhibit 3:Annual public financial flo

21、ws to terrestrial and marine ecosystemsExhibit 4:Annual private financial flows in NbS Exhibit 5:Change in annual financial flows to terrestrial and marine ecosystemsExhibit 6:Annual public and private financial flows to marine and terrestrial NbSExhibit 7:Annual public and private financial flows t

22、o marine NbSExhibit 8:Financial flows allocated to protected areasExhibit 9:Nature-negative public financial flowsExhibit 10:Impact on nature of subsidies to German agricultureExhibit 11:Tariff reform and public investments could reduce pressure on deforestationExhibit 12:NbS activities included in

23、finance needs modellingExhibit 13:Annual NbS investment needs to limit climate change to below 1.5C,halt biodiversity loss and achieve land degradation neutralityExhibit 14:Where do additional investments need to be directed under a 1.5C scenarioExhibit 15:Cumulative investment needs from 2022 to 20

24、50 in 1.5C and 2C scenariosExhibit 16:Where do additional investments need to be directed under a 2C scenarioExhibit 17:Marine Protected Areas-current funding vs funding needed for 30 x30Exhibit 18:Terrestrial protected areas-current funding vs funding needed for 30 x30Exhibit 19:NbS global GHG remo

25、vals by activity in 1.5C scenario,2022 to 2050Exhibit 20:Biodiversity Intactness Index under different scenariosExhibit 21:Global land restoration commitments by 2030,million hectaresTable 1:Summary of NbS finance flow estimates VForewordThe world has changed dramatically since the first“State of Fi

26、nance for Nature”report was published in 2021.War and extreme weather have caused devastation and immeasurable human suffering,and economic recession looms with inflation increasing rapidly.Food,energy and supply chain security have shot to the top of the political agenda.A growing number of people,

27、including in developed countries,must choose between food on the table or paying energy bills.Meanwhile,natural assets continue to deteriorate due to chronic undervaluation of natural systems and systemic unsustainable production and consumption.The scientific evidence on the trajectories and costs

28、of climate change,biodiversity loss and land degradation is undeniable and continues to accumulate.The impacts are large and visible as people suffer from droughts and floods,the conversion of nature that provides food,water and medicine to people and falling agricultural output due to land degradat

29、ion.From the massive floods in Pakistan to the dried-up rivers across Europe and China,to the collapse of the Conger ice shelf on East Antarctica and the dwindling state of coral reefs,human activity is driving the decline of the natural environment.This in turn is causing growing impacts on busines

30、ses,finance institutions and economies around the world.The big question that humanity faces at this pivotal moment is how to transform our economic systems,including processes of production and consumption,to ensure that we remain within planetary boundaries,limit climate change,and reverse the los

31、s of nature and endangered species.How do we ensure economic growth while supporting human development and equality,mitigating and adapting to climate change and protecting the natural assets that underpin human well-being?Nature is the essential algorithm for the future of humanity.Following COP 27

32、 on climate change and ahead of COP 15 on biodiversity to be held in December,the State of Finance for Nature report highlights the need to significantly increase finance and investment in nature-based solutions.Finance will undoubtedly be a sticking point,but something that will have to be dealt wi

33、th head on given the nexus of multifaced crises.While nations around the world are concluding negotiations on a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework,we must keep in perspective the broader economic and social landscape.Stock markets are volatile with energy and food price inflation,as economies c

34、ontinue to reel from the toll of Covid-19.This poses governance and stability risks in regions prone to food insecurity,affecting the worlds poorest and most vulnerable.With no end in sight to the current state of uncertainty,it is important to get back to the basics:the survival of all life on eart

35、h.“Net zero”without“nature positive”simply wont make it.Heads of State together with business and finance leaders have an obligation to both the present and future generations to increase investment into nature-based solutions.We must collectively and urgently redirect and scale capital to nature,cl

36、imate and restoration-positive activities that bring us back on track towards a stable and nature-abundant planet that we can all equitably benefit from.Inger AndersenExecutive Director,UN Environment ProgrammeVIGlossaryThe variability among living organisms from all sources including,inter alia,ter

37、restrial,marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part;this includes diversity within species,between species and of ecosystems.(United Nations Convention for Biological Diversity UNCBD)Expenditure used to purchase and create assets that generate services fo

38、r more than one year.The difference between current financial flows into NbS and future financial needs to achieve climate,biodiversity and land degradation neutrality targets.Capital and operating expenditure by the public or private sector.The amount of financial flows needed in NbS to achieve cli

39、mate,biodiversity,and land degradation neutrality targets.The worlds stocks of natural assets,which include geology,soil,air,water and all living things.It is from natural capital that humans derive a wide range of services,often called“ecosystem services”,which make human life possible.(UNCBD)All t

40、he existing systems created at the same time as the Earth,all the features,forces and processes,such as the weather,the sea and mountains.(UNCBD)Actions to protect,conserve,restore,sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial,freshwater,coastal and marine ecosystems,which address socia

41、l,economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively,while simultaneously providing human well-being,ecosystem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits(United Nations Environment Assembly 5 UNEA-5)Financial flows that support activities that could negatively affect nature.A hi

42、gh-level goal and concept describing a future state of nature(e.g.biodiversity,ecosystem services and natural capital)that is greater than the current state.(Science-based Targets Network(2022)Potential threats posed to an organization linked to its and other organizations dependencies on nature and

43、 nature impacts.These can derive from physical,transitional and systemic risks.(Climate Disclosure Standards Board(2021)Framework application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures;(Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures TCFD(2017)A state in which the greenhouse gases going into

44、the atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphereBiodiversityCapital expenditure(investments)Finance gapFinancial flowsFinancing needsNatural capitalNatureNature-based solutions(NbS)Nature-harming/negative financial flowsNature positiveNature-related riskNet zeroVIIBiodiversity Intactness

45、 IndexCommon Agricultural PolicyConservation InternationalClassification of the Functions of GovernmentConference of the Parties Creditor Reporting SystemDevelopment Assistance CommitteeDevelopment finance institution Economics of Land DegradationEnvironmental,Social,and GovernanceEuropean UnionFood

46、 and Agriculture OrganizationForum kologisch-Soziale MarktwirtschaftGross Domestic ProductGreenhouse gases High-Net-Worth IndividualsIntegrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon MarketsInternational Energy AgencyInternational Financial InstitutionsInternational Monetary FundIntergovernmental Science-P

47、olicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem ServicesIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeInternational Union for Conservation of NatureLand Degradation Neutrality CommitmentsMultilateral development bankMarine protected areaNational Biodiversity Finance PlansNature-based solutionsNational Biodi

48、versity Strategies and Action PlansNature-climate solutionsNationally Determined ContributionsNon-governmental organizationOfficial Development AssistanceOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentBIICAPCICOFOGCOP CRSDACDFIELDESGEUFAOFSGDPGHGHNWIIC-VCMIEAIFIIMFIPBESIPCCIUCNLDNMDBMPANBFPNbS

49、NBSAPsNCSNDCNGOODAOECDList of AbbreviationsVIIISustainable Development GoalsState of Finance for NatureState-owned enterpriseTask Force on Climate-Related Financial DisclosuresTerrestrial protected areaThe Nature ConservancyTaskforce on Nature-related Financial DisclosureUmweltbundesamtUnited Kingdo

50、mUnited Nations Convention on Biological DiversityUnited Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited Nations Environment AssemblyUnited Nations Environment Programme Finance InitiativeUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeUnited Nations Framework Convention o

51、n Climate ChangeUnited States dollarValue Added TaxWildlife Conservation SocietyWorld Economic ForumWorld Wildlife FundSDGSFNSOETCFDTPATNCTNFDUBAUKUNCBDUNCCDUNDP UNEAUNEP FIUNEPUNFCCCUS$VATWCFWEFWWFExecutiveSummary|Photo by Matt Howard on UnsplashExecutiveXExecutive SummaryThe State of Finance for N

52、ature(SFN)2022 report quantifies public and private finance flows to nature-based solutions(NbS)to tackle global challenges related to biodiversity loss,land degradation and climate change.Current investments are compared to investment needed to meet targets of the Rio Conventions under the United N

53、ations Convention on Biological Diversity(UNCBD),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD).This report is the second in a series that aims to inform public and private actors about progress against key targets and

54、the extent to which finance flows are aligned with global targets and the investment needed to limit global warming to below 1.5 or 2C,halt biodiversity loss and achieve land degradation neutrality.It also provides high-level recommendations on how to scale up financial flows to NbS and improve alig

55、nment with nature-positive outcomes.This second edition has a broader scope than the inaugural report in 2021.First,analysis of capital flows has been expanded to include marine nature-based solutions.Second,the investment in NbS needed to limit climate change to below 1.5C(in addition to the 2C tar

56、get)is estimated,given the enormous impact this has on nature and people.Third,public nature-negative capital flows have been quantified,to put into context capital flows to NbS.Fourth,the benefits of investing in NbS have been estimated to demonstrate to politicians,business and finance leaders tha

57、t nature is a large part of the solution to global crises.NbS can play a major role in addressing a broad range of societal challenges,from managing water scarcity to reducing disaster risk to poverty alleviation.The World Economic Forum(WEF)estimates that nature-positive policies could attract more

58、 than US$10 trillion in new annual business value and create 395 million jobs by 2030(WEF 2020a).This report focuses specifically on the ability of NbS to tackle societal challenges related to the climate crisis,land degradation and biodiversity loss.Terrestrial and marine ecosystems are responsible

59、 for absorbing and storing about half of global carbon emissions(Griscom et al.2017).The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)special report on limiting global warming below 1.5C found that three of the five most effective strategies for reducing emissions are nature-based solutions:ecosys

60、tem protection,restoration and improved management of farmlands.Human rights and gender equality are integral to financing NbS,particularly the use of public funds to ensure equitable and effective solutions on the ground.ExecutiveXIKey MessagesThe key messages of this report are:Finance flows to Nb

61、S are currently US$154 billion per year,less than half of the US$384 billion per year investment in NbS needed by 2025 and only a third of investment needed by 2030(US$484 billion per year)With sufficient finance,NbS provide the means to cost-effectively reach climate,biodiversity and land degradati

62、on neutrality targets,particularly if investments simultaneously contribute to biodiversity(National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans NBSAPs),climate(Nationally determined contributions NDC)and restoration(Land Degradation Neutrality LDN)targets.1 This“double”or“triple”win potential is parti

