A Sustainable Ocean Economy For 2050

Commissioned by
A Sustainable
Ocean Economy
for 2050
Approximating Its
Benefits and Costs
Manaswita Konar and Helen Ding
Secretariat of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable
Ocean Economy, World Resources Institute
About the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) is a unique initiative by 14 world leaders
who are building momentum for a sustainable ocean economy in which effective protection, sustainable
production and equitable prosperity go hand in hand. By enhancing humanity’s relationship with the ocean,
bridging ocean health and wealth, working with diverse stakeholders and harnessing the latest knowledge,
the Ocean Panel aims to facilitate a better, more resilient future for people and the planet.
Established in September 2018, the Ocean Panel has been working with government, business, financial
institutions, the science community and civil society to catalyse and scale bold, pragmatic solutions across
policy, governance, technology and finance to ultimately develop an action agenda for transitioning to
a sustainable ocean economy. Co-chaired by Norway and Palau, the Ocean Panel is the only ocean policy
body made up of serving world leaders with the authority needed to trigger, amplify and accelerate action
worldwide for ocean priorities. The Ocean Panel comprises members from Australia, Canada, Chile, Fiji, Ghana,
Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Palau and Portugal and is supported by the UN
Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean.
The Ocean Panel’s approach is both ambitious and practical. Collaborative partnerships are essential to
converting knowledge into action. To develop a common understanding of what a sustainable ocean economy
looks like, the Ocean Panel gathers input from a wide array of stakeholders, including an Expert Group and
an Advisory Network. The Secretariat, based at World Resources Institute, assists with analytical work,
communications and stakeholder engagement.
In the spirit of achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), providing value to the UN Decade of
Ocean Science for Sustainable Development and meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the Ocean
Panel commissioned a comprehensive assessment of ocean science and knowledge that has significant
policy relevance. This includes a series of 16 Blue Papers and various Special Reports that offer a synthesis of
knowledge, new thinking and perspectives, and opportunities for action. This body of work is informing a new
ocean narrative in the forthcoming Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy report. Together, this research and new
narrative serve as inputs to the Ocean Panel’s deliberations for its forthcoming action agenda.
The Ocean Panel commissioned the Secretariat at World Resources Institute to prepare this Special Report,
a benefit-cost analysis which examines the global net benefit of implementing sustainable, ocean-based
interventions over a 30-year time horizon (2020–50). This paper is an independent input to the Ocean Panel
process and does not necessarily represent the thinking of the Ocean Panel.
ii | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Table of Contents
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Highlights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Assessing the Return on Investment for Four Sustainable
Ocean Transformations: Scenarios, Assumptions, Methodology, Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix A: Conservation and Restoration of Mangrove Habitats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B: Scaling Up Offshore Wind Energy Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix C: Decarbonising International Shipping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix D: Increasing the Production of Sustainably
Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
About WRI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
iv | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
Foreword
Ocean-based industries such as fishing, offshore energy, shipping and coastal tourism had been conservatively estimated
to be 3.5–7.0 percent of world gross domestic product, a value that was predicted to double by 2030. As of 2010, ocean-
based industries contributed some 31 million direct full-time jobs, and the number is estimated to be higher when
considering jobs provided via informal or artisanal employment.
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the current global economic prospects look less favourable as the resulting
economic crisis has dramatically disrupted lives, communities and economies worldwide. The ocean economy also
has been severely affected by the global economic downturn. Productivity and output across tourism, shipping and
fisheries are down, and job loss is high. Debt is rising across the ocean economy while small businesses struggle to stay
afloat. Moreover, there will likely be increased pressure to roll back environmental policies; this, in turn, will compromise
long-term recovery and economic benefit. Given the world’s reliance on the ocean, these impacts reverberate across the
global economy. In addition, we continue to ratchet towards a warmer and more unstable climate, with even more severe
implications for ocean health, the global economy and millions of lives.
Now, more than ever, we need a healthy ocean to provide the key ecosystem services and benefits crucial for a
sustainable future. As political leaders and policymakers, the private sector, financial institutions and local communities
seek to reset and recover economically—and build social and natural resilience into the future—there is an opportunity to
partner on the rapid transition to a sustainable ocean economy as part of a blue recovery that reflects these investments
and benefits.
The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) commissioned the Secretariat at World Resources
Institute to develop a benefit-cost analysis as an independent input to the Ocean Panel process. This analysis, which was
subject to a rigorous and independent peer review, is the first-ever attempt to estimate the global net benefit and the
benefit-cost ratio over a 30-year time horizon (2020–50) from implementing sustainable, ocean-based interventions. It
focuses on four ocean-based policy interventions: conserving and restoring mangrove habitats, scaling up offshore wind
production, decarbonising the international shipping sector and increasing the production of sustainably sourced ocean-
based proteins. Building on several existing analyses and reports, including The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change:
Five Opportunities for Action (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019), this analysis demonstrates that ocean-based investments yield
benefits at least five times greater than the costs.
As co-chairs of the Ocean Panel Expert Group, we wish to warmly thank the Secretariat and reviewers for responding
rapidly and effectively to the opportunity to conduct this novel analysis. We also thank the Ocean Panel members for their
vision in commissioning this analysis. We hope they and other parties act on the paper’s findings. Sustainable, ocean-
based investments are more relevant than ever before while the world fights a global health crisis and endures significant
economic shocks.
Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. Professor Peter Haugan, Ph.D. Hon. Mari Elka Pangestu, Ph.D.
Oregon State University Institute of Marine Research, Norway University of Indonesia
A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 1

