Introduction

The report analyses the investment required to close the natural capital gap to achieve selected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 40 countries. It highlights the critical role of natural capital—such as ecosystems, air, water, and agricultural land—in meeting SDG targets and addresses gaps in these assets globally.

Overlooked potential: global, regional and national benefits of closing the natural capital gap

For the 40 countries studied, an investment of approximately US$7.4 trillion by 2030 is required to close natural capital gaps. However, these investments could deliver benefits estimated at US$152 trillion, yielding an average return of US$20 for every US$1 invested. Closing these gaps could prevent roughly 4.5 million premature deaths annually, restore over 250 million hectares of agricultural land, avoid 27 million hectares of deforestation, and conserve significant ecosystems. The highest returns generally come from improving air quality and protecting ecosystems. For instance, ecosystem protection and agricultural land restoration provide the greatest benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR), significantly exceeding other areas like material efficiency or climate mitigation.

Lower-income countries tend to benefit more relative to their GDP from closing these gaps, notably in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 7 of the top 10 countries experiencing the highest benefits relative to GDP were located. Notably, the highest total net benefits are observed in countries from East Asia and the Pacific region.

A global action agenda to close the natural capital gap

The report emphasises the urgency to integrate natural capital investments within economic planning and development strategies globally, arguing for the removal of harmful subsidies (valued globally at approximately US$500 billion annually) that currently incentivise unsustainable natural resource use. It stresses immediate protection for intact ecosystems, highlighting that delaying action could double future restoration costs.

Protected areas are underlined as cost-effective solutions offering high economic and environmental returns. To ensure fair distribution of benefits from protected areas, the report recommends greater recognition and support of Indigenous-managed conservation areas.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are recommended as key strategies that deliver multiple social, economic, and environmental benefits. For instance, investing in natural infrastructure to improve water quality and management is cited as economically beneficial, potentially reducing water treatment costs for 433 million urban dwellers globally.

The report further underscores the necessity of moving beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the sole economic indicator, proposing broader frameworks like natural capital accounting, to better reflect true wealth and sustainability.

Costs and benefits of closing the natural capital gap in 40 countries

The report provides detailed country-level assessments of investment needs and benefits for closing natural capital gaps. For instance, China could realise net benefits of US$31.4 trillion, largely through air quality improvements, ecosystem restoration, and wetland protection. Similarly, India could accrue benefits totalling US$18.3 trillion through improved air and water quality alongside ecosystem protection. Other countries with significant net benefits include Brazil (US$2.98 trillion), Indonesia (US$10.3 trillion), and the United States (US$7.84 trillion).

Overall, protecting wetlands typically provides the highest returns relative to investment across most countries, with benefit-to-cost ratios frequently exceeding 100. Air pollution control also consistently delivers substantial returns, evidenced by high BCRs in countries like the US (1,165) and China (100).

Addendum on the treatment of climate change in the underlying analysis

Climate mitigation is assessed globally, attributing costs and benefits to countries proportionally based on their greenhouse gas emissions. The greatest costs and benefits from climate mitigation are attributed to China, the United States, and India, reflecting their significant emissions. This approach underscores the universal but uneven responsibility and benefits associated with global climate action.