63、cularly alluring given the current economic situation.The trajectory of annual NbS investment needs to limit climate change to below 1.5C,halt biodiversity loss and achieve land degradation neutrality,$billion(2022 US$)050100150200250300350400450500550600650700Current202520302050Total154154+23023038

64、4484100674190674520 Delayed action is no longer an option in the face of the devastating effects of climate change,the extinction crisis and severe land degradation globally.Politicians,business and finance leaders and citizens globally must transform their relationship with nature to work with it r

65、ather than against it.This report provides hope-if we rapidly double finance flows to NbS,we can halt biodiversity loss(measured through the Biodiversity Intactness Index below),significantly contribute to reducing emissions(5 GtCO2/year by 2025 further rising to 15 GtCO2/year by 2050 in the 1.5C sc

66、enario)and restore close to 1 billion ha of degraded land.1 NBSAPs are national biodiversity action plans.NDCs refer to nationally determined contributions,essentially the climate targets that governments set for their own nation.LDN stands for land degradation neutrality a key target of the UNCCD C

67、onvention.to limit climate change to below 1.5C,halt biodiversity loss and achieve land degradation neutrality.Urgent and large increases in finance for nature are essential.ExecutiveXIIGreenhouse gas(GHG)removals by activity under the 1.5C scenario,2022 to 2050,GtCO2e/yearBiodiversity Intactness In

68、dex under different scenarios GtC02e10121416426802020202520302035204020452050ReforestationAgroforestryRestoration of seagrassRestoration of peatlandsGrassland protectionMangrove protectionPeatland protectionRestoration of mangrovesRestoration of seagrassAvoided deforestationRestoration of saltmarshe

69、sCover cropsGrazing-optimal intensityInternational commitments are metBAU0.7850.7900.76020202025203020352040204520500.7700.7650.7750.780ExecutiveXIIIGlobal land restoration commitments by 2030,million hectaresCumulative investment needs from 2022 to 2050 in 1.5C and 2C scenarios,$billion(2022 US$)27

70、99416799844076292421913TotalOther/general unspecifiedRestore/improve multiple land useRestore/improve protected areasIncrease protected areasRestore/improve multiple functions(productivity and carbon stock)Restore/improve grassland and savannaRestore/improve croplandIncrease soil fertility and carbo

71、n stockIncrease forest landRestore/improve forest land2C1.5C040002000600080001000012000TotalReforestationAgroforestryProtected areasRestoration of seagrassRestoration of peatlandsAvoided deforestationRestoration of saltmarshesCover cropsGrazing-optimal intensityAvoided grassland conversionRestoratio

72、n of mangrovesAvoided seagrass impactAvoided peatland impactAvoided mangrove impact950011000340026001300840320750290250240360032018012079381666 Limiting climate change to below 1.5C is achievable only if action is immediate.To complement non-nature-based mitigation actions,cumulative(2022-50)investm

73、ent in NbS required to achieve the 1.5C target in line with the Paris Agreement is at least US$11 trillion(compared to an estimated cumulative investment need of US$9.5 trillion in the 2C scenario).This cumulative investment takes the deployment of NbS close to its total potential identified given b

74、io-physical,social and governance constraints.Strong action before 2030 is critical.ExecutiveXIV Private sector investment in NbS must increase by several orders of magnitude in the coming years from the current US$26 billion per year,which represents only 17 per cent of total NbS investment.While p

75、hilanthropic capital and carbon markets have grown significantly between the SFN 2021 report and this edition,impact investment and investment in sustainable supply chains have increased very little.This is in stark contrast to the myriad of net zero and deforestation-free commitments made by agri-f

76、ood companies,banks and investors,which have seen too little action and too little capital deployed.Voluntary business commitments without a time-bound plan or roadmap for implementation are not acceptable.Investment in marine NbS constitutes only 9 per cent of total investment in NbS,which is very

77、low given the role of the oceans in climate mitigation and supporting adaptation,food security and biodiversity conservation.Current annual investment in marine protected areas is US$980 million,whereas terrestrial protected areas receive almost US$23 billion.The annual finance gap to increase marin

78、e protected areas to 30 per cent by 2030 is US$811 billion.Nature-negative expenditures far outweigh investments in nature-based solutions Government expenditure on environmentally harmful subsidies to fisheries,agriculture and fossil fuels is estimated at US$500 billion to 1 trillion per year,which

79、 is three to seven times greater than public and private investments in NbS.These flows severely undermine efforts to achieve critical environmental targets.While robust evidence is lacking,it is widely recognised that private finance flows are predominantly negative for nature and almost certainly

80、exacerbate the situation.It is critical to rapidly align policies,regulation,economic activity and financial flows with biodiversity values and with the Paris Agreement.Governments need to lock in critical targets on biodiversity loss,take urgent action to raise ambition and implement emissions redu

81、ction targets in line with the Paris Agreement and action land restoration commitments.These targets must be underpinned by broad based resource mobilisation from all sources.Public and private actors need to mobilise the necessary finance and close the finance gap while governments anchor targets i

82、n national regulation/legislation.Potentially nature-negative public financial flows,$billion per year(2022 US$)0Support to agriculture$140-510bn$340-530bn$15-17bnSupport to energySupport to fisheries$154bnInvestment in NbSExecutiveXVRecommendationsThis report also examines how best to scale up and

83、improve targeting of investment in NbS and who needs to do what over the next two to five years and to 2030.High-level recommendations are structured around the need to:1.Financing green increase direct finance flows to NbS through public domestic expenditure,nature-focused Official Development Assi

84、stance(ODA),ensuring that multilateral development banks(MDBs)and development finance institutions(DFIs)prioritise green finance,and providing regulation and incentives for private sector investment,particularly in nature markets and sustainable supply chains.2.Greening finance companies in the real

85、 economy and financial institutions need to transition to“net zero,net positive”and equitable business models in a time-bound manner with short-term targets.This requires disclosure of climate and nature-related financial risks,and where and how products are produced across supply chains.Align publi

86、c and private financial flows with the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework,the Paris Agreement and restoration commitments.Accelerate reform of nature-harmful public financial flows to reduce investment needs to redress adverse effects through NbS.Integrate nature and climate-rela

87、ted risks and opportunities into business and financial decision-making,risk management and disclosure frameworks to reduce nature damaging private investment flows.Require national and international development finance institutions and multilateral development banks to remove climate and nature neg

88、ative lending and investment from their portfolios.3.Increase inclusion in financial systems for a just transition.Public and private sector efforts to scale up NbS investments need to integrate just transition principles,safeguarding human rights.This includes providing social protection,land right

89、s and decent working conditions and the participation of local and indigenous communities,including women and other marginalised and vulnerable groups.|Photo by Danist Soh on UnsplashIntroduction1Chapter 11Most of humanity has historically fought against nature,draining wetlands,razing forests for u

90、rban development,canalising rivers and introducing monocultures with heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides.The future will have to look fundamentally different by working with nature if we are to reverse the severe loss of biodiversity,tackle the climate crisis and restore a billion hectares of he

91、althy ecosystems that have been lost over the last few decades.City planners and mayors in cities can create incentives to green roofs,expand parks and green spaces,and bring water back into cities to reduce the effect of extreme heating.Farmers can regenerate soils that have been depleted over deca

92、des by the overuse of fertilisers and rehabilitate degraded land.Mangroves can function as natural barriers against storm surges in coastal areas.Scaling up the deployment of capital to finance nature-based solutions both from public and private sources is essential,including the right mix of econom

93、ic and regulatory incentives.It requires human ingenuity,and above all the willingness of politicians,business leaders,finance institutions and consumers to work with nature instead of against it.The impacts of climate change,biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are already severe and widespr

94、ead.Yet almost half of global gross domestic product(GDP)is dependent on well-functioning ecosystems(WEF 2020b).Global temperature increases of 1.2C on average compared to the pre-industrial age have resulted in more frequent and extreme climatic events,causing adverse impacts on nature and society(

95、IPCC 2022a).Livelihoods and well-being have been eroded through changes in agricultural productivity,impacts on human health and food security,destruction of homes and infrastructure,and loss of property and income,with adverse effects on gender and social equity(IPCC 2022b).This will further exacer

96、bate the situation if no action is taken.Current estimates put the costs of climate(in)action at between 4 per cent of GDP(if the Paris Agreement is met and the temperature rise stays below 2C)and 18 per cent if no action is taken and the world moves to+3C warming(Swiss Re Group 2021).NbS can play a

97、 major role in addressing a broad range of societal challenges,from managing water scarcity to reducing disaster risk to poverty alleviation.The WEF estimates that nature-positive policies could attract more than US$10 trillion in new annual business value and create 395 million jobs by 2030(WEF 202

98、0a).This report focuses specifically on the ability of NbS to tackle societal challenges related to the climate crisis,land degradation and biodiversity loss.Terrestrial and marine ecosystems are responsible for absorbing and storing about half of global carbon emissions(Griscom et al.2017).The IPCC

99、 special report on limiting global warming to below 1.5C found that three of the five most effective strategies for reducing emissions are nature-based solutions:ecosystem protection,restoration and improved management of farmlands.The effective design of NbS can unlock a wide range of co-benefits t

100、hat align with the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs).In addition to cost-effective mitigation and adaptation options,NbS can reduce disaster risk and improve food and water security.As people and nature are inextricably linked,financing inclusive NbS that integrate cross-cutting principles such as

101、 gender equality and a rights-based approach is crucial.NbS investments that have strong co-benefits with other goals such as poverty alleviation,education,gender equality and food security are more likely to lead to sustainability.Natural capital,including life on land and sea,provides the foundati

102、on for our society and economy to thrive(Stockholm Resilience Centre 2016).Transforming peoples relationship with nature is key to a sustainable future and can contribute to poverty alleviation,equity,health,development,peace,food,water,sanitation,and safe cities and settlements(United Nations Envir

103、onment Programme UNEP 2021a).Chapter 12The ambition of governments to implement land and marine NbS has grown in recent years.Countries are including NbS in their National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans(NBSAPs or biodiversity targets),Nationally Determined Contributions(NDC or climate targets)a