Highlights
The ocean faces urgent environmental challenges, but taking action to protect ocean-
based ecosystems and ensuring the environmental sustainability of ocean-based
activities will help deliver a whole host of benefits to society. The key question is how
these benefits compare to the costs of action.
To address that question, this working paper estimates the global net benefit and
the benefit-cost (B-C) ratio over a 30-year time horizon (2020–50) of sustainable
ocean-based investments on four ocean-based policy interventions: conserving and
restoring mangrove habitats, scaling up offshore wind production, decarbonising the
international shipping sector and increasing the production of sustainably sourced
ocean-based proteins (to ensure a healthy, balanced human diet by 2050).
The results show that, on the whole, sustainable ocean-based investments yield
benefits at least five times greater than the costs. Over 30 years, investing US$2.0–$3.7
trillion globally across the four areas would generate a net benefit of $8.2–$22.8 trillion.
When assessing individual interventions, the rate of return on investment is high,

with the average economic B-C ratio ranging between 3-to-1 and 12-to-1, and in
some cases even higher.
A full accounting of all benefits and costs would suggest that acting to transform these
sectors will generate benefits that are much larger than the costs. Better awareness of
the return on investment will strengthen the economic imperative for action.
Executive Summary
The ocean and its resources provide key ecosystem For each intervention area, the impact to reach
services and benefits that are crucial for human well- a sustainable transformation pathway by 2050 is
being and the prosperity of the global economy, but measured relative to a business-as-usual scenario.
these services are at risk. The ocean’s wide range of A B-C ratio is developed by dividing the present value
ecosystem services (including food, energy, recreational/ of benefits in 2050 by the present value of costs. The
cultural services and trading/transport routes) is vital categories of benefits assessed include health (such as
for the well-being of society. However, climate change, a reduction in mortality and morbidity), environmental
overfishing, pollution and a loss of biodiversity and and ecological (such as benefits from higher biodiversity,
coastal ecosystems are eroding the ability of the ocean to reduced water usage and land-based conflicts, and
sustain livelihoods and prosperity. coastal protection) and economic and social (such as
increased business revenues, household income, jobs
Taking action to protect these ocean-based
and food security). The categories of costs include costs
ecosystems and ensuring the environmental
to business (such as capital investments and increases
sustainability of ocean-based activities will produce
in operational costs), costs to government (such as
health, environmental and ecological, and economic
costs of regulations, research and development [R&D]
and social benefits to people and the planet. A key
expenditures, enforcement and monitoring costs)
question for policymakers and funding agencies is how
and costs to households (such as opportunity costs of
these benefits compare with the costs. This analysis
forgone activities). The benefit and cost estimates are
aims to answer the question by building on several
partial estimates; impacts are monetarily quantified
existing analyses and reports, including The Ocean as a
where possible and are qualitatively described when
Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action
quantifiable data are absent.
(Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019) and The Global Consultation
Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019).
Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, it
demonstrates that ocean-based investments yield
benefits to society in the long term, and these benefits Taking action to protect these
substantially outweigh the costs.
ocean-based ecosystems and
This analysis is the first attempt to estimate the
global net benefit and the B-C ratio over a 30- ensuring the environmental
year time horizon (2020–50) from implementing
sustainable ocean-based interventions. It indicates the
sustainability of ocean-based
scale of benefits compared to the costs by focusing on activities will produce health,
four ocean-based policy interventions: conserving and
restoring mangrove habitats, scaling up offshore wind environmental and ecological, and
production, decarbonising the international shipping
sector and increasing the production of sustainably
economic and social benefits to
sourced ocean-based proteins (to ensure a healthy, people and the planet
balanced human diet by 2050). These interventions
would contribute to global efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and move countries towards their
Sustainable Development Goals and targets (Hoegh-
Guldberg et al. 2019).

