BetterNature is usually argued for on moral grounds, or aesthetic ones. Both are legitimate, and both leave the argument easy to postpone.
In December 2024, IPBES, the body that does for biodiversity what the IPCC does for climate, published the arithmetic.
More than half of global GDP, over US$50 trillion of annual economic activity, is “moderately to highly dependent on nature”.
Meanwhile, direct public subsidies to activities that damage biodiversity run at about US$1.7 trillion a year, and private investment in activities causing direct damage at about US$5.3 trillion a year.
Both sets of numbers come from the same report, three paragraphs apart.
The dependencyWhat “dependent” is measuring
The phrase is careful, and the care is what makes it usable.
IPBES does not say the economy is made of nature. It says more than half of global GDP is moderately to highly dependent on it.
That covers the obvious, farming, fishing, forestry, and the less obvious: pollination for crops, water regulation for industry, soil for construction materials, climate stability for insurance.
The other half is not independent of nature. It is simply less directly exposed.
The report gives a sharper version of the same figure. Its statistics annex puts the 2023 value at about US$58 trillionannual economic activity generated in sectors moderately to highly dependent on nature, “i.e. more than 50% of global GDP”. The body text says “more than $50 trillion”; the annex says 58, and dates it. We give both, because a figure without its year cannot be checked.
The report also names why this dependency stays invisible in decisions: current decision-making “has prioritized short-term financial returns while ignoring costs to nature, and failed to hold actors to account for negative economic pressures on the natural world”.
UnpricedThe bill nobody receives
Three figures sit together in the report, and their order matters more than any of them alone.
The report's own logic runs through them in that order: the unpriced damage “alongside direct public subsidies” is what enhances private financial incentives to invest in activities that damage nature. The subsidy is not an accident sitting next to the investment. It is part of what makes the investment attractive.
And waiting costs extra. IPBES states that delayed action on biodiversity goals “could as much as double costs”, and that delayed action on climate change adds at least US$500 billion per year to the cost of meeting policy targets. Postponement is not free; it is a line item.
One caseA health problem solved with water
The report's central idea, treating linked problems together, sounds abstract until you see it done. The co-chair gives one example, and it is the clearest thing in the release.
The disease, also called bilharzia, “can cause life-long ill health and affects more than 200 million people worldwide”. Treated as a health problem, usually with medication, it recurs, because people are reinfected.
A project in rural Senegal did something else: reduced water pollution and removed invasive water plants, cutting the habitat of the snails that host the parasitic worms carrying the disease.
Result: a 32% reduction in infections in children, better access to fresh water, and new revenue for local communities.
Nothing in that project was medical. It worked on the health outcome anyway, because the disease was never only a health problem, it was a water problem wearing a medical name.
DistributionWhere those people live
A global average hides who carries it. The report breaks that down, and the first number is the one to keep.
- 41% of people live in areas that saw extremely strong declines in biodiversity between 2000 and 2010.
- 9% live in areas that have experienced very high health burdens.
- 5% live in areas with high levels of malnutrition.
The report names who is disproportionately affected: developing countries including small island developing states, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and, it adds, “those in vulnerable situations in higher-income countries”. The last clause is easy to skip and worth keeping.
Which is the honest shape of a first article on living things. The case for nature does not need to rest on beauty. Half the world economy already rests on it, most of the damage is unpriced, and the people standing closest to the loss are rarely the ones who chose it.
QuestionsFrequently asked questions
How much of the world economy depends on nature?
More than half of global GDP, more than US$50 trillion of annual economic activity, is “moderately to highly dependent on nature”, according to the IPBES Nexus Assessment published in December 2024.
How much public subsidy harms biodiversity?
Approximately US$1.7 trillion per year in direct public subsidies goes to economic activities with negative impacts on biodiversity. The report adds approximately US$5.3 trillion in annual private investment in activities causing direct damage to nature.
What are the unaccounted-for costs?
The damage economic activity causes that nobody pays for: impacts on biodiversity, water, health and climate change, including from food production. IPBES estimates them at at least US$10-25 trillion per year.
What is a “nexus approach”?
Treating together problems normally handled separately, biodiversity, water, food, health, climate. The report gives a Senegal example: schistosomiasis, treated as a health problem, kept recurring through reinfection. Treated as a water and invasive-plant problem, infections in children fell by 32%.
Who bears the impacts?
More than half the world's population lives in areas experiencing the highest impacts. IPBES specifies that 41% of people live in areas that saw extremely strong declines in biodiversity between 2000 and 2010, 9% in areas with very high health burdens and 5% in areas with high levels of malnutrition.
Does this report exist in French?
The media release, no: it is published in English only, which we verified through its hreflang tags and language selector. The figures in the French edition of this article are therefore reported rather than quoted: the translation is ours.
Read nextRelated
Sources
- Media Release: IPBES Nexus Assessment, 17 December 2024
- Thematic Assessment Report on the Interlinkages among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health, IPBES, December 2024
About this article. General and educational information. The figures come from the IPBES media release of 17 December 2024 presenting the Nexus Assessment, three years of work, 165 experts from 57 countries, more than 6,500 references. The amounts are estimates, and IPBES writes “at least” before the US$10-25 trillion range.
Spotted an error or an out-of-date figure? Write to us: we will correct it and re-date the article. Our texts are written with the help of artificial intelligence and checked against official sources before publication, but a figure or a definition can change without us catching it. If anything here does not match what an official body tells you, they are right.