104、nd Land Degradation Neutrality Commitments(LDN or restoration targets).In recent years,a movement to become nature-positive in addition to net zero has emerged,emphasising both the preservation and enhancement of ecosystems.The World Bank Group recently highlighted NbS as a key priority area in its

105、Climate Change Action Plan(2021 to 2025)to prioritise climate adaptation and resilience(World Bank Group 2021).Nevertheless,this report provides strong evidence that NbS investment is severely underfunded and requires dramatic and urgent scaling up.Most of natures potential contributions to solving

106、climate change are cost-effective but remain underfunded(IPCC 2022a).With food and energy crises raging in 2022,leading to higher inflation and action by central banks to curb demand,the outlook is challenging.This is further heightened by the fact that many nations did not“build back better”after t

107、he Covid-19 crisis,but mostly“build back as usual”by not requiring environmentally sensitive sectors to factor in nature and climate requirements as a precondition for fiscal stimulus.Crises have been used too often to avoid tackling persistent systemic problems like the nature,climate and land degr

108、adation crises.We live in an era of high economic,social and environmental indebtedness.Many governments around the world have unsustainable levels of debt.Social indebtedness is manifesting in high levels of inequality in society.And as this report and others show,we are increasingly eroding our li

109、mited natural capital through unsustainable production and consumption,leading to further“environmental indebtedness”.We must learn from past mistakes and use the current situation to fundamentally rewrite our contract with nature.Finance flows to NbS included in this report are aligned with the UNE

110、A definition and have been selected based on data availability and their potential for climate change mitigation and the protection and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity.Finance flows are included in this analysis if they positively contribute to nature-based actions to protect biodiversity

111、 and/or sequester and store greenhouse gases(GHG)and/or sustainably manage and/or restore degraded land and seascapes.In addition to having a positive impact on either climate,biodiversity or restoration,the activity must not adversely affect climate or biodiversity or undermine restoration efforts.

112、Exhibit 1 below provides some examples of NbS that have only biodiversity or climate benefits and NbS that have multiple benefits.For example,mangrove restoration stores carbon(climate benefits),provides protection and food sources for fish(biodiversity benefits)and food and fuelwood to local commun

113、ities(social benefits)while protecting against storms and coastal erosion(avoided degradation benefits).However,this analysis is not limited to those NbS that have multiple benefits.As such,the scope of NbS finance included in this report is relatively broad and may not adhere to more stringent crit

114、eria for NbS,e.g.the IUCN Global Standard for NbS.Box 1.Defining Nature-based SolutionsA clear and agreed definition of NbS enables improved understanding and implementation of NbS with their multiple benefits across biodiversity,climate and human well-being.In March 2022 at UNEA5,governments agreed

115、 a definition of NbS as:“Actions to protect,conserve,restore,sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial,freshwater,coastal and marine ecosystems,which address social,economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively,while simultaneously providing human well-being,ecosy

116、stem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits”.This definition builds on the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN)definition used in SFN 2021.Chapter 13The remainder of this report is structured as follows:Chapter 2:How much are we investing in nature-based solutions?This cha

117、pter provides estimates of current finance flows from public and private sources for NbS in terrestrial and marine ecosystems.Current estimates are compared to findings from SFN 2021 to identify changes over time.This chapter has been expanded to look at public financial flows that are potentially h

118、armful to nature.Chapter 3:How much money is needed to create a sustainable and thriving future?This chapter identifies finance needed to meet Rio Convention targets to keep climate change below 1.5 and 2 degrees,the 30 x30 target for biodiversity and land degradation neutrality by 2030.The differen

119、ce between current flows(Chapter 2)and investment needs,the finance gap,indicates where we are relative to where we need to be.Finally,the benefits of increased investment to close the finance gap are estimated in terms of GHG removals and biodiversity intactness.Chapter 4:Key conclusions and recomm

120、endations.This chapter summarises the findings and provides recommendations on urgent action needed by public and private actors to use NbS to its full potential in the battle against climate change,biodiversity loss and land degradation.Chapter 5:Future directions.This final chapter looks at how fu

121、ture editions of this report can better assess finance flows to NbS based on methodological development,improvements in data and expanding the scope,e.g.to include measurement of nature negative private investments.Exhibit 1.NbS to climate change,biodiversity loss and land degradation,contributing t

122、o human wellbeingSources:Own depictionBlue&green carbon creditsDeforestation free supply chainsGreenroofsBiodiversity offsetsSustainable urban drainage systemsWater treatment in wetlandsCLIMATECHANGEBENEFITS TO PEOPLEBIODIVERSITYLOSSLANDDEGRADATIONProtected areasMangroverestorationRegenerativeagricu

123、lture|Photo by Pat Josse on PixabayCurrent financial flows to NbS2Chapter 25This chapter looks at current volumes of public and private capital directed to nature-based solutions.The scope of the analysis has been expanded to included marine nature-based solutions and assessment of protected area ex

124、penditure.This edition also looks at Current public and private financial flows to NbS are estimated to be US$154 billion per year(see Exhibit 2).Public funds make up 83 per cent of the total,directing US$126 billion per year towards NbS through government domestic nature-negative flows from public

125、sources to demonstrate that scaling up investments into NbS will not be sufficient unless we also reduce and redirect nature-negative capital flows,providing a holistic overview of where and how capital is being deployed at present and changes needed.expenditure and US$2 billion per year through Off

126、icial Development Assistance(ODA).The private sector contributes approximately 17 per cent at US$26 billion per year.Exhibit 2.Public and private finance in terrestrial and marine NbS:US$154 billion(2022 US$)Public domestic financePublic domestic financeProtection of biodiversity and landscape,$58bn

127、Sustainable agriculture,forestry&fishing,$29bnPollution abatement,wastewater management and environmental protection,$13bnWater resources,conservation and land management,pollution control and other natural resources management,$17bnEnvironmental policy and other,$9bnPrivate financial flowsPublic OD

128、ASustainable supply chains,$8bnOther,$6bnBiodiversity offsets,$6bn$2bnPES,$3bnImpact investing,$3bnPrivate financial flowsPublic ODA financial flowsSources:(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD Classification of the Functions of Government COFOG 2018-2019);(International Moneta

129、ry Fund IMF COFOG 2016-2017);(OECD Official Development Assistance ODA 2018-2019);(USA Spending 2020-2021);(Convention on Biological Diversity CBD Chinas Financial Reporting Framework 2015);(OECD Creditor Reporting System CRS 2017 and18);(OECD ODA Sustainable Ocean Economy 2019/2020);Geneva Impact I

130、nvesting Network GIIN(2020);Hamrick(2017);Donofrio(2019);Deutz et al.(2020);FundingtheOcean.org(2020);OurSharedSeas(2021);Ecosystem Marketplace(2022);Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO(2018);Rainforest Alliance(2013);Solidaridad(2020);Behan de Jong(2019);Impact Assets(2020);Conservation Internati

131、onal CI(2021);Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RSBP(2021);The Nature Conservancy TNC(2021);Wildlife Conservation Society WCS(2021);World Wide Fund for Nature WWF(2021).Note:The other category includes private finance from philanthropy,carbon markets,conservation NGOs and finance mobilised t

132、hrough the Global Environment Facility,Green Climate Fund and Development Assistance Committee(DAC).A detailed breakdown is available in Exhibit 4.2.1.Current financial flowsChapter 26Box 2.Scope and methods:SFN 2021 and SFN 2022This SFN 2022 edition builds on the 2021 inaugural edition(SFN 2021).Im

133、provements include both updated and upgraded estimates of current financial flows and future needs.SFN 2022 estimates on current finance flows are based on more granular data,including on protected areas and marine ecosystems.Estimates of investment needs are broader in scope and include additional

134、NbS investment categories in the agriculture sector and the marine realm.SFN 2022 also includes estimates of the bio-physical benefits of closing the finance gap,and reviews estimates of nature-negative public investments.To assess changes over time,this report estimates the latest finance flows to

135、NbS using the same data sources as SFN 2021,updating with the latest data available(see Annex for a summary of the data sources used).To make estimates comparable between editions,prices and estimates from SFN 2021 are presented in this report in constant 2022 prices.The data and derived estimates o

136、f SFN 2021 and SFN 2022 have been adjusted for inflation using a GDP deflator(International Monetary Fund IMF World Economic Outlook).These adjustments increased SFN 2021 annual finance flows to NbS from US$133 to US$146 billion and cumulative investment needs(see Chapter 3)from 2021 to 2050 from US

137、$8.1 trillion to US$8.8 trillion.This report also upgrades estimates by expanding the scope to include:investment in marine NbS detailed finance flows to protected areas evidence from published studies to assess public finance flows to energy,agriculture and fishing that(potentially)harm nature.To e

138、nsure comparability,SFN 2021 estimates were recalculated to have the same scope as SFN 2022 finance flows.Specifically,finance flows to NbS in marine ecosystems,payments for ecosystem services and investments in sustainable cocoa,coffee and soy supply chains are now included and have increased 2021

139、annual finance flows to NbS from US$146 billion(after adjustment to 2022 prices)to US$150 billion.Chapter 272.2.Public financial flowsPublic financial flows of US$128 billion per year are disaggregated in Exhibit 3.Almost half of government finance for NbS goes to the protection of biodiversity and

140、landscapes(US$58 billion),followed by sustainable agriculture,forestry and fishing(US$29 billion per year or 23 per cent).The uncertainty of the estimates varies across activities.For example,the protection of biodiversity and landscapes is closely associated with NbS interventions such as restorati

141、on and protection of marine and terrestrial ecosystems the US$58 billion annual investment is included in the NbS finance estimate.However,there is greater uncertainty around the US$29 billion annual investment in sustainable agriculture.Sustainable agriculture covers NbS activities such as cover cr

142、ops and sustainable fishing but may include non-NbS investments.Exhibit 3.Annual public financial flows to terrestrial and marine ecosystems:US$128 billion(2022 US$)$-10050150200Total128Protection ofbiodiversity andlandscape58Sustainableagriculture,forestry&fishingWastewater management*2917Pollution

143、abatement*13Environmentalpolicy and other9ODA2Sources:(OECD COFOG 2018-2019);(IMF COFOG 2016-2017);(OECD ODA 2018-2019);(USA Spending 2020-2021);(CBD Chinas Financial Reporting Framework 2015).Note:The estimates displayed correspond to the midpoint between upper-and lower-bound estimates.*Water reso

144、urces,conservation and land management,pollution control and other natural resources management*Pollution abatement,wastewater management&environmental protectionChapter 28$-TotalSustainablesupply chainsBiodiversityoffsetsPayments forecosystemServicesImpactinvestingPhilanthropyCarbonmarketsConservat

145、ionNGOsPrivate financemobilised byDAC,GEF,GCF10515202530352232686321Exhibit 4.Annual private financial flows in NbS:US$26 billion(2022 US$)Sources:(OECD CRS 2017-18);(OECD ODA Sustainable Ocean Economy 2019/2020);GIIN(2020);Hamrick(2017);Donofrio(2019);Deutz et al.(2020);FundingtheOcean.org(2020);Ou

146、rSharedSeas(2021);Ecosystem Marketplace(2022);FAO(2018a);FAO(2018b);Rainforest Alliance(2013);Solidaridad(2020);Behan de Jong(2019);Impact Assets(2020);CI(2021);RSBP(2021);TNC(2021);WCS(2021);WWF(2021).Note:The estimates displayed correspond to the midpoint between upper-and lower-bound estimates.2.