Key Findings restoration. The total value of net benefits for
mangrove restoration over 30 years ($97–$150 billion)
The overall rate of return on investment (ROI) can be
is higher than for conservation ($48–$96 billion)
very high, with sustainable ocean-based investments
because we assume the area of mangroves restored is
yielding benefits at least five times greater than the
10 times that of the area conserved.2
costs. When assessing individual interventions, the
average economic B-C ratio range between 3-to-1 and Every $1 invested in scaling up global offshore
12-to-1, and in some cases even higher. The B-C ratios wind production generates a benefit estimated
were similar to key health interventions in developed at $2–$17, depending on the cost of offshore energy
and developing countries.1 Specifically, investing production and transmission and the types of
$2.0–$3.7 trillion globally across the four areas from generation that would be displaced.3 The value of
2020 to 2050 would generate $8.2–$22.8 trillion in net the ROI will increase as the costs for offshore wind
benefits (average $15.5 trillion), implying a rate of ROI of energy generation fall because of improvement in
400–615 percent. The B-C ratios vary across sectors and technologies and actions to reduce integration costs.
interventions (Table ES-1; Figure ES-1) as follows:
Every $1 invested in decarbonising international
Every $1 invested in mangrove conservation shipping and reducing emissions to net zero is
and restoration generates a benefit of $3. When estimated to generate a return of $2–$5. The
assessing specific interventions, the B-C ratio for analysis assumed the significant capital expenditure
conservation is 88-to-1 and for restoration is 2-to-1. to switch to zero-carbon emissions will happen after
Three factors drive the difference in the B-C ratios: 2030, and limiting the analysis to 2050 captures only a
the higher cost of mangrove restoration (due to portion of returns from these investments, which will
seeding and replanting), low survival rates following continue beyond 2050.
restoration and the lag in accrual of benefits from
Table ES-1. Summary of Benefit-Cost Ratios for the Four Action Areas in 2050
ACTION AVERAGE BENEFIT- COST RATIO
Conserve and restore mangrovesa 3:1
Decarbonise international shippingb 4:1
Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins 10:1
Scale up offshore energy productionc 12:1
Notes:
a. The ratio presented is the combined ratio for mangrove conservation and restoration. When assessing specific interventions, the benefit-cost ratio
for conservation is estimated to be 88-to-1 and for restoration is 2-to-1.
b. The benefit-cost ratio estimated for decarbonising international shipping ranges from 2:1 to 5:1
c. The benefit-cost ratio estimated for scaling up of global offshore wind production ranges from 2:1 to 17:1
Source: Authors’ calculations.
4 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Every $1 invested in increasing production of healthier ecosystems; impacts on marine biodiversity
sustainably sourced ocean-based protein (to from increasing the number of offshore wind farms;
ensure a healthy, balanced diet by 2050) is and distributional impacts of the benefits and costs
estimated to yield $10 in benefits. The increase on poorer communities. Given these nonmonetised
in demand for ocean-based protein to provide a impacts, the B-C ratios present a partial estimation of
healthy diet for 9.7 billion people by 2050, which all benefits and costs that are likely to accrue as a result
would replace a percentage of emission-intensive of such investments. These four examples are indicative
land-based protein sources, can be achieved by of the relative scale of benefits compared to the costs.
reforming wild-capture fisheries and by increasing the Further research and analysis to address these gaps will
sustainable production of ocean-based aquaculture. provide a more complete picture of the value of benefits
Both measures will deliver benefits such as better versus costs.
health outcomes to consumers, higher revenues to
Although data limitations prevented a full accounting
fishers, lower GHG emissions mitigating the risks of
of all benefits and costs, the results of the analyses
climate damage, reduced land-based conflicts and
suggest that taking actions to transform these sectors
lower water usage.
will generate a host of benefits that are much larger
A number of impacts (both benefits and costs) have not than the costs.4 The results show that sustainable
yet been monetised, but they need to be considered ocean-based investments yield benefits at least
by policymakers. These include the impact of GHG five times greater than the costs (Figure ES-2), with
emissions on ocean acidification and the associated loss minimum net returns of $8.2 trillion over 30 years.
to biodiversity and commercial shellfish production; Better awareness of evidence of the possible ROI will
a potential increase in tourism revenues globally help strengthen the economic case for action.
from restored mangroves; biodiversity benefits from
Figure ES-1. Benefits Significantly Outweigh Costs across Sustainable Ocean-Based Interventions, with Average B-C Ratio
Ranging between 3:1 and 12:1
Benefit–cost ratio (average) Net benefit

0:1 5:1 10:1 (Average, US$)
Conservation &
3:1 $0.2 trillion
restoration of mangroves
Decarbonization of
4:1 $5.1 trillion
international shipping
Sustainable ocean-based
food production 10:1 $6.7 trillion
Offshore wind
energy production 12:1 $3.5 trillion
Total $15.5 trillion

Note: Average benefit-cost (B-C) ratios have been rounded to the nearest integer and the net benefits value to the first decimal place. The B-C ratio for mangroves is
the combined ratio for both conservation- and restoration-based interventions. The average net benefits represent the average net present value for investments and
is calculated over a 30-year horizon (2020–50).

Figure ES-2. Sustainable Ocean Investments Yield Benefits at Least 5x Higher than Costs
$10.3 trillion
Economic
benefits $1 trillion
Environment
benefits $4.3 trillion
BENEFITS
are > 5X HIGHER
than COSTS
Health
benefits $5 trillion
$2 trillion
Total Benefits Total Costs
Note: The total benefits and costs in the figure present the lower-bound present value estimates to demonstrate the minimum scale of quantified net benefits.

1. Introduction
The ocean’s economic value is undisputed: it generates 1.1 Scope of the Analysis
jobs that support millions of livelihoods, it supplies
The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
resources that have enabled decades of industrial
(Ocean Panel) commissioned this benefit-cost analysis as
growth, and its sea routes enable 90 percent of world
an input to the deliberations of the Ocean Panel, serving
trade (Fleming et al. 2014). The ocean’s ecosystem
to strengthen the evidence base of the forthcoming
services are vital for the well-being of society. For
Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy report and action
example, in some least-developed countries, fish protein
agenda.
accounts for more than 50 percent of animal protein
intake (FAO 2018). Likewise, the ocean is reflected in The Ocean Panel proposes that a sustainable ocean
many cultural practices, is manifest in inspirational art economy can simultaneously deliver on three
and provides recreational and aesthetic value to many dimensions. It can
(Fleming et al. 2014).
protect: reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
However, these services and benefits are at risk as while safeguarding biodiversity;
the ocean faces pressures from enhanced economic
activity, demands from a growing human population produce: contribute to sustainably powering and
and uncertainty from a warmer, unstable climate. feeding a planet of 9.7 billion people in 2050; and
Overfishing, pollution, climate change and loss of prosper: create better jobs and support more
biodiversity are eroding the ability of the ocean to equitable economic growth, household income and
continue to sustain livelihoods and prosperity. The well-being.
cumulative impact of human activities and climate
change are likely to cause further ecosystem degradation To achieve this vision, it will be critical to take action to
or even collapse of ecosystems such as coral reefs, kelp transform ocean-based sectors and ecosystems towards
forests and seagrasses (Halpern et al. 2019; IPCC 2019). sustainability.
This analysis begins to estimate the benefits and costs We indicate the scale of benefits compared to costs by
of transitioning towards a sustainable ocean economy focusing on specific policy interventions across one
by focusing on four areas that represent key aspects of coastal ecosystem, mangroves, and the ocean-based
the ocean economy. It builds on The Ocean as a Solution sectors involved with offshore wind energy, international
to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (Hoegh- shipping and ocean-based protein from capture fisheries
Guldberg et al. 2019) and The Global Consultation Report and mariculture (Table 1).
of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019) and other
Although it was not possible to cover all potential
analyses and reports to demonstrate that ocean-based
interventions across these sectors, specific interventions
investments can yield considerable economic benefits to
were chosen to meet three criteria: achievement of the
society in the long term.
Ocean Panel’s vision, contribution to the global efforts
to reduce GHG emissions, and contribution to delivering
countries’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
targets (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).5

These are the four interventions analysed: been made to assess the net positive benefits from
protecting marine ecosystems and transforming
Conserving and restoring mangrove habitats
ocean-based activities, they focused on particular
Scaling up offshore wind energy production measures, ecosystems and investments in particular
regions or referred to assessments over shorter time
Decarbonising the international shipping sector
periods. Consequently, the overall global benefits and
Increasing production of sustainably sourced ocean- costs of transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy
based protein (to ensure a healthy, balanced diet by across these four areas have not been generated in
2050) an aggregate form or included in global discussions.
Building on existing literature, this working paper aims
This analysis is the first attempt to measure the global
to address the knowledge gap by focusing on sustainable
net benefit and benefit-cost (B-C) ratio of implementing
transformation pathway scenarios and by using both
ocean-based interventions over a 30-year horizon
quantitative and qualitative methods.
(2020–50). While in the past, significant efforts have
Table 1. The Four Ocean-Based Areas Analysed
OCEAN-BASED SECTORS/ SPECIFIC ACTIONS

ECOSYSTEMS
Mangrove coastal habitats Conserve and restore mangrove coastal habitats
Ocean-based renewable energy Scale up the production of offshore wind energy (fixed and floating wind installations)a
Ocean-based transport Reduce emissions from international shipping with a target to reach net-zero emissions in 2050b
Ocean-based food production Achieve a healthier balanced diet for 9.7 billion people by 2050 by switching a share of protein from
emission-intensive land-based sources of protein (notably beef and lamb) to low-carbon sustain-
ably produced ocean-based sources of proteinc
Notes:
a. Based on the scenarios analysed, offshore energy will likely continue to dominate the generation potential of the ocean energy sector in 2050, accounting for 65
percent of the sector’s potential (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
b. The analysis excludes military and fishing vessels and domestic transport and includes bulk carriers, oil tankers and container ships, which account for the majority
of the emissions (55 percent) in the shipping sector (Olmer et al. 2017).
c. Sustainable production involves reforming fisheries by 2050 and increasing the production of sustainable ocean-based aquaculture (fed and nonfed).
Source: Authors.

2. Methodology
This paper summarises the potential impact of Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU
investments in four ocean-based areas (see Table 1) 2019), are described in Section 2.1.
over 30 years (2020–50). By dividing the present value of
A range of benefits and costs were identified that
benefits by the present value of costs, a B-C ratio for each
would achieve the target state over 30 years. These
sector is estimated (Box 1).
impacts were quantified monetarily where possible
The assumptions used to derive the B-C ratio differ for and were described qualitatively where a lack of data
each sector. They are discussed in detail in Section 3. did not allow for such quantification.
A generic analytical framework was applied to ensure
Future benefits and costs were discounted using a
consistency and comparability in analysing the impacts
rate of 3.5 percent. The discounted benefits and costs
in each area:
were summed over 30 years (2020–50) to arrive at a
The ambition for each area was defined as the level present value of benefits and costs for 2050 (Box 1).
of sustainability that would be achieved in 2050 All values are based on 2019 prices.
with respect to an identified baseline scenario.
For each area, a B-C ratio was developed by dividing
The business-as-usual (BAU) and sustainable
the present value of benefits in 2050 by the present
transformation pathway projections, based on
value of costs.
scenarios modelled in The Ocean as a Solution to
Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (Hoegh- The present value of benefits and costs were
Guldberg et al. 2019) and The Global Consultation aggregated across the areas to provide an aggregate
B-C ratio for 2050.
Box 1. Estimating the Benefit-Cost Ratio
The benefit-cost (B-C) ratio indicates the return from ocean-based investments in the four areas in 2050. A B-C ratio greater than 1
demonstrates that the returns from an investment will be higher than the costs estimated over the chosen time period.
Present value of benefits Sum of discounted benefits over 30 years B0 Bn C0 Cn

B/C = = = [ + ... ]÷[ + ... ]
Present value of costs Sum of discounted costs over 30 years (1 + r) 0
(1 + r) n
(1 + r) 0
(1 + r)n
where n = year; B = benefits; C = costs; r = discount rate
Discounting is used to compare benefits and costs occurring over different periods of time by converting them into present values.
This is based on the concept that people prefer to receive goods and services now rather than later.a The discount rate used in the
Green Book, also known as the social time preference rate, is based on two components: the ‘time preference’, which is the rate at
which consumption and spending are discounted over time, assuming no change in per capita consumption, and the ‘wealth effect’,
which reflects the expected growth in per capita consumption over time, where future consumption will be higher relative to current
consumption and is expected to have a lower utility.b
Source: a, b. HMT 2018.