147、3.Private financial flowsPrivate financial flows to NbS of US$26 billion annually constitute 17 per cent of total NbS finance.Sustainable supply chain investments are the largest private finance component,channelling about US$8 billion per year(5 per cent of total NbS flows;see Exhibit 4)followed by

148、 biodiversity offsets at US$6 billion per year and private payments for ecosystem services and impact investments,each contributing US$3 billion per year.Finance flows to carbon markets and from non-governmental organizations(NGOs)and philanthropy are around US$2 billion per year each.Private financ

149、e channelled through multilateral development banks and bilateral cooperation amounts to less than US$1 billion per year.Chapter 29The small share of private finance to NbS compared to public funding reflects the relative novelty of investing in natural capital and suggests that the investment case,

150、i.e.the return to the investor relative to the level of risk,needs to be stronger.In contrast,the volume of climate finance is much larger than NbS or nature finance.Returns to investments in low-carbon transport,renewable energy and energy efficiency are attractive and becoming well understood by d

151、evelopment finance institutions(DFIs),commercial banks,investment banks and institutional investors.NbS investments,on the other hand,are poorly understood,have high(perceived)risks and often lack sufficient predictable,long-term revenue streams,thereby deterring banks and investors.Other barriers r

152、eflect the current immaturity and small scale of the asset class,such as high transaction and structuring costs.Table 1 below provides a summary of current public and private investment flows.Table 1.Summary of NbS finance flow estimates,$billion(2022 US$)Financial flow categoryFinancial flow sub-ca

153、tegoryDescriptionLower boundUpper boundMid-pointShare of total NbS flowsPublicDomestic government expenditureSustainable agriculture,forestry and fishing including subsidies to sustainable fisheries3552919%Water resources,conservation and land management,pollution control and other natural resources

154、 management2331711%Pollution abatement,wastewater management and environmental protection323138%Protection of biodiversity and landscape52645838%Environmental policy and other21696%ODABilateral and multilateral aid in support of sustainability,biodiversity,climate change mitigation or desertificatio

155、n2322%PrivateCarbon marketsTransactions in voluntary carbon markets and investments in REDD+(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation)1221%Sustainable supply chainsInvestment in biodiversity conservation from sustainable-certified commodity markets6985%Biodiversity offsetsInvestm

156、ent in programmes to compensate for unavoidable impacts of development projects3864%Impact investingEquity and debt investments to generate positive,measurable Environmental,social,and governance(ESG)impacts and financial returns3432%Conservation NGOsExpenditures reported by 5 largest conservation n

157、on-governmental organizations(NGOs)1221%Payments for Ecosystem ServicesVoluntary financial flows between service users and providers conditional on agreed rules of resource management for generating offsite services2532%Philanthropy Grants and non-grants reported by philanthropic foundations2221%Pri

158、vate finance by multilateral organizationsPrivate finance leveraged by development finance institutions,other agencies working on development and 2 multilateral climate and biodiversity funds0.410.70.4%Chapter 2102.4.Changes in NbS finance flowsTotal finance flows to NbS have increased by US$3.9 bil

159、lion from US$150 billion(SFN 2021)to US$154 billion per year(Exhibit 5).This represents year-on-year growth in investment of 2.6 per cent in real terms across the sum of public and private financial flows.2 This growth is driven by a net increase of US$1.6 billion in public financial flows and US$2.

160、3 billion increase in private financial flows.23.3(16%)+2.3bn+2.6%+1.6bn126.3(84%)SFN 2022SFN 202125.6(17%)127.9(83%)0603090120150180210Public financial flowsPrivate financial flows1508121983224154Exhibit 5.Change in annual financial flows to terrestrial and marine ecosystems,$billion(2022 US$)Sourc

161、es:(OECD COFOG 2018-2019);(IMF COFOG 2016-2017);(OECD ODA 2018-2019);(USA Spending 2020-2021);(OECD CRS 2017-18);(OECD ODA Sustainable Ocean Economy 2019/2020);GIIN(2020);Hamrick(2017);Donofrio(2019);Bennett and Gallant(2017);Climate Funds Update(2021);Deutz et al.(2020);FundingtheOcean.org(2020);Ou

162、rSharedSeas(2021);Ecosystem Marketplace(2022);Environmental Markets Lab(2018);FAO(2018a);FAO(2018b);Rainforest Alliance(2013);Solidaridad(2020);Behan de Jong(2019);Impact Assets(2020);CI(2021);RSBP(2021);TNC(2021);WCS(2021);WWF(2021).Note:The estimates displayed correspond to the midpoint between up

163、per-and lower-bound estimates.2 Real growth is calculated by comparing changes from SFN 2021 to SFN 2022 after updating SFN2021 estimates and adjusting for inflation.See Annex for a description of how each financial flow category was updated.Chapter 211Public financial flows in NbS have increased by

164、 US$1.6 billion due to increased domestic expenditure on NbS-relevant activities in the agriculture,forestry and fishing sectors.The increase in public flows has been significant despite a decrease(US$0.3 billion)in ODA directed to NbS.Private financial flows increased by US$2.3 billion compared to

165、SFN 2021 due to increased investment in carbon markets,philanthropic contributions and impact investments that offset a moderate decrease(US$0.3 billion)from conservation NGOs.Investment in voluntary carbon markets increased dramatically from US$230 million to US$1.77 billion,an increase of US$1.5 b

166、illion(World Bank Group 2021).Impact investments grew by only US$0.2 billion supported by the development of innovative blended finance vehicles,which attracted some commercial capital(Schroders 2020;Eccles and Klimenko 2019;Convergence 2019)The increase of US$0.8 billion from philanthropies reflect

167、s growing donor commitments to protecting and enhancing nature,with recent pledges from the Bezos Earth Fund,Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation,among others,to support global biodiversity targets(Bloomberg Philanthropies 2021;Bezos Earth Fund 2022;Gordon and Betty Moo

168、re Foundation 2021).Chapter 212SFN 2022 broadened the scope by including marine nature-based solutions and detailed assessment of protected area finance.Finance flows to marine NbS are roughly US$14 billion,9 per cent of total(terrestrial and marine)Two-thirds of marine NbS finance derives from publ

169、ic sources.Annual domestic government expenditure in marine NbS is over US$10 billion per year,including spending on marine protected areas,sustainable management of fisheries and research and development of fisheries.In addition,public flows of ODA in the form of grants,loans and equity to support

170、a sustainable ocean economy contribute US$1.3 billion per NbS finance(see Exhibit 6).Data for carbon markets,payments for ecosystems,biodiversity offsets and NGO flows did not distinguish between marine and terrestrial and are therefore presented separately.year.Annual private finance flows to marin

171、e NbS are estimated at US$2.6 billion,including private investment in certified sustainable seafood supply chains(US$1.5 billion),philanthropies(US$0.7 billion),impact investments(US$0.3 billion)and private finance for development(US$0.1 billion).2.5.Investment in marine NbS and protected areas Exhi

172、bit 6.Annual public and private financial flows to marine and terrestrial NbSPublic-terrestrialPrivate-terrestrialPrivate-marineSustainablesupply chainsSustainablesupply chainsImpactinvestingImpactinvestingPhilanthropyPrivate finance for dvp.PhilanthropyPublic-marineDomesticexpenditureODAPrivate-ter

173、restrial&marineBiodiversity offsetsPayment forecosystemsNGOsCarbon marketsDomestic expenditure&ODAPublic-terrestrialProtection of biodiversity and landscape,$58bPrivate-terrestrialPublic-marinePrivate-marinePrivate-terrestrial&marineSources:(OECD COFOG 2018-2019);(IMF COFOG 2016-2017);(OECD ODA 2018

174、-2019);(USA Spending 2020-2021);(OECD CRS 2017-18);(OECD ODA Sustainable Ocean Economy 2019/2020);GIIN(2020);Hamrick(2017);Donofrio(2019);Bennett and Gallant(2017);Climate Funds Update(2021);Deutz et al.(2020);FundingtheOcean.org(2020);OurSharedSeas(2021);Ecosystem Marketplace(2022);Environmental Ma

175、rkets Lab(2018);FAO(2018a);FAO(2018b);Rainforest Alliance(2013);Solidaridad(2020);Behan de Jong(2019);Impact Assets(2020);CI(2021);RSBP(2021);TNC(2021);WCS(2021);WWF(2021).Chapter 213Exhibit 7.Annual public and private financial flows to marine NbS:US$14 billion(2022 US$)Public-domestic($10bn)Privat

176、e($2.6bn)Public-ODA($1.3bn)Domestic expenditure in Marine Protected Areas(MPAs),$1.0bn(7%)Private finance mobilised for development,$0.1bn(1%)Impact investing,$0.3bn(2%)Philanthropic contributions,$0.7bn(5%)Sustainable supply chains,$1.5bn(10%)Sustainable ocean economy ODA,$1.3bn(9%)Subsidies for fi

177、sheries(R&D),$1.8bn(12%)Subsidies for sustainable fisheries management,$7.7bn(54%)Total:USD 14Sources:(OECD Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Sustainable Ocean Economy 2019),(OECD Private Financial Flows Sustainable Ocean Economy 2020);FundingtheOcean.org(2020);OurSharedSeas(2021);Environmental Markets