The time frame of 2020–50 provides enough time Consequently, the estimates should not be interpreted
for measures to be implemented and environmental as giving an exact depiction of the flow of returns. They
benefits to result. In addition, the year 2050 aligns with have been developed to indicate the scale of benefits
long-term strategies to reduce emissions to net zero by relative to costs specific to the scenarios analysed for
midcentury (IPCC 2018) and meet the 2050 biodiversity different activities. The analysis aims to stimulate timely
vision where biodiversity is valued, conserved and discussion, influence ongoing debate on emerging
restored to sustain a healthy planet (Cooper 2018). The sustainability issues and ensure that investments to
time frame also overlaps with the United Nations Decade obtain a sustainable ocean economy are not ignored
of Ocean Science and delivery of the 2030 SDG. in global discussions. The analysis does not attempt to
show the regional variation of the benefits and costs.
We used a constant social discount rate of 3.5 percent
Conducting these assessments, which closely consider
for the analysis (HMT 2018). Views vary on the correct
local factors, should be a key step when implementing
discount rate for climate policies as well as the extent to
ocean-based measures and regulations at local and
which rates differ between developing and developed
national levels.
countries.6 Some economists give more weight to
environmental benefits that occur in distant years and
2.1 BAU and Sustainable
recommend a lower discount rate for intergenerational
decisions or a ‘hyperbolic’ discount rate that declines
Transformation Pathway
over time (Hausker 2011). For example, the Stern Review
Scenarios for 2050
recommends a declining social discount rate, with rates The analysis aims to answer four key questions:
lower than 3 percent for investments beyond 30 years
If the rate of mangrove loss were halted and degraded
(Stern 2007). The review states, ‘If the ethical judgement
mangrove areas were restored, what would be the
is that future generations count very little regardless of
benefits and costs to society?
their consumption level then investments with mainly
long-run pay-offs would not be favoured. In other words, If the world decided to expand offshore wind
if you care little about future generations you will care energy generation (from 0.3 percent of total energy
little about climate change. As we have argued that generation in 2020 to 2–7 percent of total future
is not a position which has much foundation in ethics energy generation in 2050), what would be the
and which many would find unacceptable’.7 To reflect benefits and costs to society?
the intertemporal consideration of resource values, we
If the international shipping sector reduced its
selected a lower social discount rate. Given that the
emissions to net zero, what would be the benefits and
appraisal period is 30 years (and no longer), we decided
costs to society?
on a constant 3.5 percent social discount rate.8
If sustainable ocean-based food production increased
Challenges related to carrying out a benefit-cost analysis
(to meet the balanced diet requirements as advocated
of environmental measures include key benefit and
by the 2019 report by the EAT-Lancet Commission on
cost omissions, ambiguity or uncertainty in assigning
Food, Planet, Health [Willett et al. 2019]), what would
monetary benefits to nonmarket goods, difficulty
be the benefits and costs to society?
in integrating distributional aspects,9 and increased
subjectivity for intangible benefits and costs. Although To answer these questions, we identified a sustainable
B-C ratio analyses or return on investment (ROI) studies transformation pathway scenario for 2050, then
at the global level are appealing, this approach has measured benefits and costs needed to achieve this
limitations. The biggest risk of global benefit-cost pathway against a BAU scenario. The sustainable
estimates is that they do not present the distribution transformation pathway and BAU scenarios, taken from
of benefits and costs across developing and developed Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) and the Food and Land Use
countries. Global B-C ratios do not reflect heterogeneity Coalition (FOLU) report (2019), are summarised in Table
(due not only to the distribution of benefits and costs 2. For most interventions, benefits are accrued over the
across the globe but also to differences in discount rates). long term but the investment costs occur up front.

Table 2. Business-as-Usual and Sustainable Transformation Pathway Scenarios
FOUR ACTIONS BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION PATHWAY

SCENARIO
Conserve and Blue carbon ecosystems continue to decline, but Mangrove conservation: the per year loss under BAU is
restore mangroves at decreasing rates. The rate of loss of mangroves halted completely.b
globally is estimated at 0.11% per year.a Mangrove restoration: two scenarios were considered:
(1) a moderate restoration effort recovering 40% of the
historical ecosystem cover by 2050 (consistent with
Global Mangrove Alliance goals), and (2) an aggressive
scenario of complete restoration of pre-1980s cover.c
Scale up offshore Worldwide installed offshore wind energy capacity The total installation capacity for offshore wind
wind energy in 2018 generated 77 terawatt hours (TWh) per year energy is estimated to grow substantially by 2050. The
production and accounted for less than 1% of world energy offshore wind energy generation for 2050 is estimated
production.d The current energy technologies mix at 650–3,500 TWh per year.e Under this scenario, the
remains constant (and the share of offshore wind energy mix will shift to a higher fraction of renewables
energy remains low) as energy production expands. to meet the future increase in energy demand.
Decarbonise The total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Emissions in international shipping are reduced to net
international from international shipping is estimated to grow from zero by 2050.g
shipping 800 megatons (Mt) in 2012, to 1,100 Mt in 2030 and to
1,500 Mt in 2050.f
Increase ocean- Fisheries continue to be overfished and global To meet healthy diet requirements in 2050, we
based food annual marine capture production declines in need to double the current amount of ocean-based
production 2050 by 25%.h protein.k Part of this can be achieved by fisheries
reform and the rest by increasing sustainable
Fed aquaculture (finfish) production remains at
marine aquaculture production.
the 2020 level (11.7 million metric tonnes, or mmt)
due to fishmeal constraints.i With global fisheries reform, annual marine
capture production increases by 40% compared
Nonfed aquaculture (bivalve) continues to
with baseline projections.l Fed finfish mariculture
grow slowly to 28.5 mmt in 2050 due to lack of
production increases to 22.4 mmt by 2050.m Bivalve
investments.j
production grows to 65.2 mmt in 2050.n
Notes: Total energy generation in 2018 was estimated to be 27,000 TWh/year; offshore wind contributed 0.3 percent.
Sources: a–g. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; h. Costello et al. 2019; i, j. FOLU 2019; k. Willett et al. 2019; l. Costello et al. 2019; m, n. FOLU 2019.

2.2 Framework for Assessing 2019; Tilman and Clark 2014). Finally, healthy mangroves
directly provide nutrition to local communities via
Benefits
enhanced fisheries and indirectly via increases in
The four areas can yield three categories of benefits, other ecosystem services (such as coastal protection
which are discussed in more detail below: and improvements in water quality) and by income-
Health benefits from reducing environmental risks generating activities (such as timber for fuelwood,
nontimber forest products like honey and medicines,
Environmental and ecological benefits from reduced and income from tourism.)12
environmental degradation (on land and in the
ocean) and prevention of future temperature rise Some health benefits cannot be quantified; thus, they
from climate change have been described qualitatively. The monetary value
of these benefits could be significant, and additional
Economic and social benefits from stimulating research is required to quantify them. The benefit
economic activity and promoting sustainable assessed across most interventions is avoided health
development damage from increased GHG emissions, and it focuses
specifically on the impacts of criteria pollutants (Box 2).
Health benefits. These include interventions
such as scaling up ocean-based renewable energy Environmental and ecological benefits. Direct climate
production and decarbonising shipping to reduce change mitigation would be achieved by reducing
GHG emissions. Indirect health-related cobenefits of GHGs and limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.
reducing air pollutants include reduced mortality rates, These impacts include avoided losses in activities that
improvements in productivity from improved well-being are counted in a country’s gross domestic product,
of workers,10 lower absenteeism from school/work or GDP (such as agriculture, fisheries productivity,13
caused by reduced childhood asthma,11 and reduced tourism, manufacturing and services); avoided property
morbidity. damages from increased coastal flooding; and avoided
noneconomic impacts that do not appear in GDP
Measures that induce even moderate shifts in diet from
measures (such as the loss of natural habitats from
high meat consumption towards ocean-based protein
increased ocean acidification and increased risks to
have well-documented human health benefits (Blas et
human health from extreme temperatures, including
al. 2019; González Fischer and Garnett 2016; Hollander
heat stress). We use the social cost of carbon method
et al. 2018; Oita et al. 2018; Simões-Wüst and Dagnelie
Box 2. A Description of Avoided Mortality Losses from Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The cobenefits of global greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions on air quality and human health are estimated using analysis from West
et al. (2013), which found that the global average marginal cobenefits of avoided mortality were US$50–$380 per tonne of carbon
dioxide reduced ($65–$490 in 2019 prices). The analysis used a global atmospheric model and consistent future scenarios via two
mechanisms: reducing coemitted air pollutants and slowing climate change and its effect on air quality. The model accounts for the
impacts of ozone as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), international air pollution transport and changes in global ozone from
methane, and the study evaluates future scenarios in which population susceptibility to air pollution and the economic ‘value of
statistical lives’ grows.a The authors state that the cobenefits may be underestimated because they do not account for people younger
than age 30 (including children and neonatal effects), and they do not account for the benefits of avoided morbidity outcomes (i.e.,
reduced output from lower productivity).
Note: a. The value of statistical life is based on the willingness (and ability) to pay for reducing the risk of death. Hence, the study estimates marginal
cobenefits to be high in North America and Europe, reflecting higher incomes in the region. Overall, though, the marginal cobenefit is found to be highest in
regions with largest population affected by air pollution.