178、 Lab(2018);FAO(2018a);FAO(2018b);Deutz et al.(2020);Impact Assets(2020);Impact Yield(2021).Note:Domestic expenditure in marine protected areas cannot be disaggregated into public and private sources,therefore the estimated US$1 billion may include private flows,which are usually small.Chapter 214Box

179、 3.Global spending on protected area managementExhibit 8.Financial flows allocated to protected areas,$billion(2022 US$)Global spending on protected area management is estimated at 23 billion annually,with US$22 billion going to terrestrial and US$1 billion to marine protected areas.Spending on prot

180、ected area management is highest in Europe at US$10 billion per year,followed by North America at US$9 billion per year.Latin America and the CaribbeanAsiaSub-Saharan AfricaEuropeNorth Africa and Middle EastNorth AmericaFinancial flows in protected areas9(39%)10(43%)2(10%)0.1(1%)231(3%)1(5%)Source:W

181、aldron et al.(2020).Note:1.Current spending in protected areas in Oceania is not included due to limited data reported in the region.2.Current spending in marine protected areas in North America is not included due to the complex division of enforcement responsibilities across multiple agencies in t

182、he USA,which makes it difficult to distinguish expenditure on marine protected areas.3.Domestic expenditure in protected areas cannot be disaggregated into public and private sources.Chapter 215There is increasing recognition of the extensive damage to nature of government fiscal support for some ec

183、onomic sectors,notably fossil fuels,agriculture and fisheries.The magnitude of fiscal support in the form of subsidies is very large and undermines efforts to increase finance flows to NbS.This report therefore looks at published public finance flows that are potentially damaging to nature to unders

184、tand how the scale compares to finance that benefits nature.The absence of robust and comprehensive data on the impact of private finance flows on nature prevented the inclusion of estimates in this edition.However,given the likely very large negative impact of private finance flows on nature,future

185、 editions will prioritise the inclusion of emerging data and analysis.Similarly,challenges linked to data and conceptual framing make it difficult to estimate NbS negative finance flow in an equivalent manner to positive finance flows to NbS,so the analysis below is framed around nature-negative fin

186、ancial flows.Nature-negative finance flows do not mirror positive financial flows to NbS and so a net flow to NbS cannot be derived from these estimates.Public financial support for nature-negative activities3 ranges from US$500 to 1,100 billion per year at present,which is three to seven times larg

187、er than current investments in NbS.Evidence from published studies indicates that nature-negative financial flows to agriculture in the form of price incentives and fiscal transfers could reach US$500 billion per year(Exhibit 9).In the energy sector,global fossil fuel subsidies across oil,electricit

188、y,gas and coal are estimated to be US$340530 billion per year.Harmful support for fisheries,defined as support that encourages fishing capacity to develop beyond the point that would be sustainable,is estimated to be US$1517 billion per year globally(Sumaila et al.2019).These estimates are consisten

189、t with the literature.The WEF found that“of the US$540 billion of agricultural subsidies that are handed out by governments each year,nearly all of them(87 per cent)are price-distorting and environmentally and socially harmful”(Echandi and Seymour 2022).While nature-negative public financial flows a

190、re increasingly scrutinised,the number of country-level studies is small.Green budget tagging studies have applied a national or international taxonomy to classify public expenditure by whether they have positive,neutral or negative impacts on nature.For example:The United Kingdom(UK)government rece

191、ntly developed a budget tagging tool to analyse spending and taxation policies at the national level,including impact on climate change,circular economy,water management,air quality and biodiversity.Of the 2.6 trillion autumn 2021 budget,roughly 2.5 trillion(over 95 per cent)was neutral,82 billion(3

192、 per cent)was negative or strongly negative and 34 billion(1.3 per cent)was positive or strongly positive with regard to biodiversity(World Wildlife Fund WWF-UK 2021).The Colombian National Planning Department tracked the environmental impact of public spending with a taxonomy for fiscal spending th

193、at combines the Biodiversity Finance Initiatives approach with a National Climate Taxonomy.The results indicate that 15 per cent of public expenditure in agriculture has a negative impact on nature,75 per cent is neutral and 10 per cent is positive(Department of National Planning of Colombia 2022).2

194、.6.Nature-negative financial flows3 Definition based on Paulson Insitute(2020):Nature-negative financial flows refer to financial flows for activities that could potentially have a negative effect on nature.Financial flows in the form of subsidies are those that induce production or consumption acti

195、vities that exacerbate nature lossChapter 216Exhibit 9.Nature-negative public financial flows,$billion per year(2022 US$)0Support to agriculture$140-510bn$340-530bn$15-17bnSupport to energySupport to fisheries$154bnInvestment in NbSSources:FAO,United Nations Development Programme(UNDP)and UNEP(2021)

196、;International Energy Agency(IEA)(2021);OECD(2020b);OECD(2022);Environmental Markets Lab(2018);Skerritt and Sumaila(2021).An assessment of Frances State Budget analysed 250+budget measures and classified budget lines according to their impact on six environmental objectives,including biodiversity,cl

197、imate and land use.Of the 495 billion central government expenditure in 2022,453 billion(92 per cent)was neutral or not tagged,33 billion(7 per cent)was favourable and 11 billion(2 per cent)was unfavourable for the environment(Ministre de lconomie,des finances et de la souverainet industrielle et nu

198、mrique 2021).Reliable and accessible data on nature-negative flows from private sources are scarce,but existing evidence suggests that a significant proportion of private financial flows harm nature.Portfolio Earth analyses the portfolios of 50 of the largest banks in the world and concludes that on

199、 average,each of them is linked to US$52 billion of funding with embedded biodiversity risk.This figure amounts to at least US$2.6 trillion of potentially nature-negative investments.Of the funding assessed,66 per cent was related to activities that directly cause biodiversity loss(e.g.fishing and m

200、ining)and 34 per cent to activities that indirectly drive biodiversity loss for example,by driving demand(Portfolio Earth n.d.).This estimate is in line with the finding that fewer than half of the Fortune Global 500 list companies acknowledge biodiversity loss,and only 5 per cent have established n

201、ature-related commitments beyond carbon(McKinsey and Company 2022).Chapter 217Case StudyGermany-repurposing of harmful flows in agricultureNature-negative and-positive financial flows in the agricultural sector in GermanyGerman agriculture and forestry are impacted by financial flows originating on

202、the national and the European level,mainly from the European Unions(EU)Common Agricultural Policy(CAP).Most effects are harmful to nature;some are environmentally friendly.In total,we identify The EUs CAP,including German co-payments,exerts enormous influence due to the sheer volume of support at US

203、$6.7 billion.4 Nearly half of EU payments are based on agricultural area.Mostly large farms benefit,as requirements for nature conservation,environmental protection and animal welfare under the first pillar of the CAP are not high.However,requirements will be tightened from 2023 to include environme

204、ntal and climate criteria.US$15.5 billion about 71 per cent(US$11.1 billion)with negative impacts on the environment,19 per cent(US$2.9 billion)with positive and 10 per cent(US$1.5 billion)with ambivalent effects.The ratio of negative to positive flows is almost 4:1.Exhibit 10.Impact on nature of su

205、bsidies to German agriculture,US$billionNegative subsidies-national$7.2bnNegative subsidies-EU$3.9bn Ambivalent subsidies-national$1.5bn Positive subsidies-EU$2.2bn Positive subsidies-national$0.7bn Source:Bundesamt fr Naturschutz(2019);Bundesministerium der Finanzen(2021,2022);Bundesministerium fr

206、Umwelt,Naturschutz,nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz(2022);Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development(2022);Sumaila et al.(2019);Umweltbundesamt(UBA)(2021)4 For EU direct payments(first pillar CAP),it is difficult to quantify the share of harmful payments.Those without environ

207、mental criteria are listed as negative as they provide incentives to expand agricultural production.5 The reduced tax rate is also used for traditional plant-based foodstuffs,such as cereals and vegetables.Other plant-based products,such as oat milk,plant-based meat or yoghurt are taxed with the reg

208、ular full 19%VAT rate.6 UBA(2021)points out that the quota is not“budget relevant”.Thus,its ending does not increase government revenue.In Germany,the reduced value added tax(VAT)rate on animal products,such as meat,milk and eggs,5 represents the largest environmental harmful subsidy(US$5.1 billion)

209、.The quota for biofuels(worth US$0.9 bn6)raises demand for agricultural land and incentivises the production of monocultures(Forum kologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft FS 2021a).Agricultural vehicles in Germany are exempt from the annual motor vehicle tax(US$0.5 billion),which incentivises the use of h

210、eavy machines Chapter 218that emit GHG and increase soil compaction(Umweltbundesamt UBA 2021).Agricultural diesel benefits from a lower tax rate than regular diesel(US$0.4 billion).Both harmful and nature-positive flows originate from the improvement of agricultural structure and coastal protection

211、programme by federal and state governments to provide for rural development and the support of agriculture,forestry and fisheries(US$1.5 billion).A nature-positive investment programme for natural climate mitigation was started in 2022 with US$0.3 billion for investments in ecosystems.Its fiscal vol

212、ume will grow to around US$1.5 billion annually from 2024 to 2026.7 Political commitments for subsidy reform have been made for years on the European,G7 and G20 levels and in the German governments coalition agreement.They all acknowledge the inconsistency between fiscal and environmental policies b

213、ut lack follow-through.8 Reforming EU agricultural subsidies is an ongoing and long-term process,which is not considered here.9 Demand and production of meat in Germany have largely decoupled in recent decades and a large share is exported.10 See(chapter 3.1.6.4.in Postpischil et al.2022)for data on

214、 the impacts of reform on different income groups.Managing subsidy reform:multiple benefits by repurposing funds Reforming agricultural subsidies offers a wide range of benefits from various environmental(especially climate and biodiversity),economic(more efficient use of agricultural inputs)and fis

215、cal benefits(generating revenue,shifting payments from nature-negative to nature-positive activities)(e.g.Cottrell et al.2021;FS 2020).Subsidy reforms have been successful in the past when they used windows of opportunity7 and considered a specific context,such as rising food and energy prices.Repur

216、posing of financial flows and sequencing of reforms are key to ensuring political support.Subsidy reform is a lever to increase tax revenue or free expenditures by repurposing them to public spending on nature-based solutions or as social spending to manage the distributive impacts of the subsidy re

217、form.Proposals are more likely to be successful if they do not solely focus on ending subsidies but on repurposing negative into positive flows.Beneficiaries of the status quo are more likely to support reforms if they dont just lose subsidies,but gain new income opportunities(e.g.from payments for

218、ecosystem services).Reform packages should be sequenced so that benefits do not come years after the“costs”of losing a subsidy.Reforming German8 agricultural subsidies and repurposing revenue could take place in two steps.The first short-term package could include an accelerated ending of the agri-d

219、iesel subsidy,the motor vehicle tax exemption and reform of the biofuel quota.This package would reduce harmful subsidies worth 1.9 billion and create positive climate impacts.Ending the agri-diesel subsidy sooner would reduce 0.3 million t of CO2 per year.Higher tax revenues could be repurposed to

220、payments for environmental services to farmers,restoration of ecosystems and the use of paludicultures in restored marshlands.A second medium-term reform package could include a systematic greening of the coastal protection programme payments and adopting the regular VAT tax rate on animal products.