to measure the environmental externalities caused productivity benefits have been observed in restoring
by an increase in GHG emissions (Box 3). Biodiversity- and maintaining healthy mangroves. Improving the
related cobenefits include an increased abundance of productivity of resources will in turn help boost revenues
marine wildlife, reduced noise and other disturbances to industry, contributing to a country’s national income.
that negatively impact marine species, and the natural In addition, driving innovation and technological
treatment of pollution and waste. These benefits have a advancement will increase efficiency gains and unleash
direct positive impact on the marine ecosystem and its unforeseen market opportunities (GCA 2019).
organisms and indirectly contribute to societal well-
being. In addition, these investments will help countries meet
their SDGs and targets (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
Economic and social benefits. Transitioning to This includes creating decent jobs (SDG 8.5), protecting
a sustainable ocean economy can lead to higher vulnerable communities from climate-related disasters
productivity, efficiency gains and revenues. For (SDG 1.5), reducing poverty by improving household
example, reforming fisheries will lead to long-term income/livelihoods (SDGs 1.1 and 1.4) and helping
revenues and profits from higher fisheries productivity countries achieve their food security targets (SDG 3.2).
(outweighing the short-term losses). Similar fisheries
Box 3. Measuring Climate Benefits Using the Social Cost of Carbon
Benefit-cost analysis assumes that society should reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions up to the point where the marginal cost of
reducing a tonne of CO2 is just equal to the marginal benefit of keeping that tonne out of the atmosphere. The social cost of carbon
(SCC) measures the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions; that is, it represents the dollar value of the cost
(i.e., damages) avoided by reducing CO2e emissions by one tonne.a
The model used to deliver SCC values, the integrated assessment model, provides a range of estimatesb because of the many factors
(including the types of greenhouse gas emissions) analysed, the types of impacts (gross domestic product, or GDP, versus non-GDP)
analysed,c the discount rates used and size of risk aversion of the population.d
The SCC value used in this analysis reflects the avoided costs from changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, loss
from increased natural disasters and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air-
conditioning.e To prevent double counting with estimated health benefits from a reduction in ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
we used the SCC value developed under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that focuses only on damage costs
from increases in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The damage costs for CO2 was estimated, in 2007 prices, at US$42
in 2020 and rises to $69 in 2050. Because the SCC value used does not account for all the damage costs, the impacts quantified
monetarily are underestimates.
Notes:
a. Hausker 2011.
b. Based on a number of studies, SCC values range from $50 to $417 per tonne of CO2e reduced (BEIS 2019; Ricke et al. 2018; ToI 2019).
c. Activities counted in a country’s GDP, such as agriculture, fisheries productivity, tourism, manufacturing and services, would feature in a GDP measure
whereas non-GDP measures would include noneconomic impacts, including the loss of natural habitats and increased risks to human health (from heat
stress and other factors).
d. Standard practice in benefit-cost analysis is to take a risk-neutral approach to uncertainties. In the real world, individuals and organisations of all types
display risk aversion to catastrophic impacts (Hausker 2011).
e. EPA 2016.

2.3 Framework for Assessing Costs to households include temporary reductions
in household income from fisheries reform and
Costs
the forgone income from the alternative use of the
The costs of transformation, relative to BAU, were mangrove area by shrimp farming and/or charcoal
assessed by examining a list of actions and measures production if they are not protected (opportunity
that can be undertaken by the government and private cost). The presence of positive private opportunity
sector to achieve targets such as restoring mangroves, costs may be an economic barrier to the success
reducing emissions, reforming fisheries and increasing of mangrove conservation because they represent
sustainable ocean-based aquaculture production. a direct economic loss (or disincentive) to local
Examples of these types of costs are given below: communities that undertake mangrove conservation
Costs to business include capital investments; for activities.
example, building new offshore aquaculture farms, For some sectors, such as renewable energy production
increasing offshore renewable energy, implementing and ocean-based aquaculture, the private sector costs
technological improvements in shipping and were estimated based on existing analytical projections
increasing private research and development (R&D) of the state of the technology in 2030 and 2050, and we
expenditures. assumed reductions in future costs due to economies
Costs to government include costs of regulations (on of scale and ‘learning by doing’ (Arrow 1962). If
mangrove and fisheries conservation), public R&D components of costs were not quantified—for example,
expenditures and higher enforcement and monitoring the costs of implementing national regulations to ensure
costs (for mangroves and fisheries). decarbonisation of the shipping sector have not been
monetised—they are discussed qualitatively.

3. Assessing the Return on
Investment for Four Sustainable
Ocean Transformations:
Scenarios, Assumptions,
Methodology, Results
This section presents the scenarios, discusses the The sustainable transformation pathway scenario.
assumptions and methodology used to estimate the The mitigation potential could be achieved via two
benefits and costs for each of the four areas examined pathways: conservation of ecosystems and restoration of
and finally presents the net benefits and the B-C ratios. ecosystems.
Conservation of mangroves. The total area for

3.1 Conserve and Restore
mangroves conserved per year is estimated to be
Mangroves 15,000–30,000 hectares (ha) (see Table 3).14 This
Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and scenario avoids emissions of carbon stored in soils
Target Scenarios and vegetation. The total potential GHG mitigation
contribution is estimated to be 0.02–0.04 gigatonnes
The assumptions about the BAU scenario and the
(Gt) of CO2e per year (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).15
sustainable transformation pathway needed to achieve
the conservation and restoration targets by 2050 are Restoration of mangroves. Restoration sequesters
informed by Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019). and stores carbon as vegetation grows. In the
Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) study, the range of
The BAU scenario. Although blue carbon ecosystems
potential mitigation varied with the level of effort
continue to decline, they do so at decreasing rates
and investment. Two scenarios were considered:
thanks to improved understanding, management and
a moderate restoration effort recovering about
restoration (Lee et al. 2019). For instance, the rates of
40 percent (184,000 ha per year) of the historical
mangrove loss globally declined from 2.1 percent per
ecosystem cover by 2050 (consistent with Global
year in the 1980s (Valiela et al. 2001) to 0.11 percent
Mangrove Alliance goals) and a more aggressive
per year in the past decade (Bunting et al. 2018). The
scenario of complete restoration (290,000 ha per year)
BAU scenario assumes the loss of mangroves continues
of pre-1980s cover (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). The
at 0.11 percent per year until 2050. The sustainable
corresponding total GHG mitigation potential was
transformation pathway builds from this base.
estimated at 0.16 GtCO2e per year to 0.25 GtCO2e per
year in 2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). See Table 3.