221、The latter would reduce domestic demand9 for animal products and shift consumption to more plant-based food,thus reducing GHG emissions,land use and water needs(cp.Poore and Nemecek 2018).The reform would increase tax revenue by US$45 billion and reduce GHG emissions by 1.66.3 million t CO2e.In repu

222、rposing this revenue both its environmental and redistributive impacts should be considered.10 This can be done by lowering VAT rates on plant-based foodstuffs currently taxed at the full rate and by funding programmes and targeting low-income households through programmes(FS 2021b;Postpischil et al

223、.2022).Chapter 219Beyond a narrow definition of subsidies:internalising external effectsWhile the reforms outlined above would be a major step forward,the definition of harmful subsidies does not include non-internalised externalities.11 Billions of dollars of environmental damages can only be addre

224、ssed if economic instruments are developed to internalise damages.In Germany,environmental damages from excess nitrogen and phosphorus from fertiliser use leading to eutrophication of water bodies cost society US$6.212.9 billion annually.Similarly,external costs from pesticide usage are estimated at

225、 up to US$24.1 billion annually(see Roolfs et al.2021).Other studies estimate the non-internalised damages from German agricultures even higher at US$87 billion(Boston Consulting Group 2019).Economic instruments,such as a tax on excess nitrogen and on pesticides,could be efficient economic instrumen

226、ts to reduce externalities while generating financial revenues for the needed investments in NbS.11 For example,the International Monetary Fund also include non-internalized externalities in its subsidy definition while the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD)or the Internati

227、onal Energy Agency(IEA)use narrower definition(see Cottrell et al.2021).Chapter 220Case StudyCote dIvoire-Greening Export Tariffs and Repurposing RevenueDrivers of deforestation in Cte dIvoire:expansion of land for cocoa and falling productivity Over the last 30 years,the forest area in Cte dIvoire(

228、CIV)has declined by 63.9 per cent from 24.7 per cent in 1990 to 8.9 per cent of land area in 2020(UN Statistics Division 2022).This loss is higher than almost anywhere in the world.The driving forces behind deforestation are structural:to sustain livelihoods by increasing cocoa exports using forest

229、area as a cheap input.12 The area used for cocoa production increased by a factor of 2.4(from 2 million ha in 2000 to 4.8 million ha in 2020)while the production of cocoa beans only increased by 57 per cent(from 1.4 million t in 2000 to 2.2 million t in 2020).Thus,yields per ha fell significantly an

230、d were less than two-thirds in 2020 compared to 2000.Observers point to two factors:the displacement of many cocoa farmers during the civil war that went to“protected areas,where they cut down the rain forest and planted cocoa trees”and a lack of government enforcement of rules against cocoa farming

231、 in environmentally protected areas.This“illegal”production is estimated to account for 3040 per cent of cocoa beans.This low-yield production continues to exert pressure to expand production and thus deforestation.Addressing the root causes of deforestation is difficult due to the huge political,ec

232、onomic and fiscal importance of cocoa.Cte dIvoire is the worlds largest producer of cocoa beans.In 2018,its production of 2 million tons accounted for 37 per cent of global cocoa bean production(FAO 2022).CIVs agricultural sector accounted for almost 21 per cent of GDP in 2019 and 40 per cent of the

233、 Ivorian workforce including 600,000 working for less than a dollar a day and 900,000 children(Bhutada 2020).Research estimates that only 46 per cent of the final consumer price is retained in cocoa-producing countries.The share has fallen greatly over the last few decades increasing this to expand

234、production(Abdulsamad et al.2015).Finally,cocoa is key for exports and government revenue as well.It accounts for almost half of Ivorian exports(US$5.3 billion in 2020):33.3 per cent of total export value stems from unprocessed cocoa beans and shells,a further 14.9 per cent from semi-processed cocoa

235、 products(paste,butter,powder),and only 1.6 per cent originates from chocolates produced domestically.All cocoa products are primarily exported to the European Union(OECD 2022).CIVs total tax revenue is low compared to its GDP(12 per cent in 2019)(OECD 2022).Export tariffs(as well as some taxes and

236、fees)on cocoa account for 9.6 per cent of public revenue(Ministre de lconomie et des finances in OECD 2021).The current tariff rate is flat at 14.6 per cent the same rate applies to raw cocoa beans as well as fully processed chocolates.This is significant as it provides no economic incentives to inv

237、est in shifting domestic production from land-intensive exports of unprocessed beans with little value added to higher stages of processing at which higher value added(and income)would remain in CIV,easing the pressure on deforestation.12 The production of cashews did also expand while others,such a

238、s coffee stagnated over time(see data in FAO 2022).Similarly,timber consumption or exports are not a significant driver of deforestation.Chapter 221A proposal for“greening”export tariffsThe following proposal outlines how higher revenue can be repurposed for infrastructure investments to modernise a

239、griculture(such as in the Plan National dInvestissement Agricole),retain higher value added in the domestic cocoa supply chain and thus reduce environmental pressures.It contributes to CIVs strategic goals for zero deforestation agriculture and is complementary to other deforestation and agricultura

240、l policies(Cte dIvoire 2015;Global observatory on non-state climate action 2019).A reformed,staggered export tariff structure could combine fiscal(revenue generation),environmental(reduced deforestation)and economic goals(higher domestic value added).13 Exhibit 11 illustrates how the instrument woul

241、d work.The primary goal is“not to downscale()but to shift the agricultural production from land-intensive production to capital-intensive production”(Wehkamp and Schwerhoff 2021 p.198).Exhibit 11.Tariff reform and public investments could reduce pressure on deforestationEscalating tariff structure p

242、rovides economic incentives for higher processingHigher processing of cocoa increases value addedRevenue forinvestmentsRequiresinvestmentsLess pressure for further deforestation13 A few international examples for this principle exist(see Kim 2010;Wehkamp and Schwerhoff 2021)Chapter 222A reform scena

243、rio could apply:a 20 per cent tariff rate for unprocessed raw beans and shells a 12 per cent tariff rate on semi-processed products(cocoa paste,butter and powder)an 8 per cent tariff rate on processed goods(chocolates).Using 2020 trade data,revenue would increase and shift between categories.Revenue

244、 from unprocessed beans and shells would rise while revenue from semi-processed and processed goods would fall.The total revenue would increase to US$799 million(+US$122 million),equivalent to 1.8 per cent of total tax revenue.This additional revenue should be repurposed for investments in transport

245、ation infrastructures and rural electrification,which are currently holding back higher domestic value creation.The reform would not negatively affect cocoa farmers as domestic cocoa prices are regulated and the higher tariffs would be paid by exporters.Relevance and limitations The policy proposal

246、is an example of an instrument complementary to other agriculture and deforestation policies.It recognises the negative environmental impact of the status quo,raises revenue and repurposes it for needed investments that combine economic and environmental goals.The instrument itself works in concert

247、with other policies to increase the sustainability of agriculture.It is therefore interesting beyond CIV for other(developing)countries that are dependent on exporting agricultural products with high environmental impacts.The results for repurposing of harmful flows in agriculture in Germany and the

248、 proposals for“greening”the Ivorian export tariffs for cocoa products have been developed as part of studies conducted by FS for the German Development Cooperation and the Economics of Land Degradation(ELD)Initiative.Chapter 223Data and disclosure:Data for this report are harvested from databases,se

249、condary literature and stakeholder interviews.This analysis has been hampered by the lack of data on public and private nature finance,and particularly NbS finance.In the public sector,the absence of a harmonised and granular classification system or taxonomy for nature finance or nature-positive(or

250、-negative)expenditure prevents the regular and accurate collection of data on nature-related expenditure.Even more challenging is assessing private sector investment in nature and NbS due to the absence of a common framework for assessing,managing and disclosing nature impacts and dependencies.The T

251、CFD has been instrumental in improving knowledge around GHG emissions from the private sector and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure(TNFD)aims to do the same for nature.This study has further limitations associated with:Identifying NbS finance flows:While the Classification of the

252、Functions of Government(COFOG)provides comprehensive and comparable data on government expenditure,there is no“marker”for NbS.It was therefore necessary to identify public expenditure categories that were environmental and,based on expert assessment,the literature and OECD sectoral guidance,adjust t

253、hese estimates to only include activities that can confidently be defined as NbS.The scaling factors for public expenditure data range from 0.1 for agriculture,forestry and fishing to 0.9 for protection of biodiversity and landscapes.However,there is a large margin of error associated with this scal

254、ing.A similar adjustment was made for ODA expenditure(see details in Annex).Scope of NbS:It was also necessary to classify the level of uncertainty for each sector and to calculate upper-and lower-bound estimates that reflect the degree of uncertainty.The upper bound estimates include a broader set

255、of NbS activities than the lower bound estimates.The final estimates used in this report are the midpoint between the upper and lower bounds.Geographic scope:This analysis uses data sets that do not include all countries.Since not every country publishes detailed data on public finance and on nature

256、 finance,some public finance to NbS will have been omitted.Double-counting of current financial flows:There is a risk of double-counting due to ambiguity around whether projects are included in multiple categories within data sets.The data analysis triangulated data between sources and definitions t

257、o reduce double-counting,but some may remain.2.7.LimitationsConcluding remarksAnnual public and private investment in nature-based solutions has increased by US$3.9 billion to US$154 billion(2.6 per cent).At the same time,the amount of public capital that has a negative impact on nature is three to

258、seven times higher at US$5001,100 billion.Without significantly Box 4.Limitations of estimates of current finance flows to NbSscaling up both public and private capital towards NbS by several orders of magnitude,while at the same time reducing environmentally harmful subsidies and other nature-negat

259、ive finance flows,it will be difficult to achieve the targets of the Rio Convention and the SDGs more broadly.|Photo by Martin Sanchez on UnsplashFinancial flows needed to meet Rio Convention targets3Chapter 325While Chapter 2 documents current investment in nature-based solutions,the question remai

260、ns whether these finance flows are sufficient to meet Rio Convention targets.This chapter therefore looks at the investment in NbS needed to meet international commitments related to biodiversity(halting further loss of biodiversity by protecting 30 per cent of land and marine areas by 2030),climate

261、(keeping temperature rises to below 1.5C(and 2C)compared to the pre-industrial age),and land restoration(achieving land degradation neutrality by restoring close to 1 billion ha of degraded land).Exhibit 12 below illustrates the NbS that are included in the modelling of investment needs based on the

262、ir potential to store and sequester carbon,protect biodiversity and restore terrestrial and marine ecosystems.NbS interventions used in the modelling scenarios to quantify investment needs respect social and environmental safeguards.Exhibit 12.NbS activities included in the estimation of investment

263、needsGreenroofsNatural firemanagementImprovedplantationsAvoideddeforestationRestorationof mangrovesReforestationRestorationof peatlandsAgroforestry(silvopasture)CoverCropsAgroforestry(silvorable)Avoidedgrassland impactSustainable grazingintensitySustainable fishing&aquacultureSustainable grazing-leg

264、umes in pastureSustainable grazing-improved feed Avoided saltmarshesimpactSustainable ricecultivationCropland nutrientmanagementNatural forestmanagementSFN 2021SFN 2022Avoided mangroveimpactRestorationof saltmarshesNatural stormwater managementAvoidedpeatland impactTerrestrialpeatland impactRestorat

265、ion ofseagrassAvoided seagrassimpactMarineprotected areasSources:Miralles-Wilhelm(2021);UNEP and IUCN(2021).For a description of each solution see Annex.Note:1.All marine NbS categories are displayed in blue.Mangrove forests occur at the interface between land and sea and,like peatlands,may be consi

266、dered both terrestrial and wetland ecosystems.2.Urban solutions include urban forests,parks,green spaces,green streets,green roofs,water supply and natural stormwater management.Chapter 326Exhibit 13.Annual NbS investment needs to limit climate change to below 1.5C,halt biodiversity loss and achieve

267、 land degradation neutrality,$billion(2022 US$)050100150200250300350400450500550600650700Current202520302050Total154154+230230384484100674190674520Sources:MAgPIE scenario analysis.Vivid Economics and Natural History Museum(2020);Project Drawdown(2020);WEF and McKinsey and Company(2020);Humpender et

268、al.(2020);McKinsey and Company(2022);Worthington and Spalding(2018).3.1.Investment needs and the finance gap Immediate needs investment 2023-25Over the next three years,annual financial flows to NbS need to more than double to meet international commitments set by the Rio Conventions.Exhibit 13 illu

269、strates the levels of investment in NbS needed to limit climate change to below 1.5C,halt biodiversity loss and achieve land degradation neutrality.By 2025,annual investment in NbS needs to increase to US$384 billion,more than double the finance currently flowing to NbS(US$154 billion).Immediate act

270、ion is needed from public and private actors to scale up annual investments over the next three years to close the finance gap by investing an additional US$230 billion per year.By 2050,annual investments need to reach US$674 billion,four times current investment levels.Chapter 327Investment needs t

271、o 2030By 2030,annual investment in NbS needs to more than triple from US$154 billion to US$484 billion.Moreover,a growing body of evidence suggests that it is twice as expensive to delay action as it is to act immediately(Vivid Economics and Natural History Museum 2020).With delayed action,the scale

272、 of NbS needed will be greater to compensate for the additional ecosystem losses and land conversion that will have occurred.NbS activities neededA range of NbS interventions can be implemented to deliver required climate,biodiversity and restoration outcomes.Exhibit 14 presents NbS that can most co

273、st-effectively deliver emissions reductions sufficient to limit climate change to 1.5C and land degradation neutrality by 2030 while protecting 30 per cent of the planet by 2030.As indicated in the introduction,only NbS that benefit people and have a positive contribution to climate and/or biodivers

274、ity and/or land restoration are included.NbS which have negative effects on any of the above,due to trade-offs in the provision of ecosystem services,for example,are excluded.Investment needs are estimated based on modelling which is described in detail later in this chapter.Exhibit 14 groups NbS ac

275、tivities into restoration,protection and sustainable land management.Sustainable land management includes agroforestry(silvopastoral and silvoarable),cover crops and optimal managed grazing in pastureland,which help improve soil fertility and prevent land degradation.These interventions make up one

276、quarter of investment needs in 2025.The relative importance of sustainable land management increases to 45 per cent by 2050.This is driven by the need to produce food in a sustainable manner in line with population growth and the widespread implementation of a carbon price which provides incentives

277、to farmers to introduce tree planting into existing crop and pastureland.Restoration absorbs over half of investment in 2025,with reforestation as well as seagrass and peatland restoration providing the bulk of investment opportunities.Restoration commitments feature in voluntary land restoration ta

278、rgets as part of the Bonn Challenge,the Rio Conventions and regional initiatives such as the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative(AFR 100)(Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency PBL 2020a).In the modelling,ecosystem restoration occurs only on degraded land.In the specific case of ref

279、orestation,reforestation occurs only on degraded land(with less than 25 per cent tree cover as per the FAO definition of forests)that was previously forested.The model is constrained such that the expansion of agro-forestry and all forms of restoration proposed does not negatively impact existing ec

280、osystems.The share of investment directed to protection,including protected areas and avoided degradation and conversion of peatlands,forests,mangroves and seagrasses,increases to 2030 and levels off as the 30 x30 target is reached.Protection receives 20 per cent of investment in 2025,increasing to

281、2030 and then stabilising at around 13%by 2050.However,it is important to note that Exhibit 14 reflects the costs of implementing the modelled optimal area of different NbS to reach target outcomes.Because per hectare costs of protection are lower than the per hectare costs of sustainable land manag

282、ement and restoration,the relative importance of protection appears smaller than it actually is based on the area under each NbS.Protection of existing forests and other ecosystems remains a highly cost effective NbS.In terms of biomes,forest-based solutions such as reforestation and avoided defores

283、tation can absorb one-third of total annual investment in 2025.Annual investments in peatland restoration and avoided peatland impact account for 10 per cent of the total annual NbS investments in 2025 and support national commitments like the Peatland Action Programme in the UK and the National Act

284、ion Plan for Peatland Management in Malaysia.Annual investments to restore and prevent conversion or degradation of marine ecosystems,including seagrass meadows,mangrove forests and coastal saltmarshes,make up 22 per cent of annual investments and are integral to achieving global targets.Chapter 328

285、Exhibit 14.Where do additional investments need to be directed under a 1.5C scenario(in US$billion,2022)0202523033020304102040520205010050150200250300350400450500550ReforestationAgroforestry silvopastureAgroforestry silvoarableRestoration of seagrassRestoration of saltmarshesPeatland protectionSeagr

286、ass protectionProtected areasGrassland protectionRestoration of mangrovesMangrove protectionAvoided deforestationRestoration of peatlandsCover cropsGrazing-optimal intensityProtectionRestorationSustainable land managementSources:MAgPIE scenario analysis.Vivid Economics and Natural History Museum(202

287、0);Project Drawdown(2020);WEF and McKinsey and Company(2020);Humpender et al.(2020);McKinsey and Company(2022);Worthington and Spalding(2018).Cumulative investment needs to 2050The ambition to limit global warming to 1.5C in line with the Paris Agreement,rather than 2C,can be met by mobilising US$11

288、 trillion in cumulative investment in NbS to 2050.(see Exhibit 15).14 Almost two-thirds of this investment is needed for reforestation and agroforestry.Moreover,investment in protected areas requires US$1.3 trillion(12 per cent of total investment needs).Seagrass and peatland restoration require US$

289、840 billion and US$750 billion,respectively(14 per cent in total).15 Other agriculture-related NbS such as cover crops and optimal-intensity grazing absorb US$500 billion(5 per cent).14 SFN 2021 modelled financial flows needed to limit global warming to below 2C and to reverse biodiversity loss by 2

290、050.In SFN 2022 we compare investment needs to limit global warming to meet the 1.5C target(as well as 2C),and more explicitly include land restoration commitments.15 The estimates for the restoration and protection of seagrass and saltmarshes are subject to high uncertainty in terms of area,feasibi

291、lity and costs.While seagrass meadows and saltmarshes are an integral part of marine ecosystems,their global extent remains uncertain,and more research is needed to accurately map investible restoration and protection of these ecosystems.Chapter 329Exhibit 15.Cumulative investment needs from 2022 to

292、 2050 in 1.5C and 2C scenarios,$billion(2022 US$)2C1.5C040002000600080001000012000TotalReforestationAgroforestryProtected areasRestoration of seagrassRestoration of peatlandsAvoided deforestationRestoration of saltmarshesCover cropsGrazing-optimal intensityAvoided grassland conversionRestoration of

293、mangrovesAvoided seagrass impactAvoided peatland impactAvoided mangrove impact950011000340026001300840320750290250240360032018012079381666Sources:MAgPIE scenario analysis.Vivid Economics and Natural History Museum(2020);Project Drawdown(2020);WEF and McKinsey and Company(2020);Humpender et al.(2020)

294、;McKinsey and Company(2022);Worthington and Spalding(2018).Note:The estimates presented in Exhibit 15 exclude reforestation,marine restoration and avoided terrestrial and marine restoration.This happened because most 1.5C scenarios are not directly comparable to the corresponding 2C scenarios that p

295、resent disaggregated NbS investments needs.The investment in NbS needed to limit global warming to below 1.5C pushes NbS deployment close to its full potential.In addition to net zero deforestation by 2025,a 1.5C aligned scenario requires annual CO2 sequestration of well above 15 GtCO2/year(UNEP and

296、 IUCN 2021).This level of NbS deployment approaches biogeochemical constraints and/or environmental,economic and governance issues(Nolan et al.2021).Chapter 330The 2C scenarioExhibit 13 illustrates annual investment needed in NbS under a 2C scenario.As in the 1.5C scenario,most annual investment is

297、required in reforestation and agroforestry interventions.Exhibit 16.Where do additional investments need to be directed under a 2C scenario(in US$billion,2022)0202521028020303502040450205010050150200250300350400450ReforestationAgroforestry silvopastureAgroforestry silvoarableRestoration of seagrassR

298、estoration of saltmarshesPeatland protectionSeagrass protectionProtected areasGrassland protectionRestoration of mangrovesMangrove protectionAvoided deforestationRestoration of peatlandsCover cropsGrazing-optimal intensityProtectionRestorationSustainable land managementSources:MAgPIE scenario analys

299、is.Vivid Economics and Natural History Museum(2020);Project Drawdown(2020);WEF and McKinsey and Company(2020);Humpender et al.(2020);McKinsey and Company(2022);Worthington and Spalding(2018).US$9.5 trillion is needed cumulatively from 2022 to 2050 to keep climate change below 2C,stabilise biodiversi

300、ty levels and achieve land degradation neutrality(Exhibit 15).The types of NbS activities to keep climate change below 2C are similar to those for 1.5C,except there is less agro-forestry and peatland restoration.Chapter 3313.2.Scope and methodsInvestment need estimates are based on economic modellin

301、g that combines projected global land use changes and cost estimates to derive total investment needs.The methodology uses the Model of Agricultural Production and its Impact on the Environment(MAgPIE)to estimate investment needs under a scenario in which climate,biodiversity and land degradation ne

302、utrality targets are met jointly.Based on those targets,the model optimises ecologically appropriate land use cover.See Box 5 for more information on MAgPIE.As MAgPIE focuses on forests and agricultural innovation,additional off-model analysis of investment needs focused on nine NbS:peatland restora

303、tion and avoided degradation,agroforestry(silvopasture and silvo-arable),cover crops,optimal grazing management,avoided grassland conversion and avoided impact and restoration of mangrove forests,seagrass meadows and saltmarshes.Further details are available in the annex.Box 5.Model of Agricultural

304、Production and its Impact on the Environment(MAgPIE)MAgPIE is a partial equilibrium land use model developed by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.The model is spatially explicit and solves for least-cost allocations of land uses and investment in technical change to meet future deman

305、d for food and materials of agricultural origin,based on assumed population,GDP and dietary trajectories.The model allows for land to be protected and set aside.It produces a land use change raster based on policy assumptions,such as carbon pricing and land-related policies.MAgPIE also accounts for

306、biophysical constraints on yield,land and water(Dietrich et al.2020).Model outputs:MAgPIE generates cost estimates associated with a given scenario,including land conversion costs,inputs to global food and material production and investment in productivity enhancement and irrigation.MAgPIE estimates

307、 the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of land use.It models three GHG gases:carbon dioxide,nitrogen compounds and methane.It accounts for carbon dioxide emissions from loss of terrestrial carbon stocks,including the depletion of organic matter in soils.Nitrogenous emissions are estimated based on

308、nitrogen budgets for croplands,pastures and the livestock sector.Methane emissions are based on livestock feed and rice cultivation areas.When regrowth of natural vegetation occurs,it is recorded as negative emissions in the GHG accounts.Chapter 3323.3.The finance gap to achieve 30 x30The 30 x30 tar

309、get proposed in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to galvanize urgent and transformative actions by governments and society.The annual finance gap to increase protected areas to 30 per cent of the planet by 2030(30 x30)is estimated to be between US$17 and US$22 billion per year.The fi

310、nance gap for marine protected areas(MPAs)is between US$8 and US$11 billion,measured as the difference between current MPA funding and funding(i)needed to protect 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030 and(ii)to meet optimal budget needs for the current MPA system.The finance gap for terrestrial protected

311、 areas(TPAs)is estimated to be between US$9 and US$11 billion,measured as the difference between current funding and funding(i)needed to protect 30 per cent of land by 2030 and(ii)to cover the minimum budget needed to maintain the existing TPA system.The optimal level of funding for TPAs is on avera

312、ge roughly 40 per cent higher than the minimum budget.16Funding needed to protect 30 per cent of the ocean(US$9-12 billion per year)is 9 to 12 times greater than current spending in MPAs(US$980 million per year)(Exhibit 17).The resulting annual finance gap associated with 30 x30 implementation varie

313、s across regions.In Europe,the MPA finance gap is mainly driven by the difference between current funding and the funding needed to optimally manage existing MPAs,which is five times higher than current spending.In North Africa and the Middle East current annual spending in MPAs needs to increase fr

314、om US$8 million to US$750-1,000 million to meet the 30 x30 target.16 The lower and upper bound estimates for MPAs are based on the minimum and maximum values,over six different scenarios of how the target could be implemented.See annex for details of scenarios.For TPAs,the lower and upper bound corr

315、espond to two different scenarios of how the target could be implemented.The finance gap estimates are conservative since they do not include opportunity costs or one-off establishment costs from implementing new protected areas.Chapter 333Exhibit 17.Marine Protected Areas-current funding vs funding

316、 needed for 30 x30,by region,$million(2022 US$)Latin America andthe CaribbeanAsiaSub-Saharan AfricaEuropeNorth Africa andMiddle EastTotal130730250020004000600080001000012000Current spending in MPAsRequired funding to meet optimal budget needs for current MPAsRequired funding in MPAs to achieve 30 x3

317、09605300120006629018008240100072039006400391202701800900015007504700200Sources:The Nature Conservancy(2022);Waldron et al.(2020).Note:1.The required funding for MPAs is estimated as the optimal budget needed to manage existing MPAs 2.Current spending in protected areas in Oceania is not reported due

318、 to limited data reported in the region.3.Current spending in marine protected areas in North America is not included due to the complex division of enforcement responsibilities across multiple agencies.Annual finance needed to reach 30 x30 in TPAs is on average 1.5 times larger than current funding

319、,see Exhibit 18,but this varies markedly across regions.To achieve 30 x30 in TPAs,funding needs to double in Sub-Saharan African and nearly triple in Latin America and the Caribbean.In North Africa and the Middle East,funding in TPAs needs to be five times larger than current funding.Chapter 334Exhi

320、bit 18.Terrestrial protected areas-current funding vs funding needed for 30 x30,by region,$million(2022 US$)Current spending in TPAsRequired funding to meet minimum budget needs for current TPAsRequired funding in TPAs to achieve 30 x30Latin America andthe CaribbeanAsiaSub-Saharan AfricaEuropeNorth

321、Africa andMiddle EastNorth AmericaTotal940130027005000100001500020000250003000076013001700748122043023002700350093009900120009200100001300023000250003100033000150014003000Source:Waldron et al.(2020)Note:1.The required funding for TPAs is estimated as the minimum budget needed to manage existing TPAs

322、 2.Current spending in protected areas in Oceania is not reported due to limited data reported in the region.Differences in the finance gap between MPAs and TPAs are due to both differences in current funding levels relative to what is needed and differences in scope.The MPA gap is based on optimal

323、funding needs while the TPA finance gap is based on minimum funding needs.The finance gap for marine 30 x30 is larger than that for 30 x30 of terrestrial protected areas in large part because marine 30 x30 would require a much greater expansion in the area under protection,i.e.the current area of MP

324、As of roughly 8 per cent would need to quadruple.For 30 x30,TPA area would need to double from current coverage of roughly 15-16 per cent.Chapter 3353.4.Benefits of closing the NbS finance gapThis analysis finds that the GHG abatement associated with closing the NbS finance gap will be more than 5 G

325、tCO2e per year by 2025,rising to 15 GtCO2e per year by 2050 in the 1.5C scenario and up to 13 GtCO2e in the 2C scenario.This is compared to global annual net emissions of 25 GtCO2e in 2050.This is in line with other studies-UNEP and IUCN estimate that by 2030,NbS across all ecosystems can deliver an

326、nual emission reductions and removals of at least 5 GtCO2e,with a maximum estimate of 11.7 GtCO2e.This will grow to at least 10 GtCO2e per year by 2050,with a maximum estimate of 18 GtCO2e,providing a significant proportion of mitigation needed under the Paris Agreement(UNEP and IUCN 2021).Total aba

327、tement potential is calculated by comparing the 1.5C scenario with a business-as-usual scenario with no additional climate or land protection policies.More than 40 per cent of total abatement,equivalent to 5.4 GtCO2e/year by 2050,originates from interventions that protect both terrestrial and marine

328、 ecosystems,including emissions avoided from protecting forests,peatlands(which deliver the most intensive NbS sequestration rate),mangroves,seagrass,saltmarshes and grasslands.Moreover,NbS for agriculture,such as cover crops and optimally managed grazing,could remove 1 GtCO2e/year by 2050(see Exhib

329、it 19 for 1.5C scenario).Exhibit 19.NbS global GHG removals by activity in 1.5C scenario,2022 to 2050,GtCO2e/yearGtC02e10121416426802020202520302035204020452050ReforestationAgroforestryRestoration of seagrassRestoration of peatlandsGrassland protectionMangrove protectionPeatland protectionRestoratio

330、n of mangrovesRestoration of seagrassAvoided deforestationRestoration of saltmarshesCover cropsGrazing-optimal intensitySources:MAgPIE scenario analysis;Vivid Economics and Natural History Museum(2020);Project Drawdown(2020),McKinsey(2020);Humpenoder et al.(2020);McKinsey(2022);Worthington and Spald

331、ing(2018).Chapter 336Ecological function,approximated here using the Biodiversity Intactness Index(BII),can be stabilised by 2030 and increased from current levels by 2050 if we close the NbS finance gap.The BII is a measure of biodiversity loss and proxy for ecological function,summarising the chan

332、ge in ecological communities in response to human pressures.It estimates the percentage of the original number of species that remain in an area,in this case a global average.Under a business-as-usual scenario,where there is no climate policy or action to increase protected areas from current levels

333、,biodiversity intactness will fall from 0.78 in 2020 to 0.773 by 2050,a serious decline of over 0.7 index points.However,if the finance gap is closed and international commitments are met,biodiversity intactness levels will return to 2020 levels by 2030 and increase 0.28 index points by 2050 compared to 2020 levels(see Exhibit 20)indicating the halting and gradual reversal of biodiversity loss.Exh