Table 3. Conservation and Restoration Pathways for Mangroves by 2050
CONSERVATION RESTORATION
MODERATE AGGRESSIVE MODERATE AGGRESSIVE
Hectares conserved or restored per year 15,000 30,000 184,000 290,000
GHG mitigation potential (GtCO2e per year) 0.02 0.04 0.16 0.25
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; GtCO2e = gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Source: Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019.
The GHG emission mitigation estimates are likely RESTORATION COSTS

conservative because they do not account for avoided Restoration is often needed when ecosystem
methane (CH4) and high nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions degradation is reaching its ecological threshold and
from alternative land uses such as aquaculture significant efforts are required for seeding and replanting
and rice production (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). mangrove species to restore it. The analysis uses
These emissions can be significant due to mangrove the global restoration cost estimates reported in the
conversions to aquaculture or rice farming; for example, Bayraktarov et al. (2016) study that conducted a meta-
30 percent of mangrove ecosystems in Southeast Asia analysis and systematically reviewed 235 studies (with
have been converted to aquaculture and 22 percent to 954 observations), including projects that restored and
rice cultivation (Richards and Friess 2016). These GHG rehabilitated mangroves and other vegetated coastal
estimates from land use changes are excluded from the habitats in different world regions. They suggested a
present analysis due to the lack of global data. median cost per hectare of $8,961 per year (2010 prices,
converted to $9,449 in 2019 prices). We assume the costs
Assessment of Costs are two times higher ($18,997) if both operating and
capital costs are included (Bayraktarov et al. 2016).
CONSERVATION COSTS
For conservation, we estimated the cost of monitoring The opportunity cost for restoration is assumed to be the
and maintaining the mangroves and the opportunity same as that of conservation, but the forgone benefits can
costs of the forgone net income from alternative use occur only five years after the restoration efforts have been
of the mangrove area (Table 4). For enforcement and completed, assuming that once the coastal ecosystems
monitoring costs, a global average cost estimate of have improved, these areas are again under the risk of
maintaining marine protected areas was used as a proxy. being disturbed. The annual restoration costs are estimated
For the second component, we looked at the opportunity to be $3.5–$5.5 billion between 2020 and 2050.16
costs for returns from shrimp farming, crab catching
and charcoal production (see Table 4). Because it was Assessment of Benefits
unknown which activities might exist at which sites, Mangroves extend over 150,000 square kilometres (km2),
we used the sum of the three to represent the higher distributed across 123 countries (Beck et al. 2018).
estimate of the opportunity costs. They provide a wide array of market and nonmarket
benefits, which are categorised below according to
We estimated the annual global costs of conservation to
health, environmental and economic/social benefits.
be $28.8–$57.5 million based on the per-hectare estimates
The range of benefits quantified includes coastal
in Table 4 and the additional area conserved by 2050.
protection benefits, sequestration benefits and fisheries
These numbers are indicative of global costs. In reality, the
productivity benefits. Conserving and restoring
actual costs might be lower or higher depending on the
mangroves will also increase other ecosystem services,
location and sizes of the protected areas.

Table 4. Types of Costs and Data Sources Used to Estimate the Costs of Mangrove Conservation and Restoration
COST (US$/ ADJUSTED

DESCRIPTION OF COSTS REFERENCE
HA/YEAR) 2019$
Monitoring and maintenance cost: median

cost covers the current marine protected area 27 40 Balmford et al. 2004
expenditure plus estimated shortfalla
8,961
Global restoration costs of mangroves 9,449 Bayraktarov et al. 2016
(median)
Opportunity cost: net economic returns from 1,873

1,078–1,220 Barbier 2007
shrimp farming in Thailand (average)
Opportunity cost: net economic returns from

4 5 Witt 2016
charcoal production in northwestern Madagascar
Opportunity cost: net economic returns from

12 16 Glaser and Diele 2004
crab catching in northeastern Brazilb
Notes: ha = hectare.
a. To assess the enforcement and monitoring costs, a global average cost estimate of marine protected areas was used as a proxy for the conservation costs for
mangrove protection. Balmford et al. (2004) state that the total costs per unit area of running the marine protected areas in their sample varied enormously, with the
sum of current expenditure plus estimated shortfall ranging from about $4 per square kilometre (km2) per year to nearly $30 million/km2/year (median, $2,698/km2/
year or $27/ha). We use the median figure in our analysis. The costs of a protected-area system are divided into three categories: (1) recurrent management costs for
existing areas, (2) systemwide expenses needed to support a network of protected areas and (3) costs of bringing new areas into the system.
b. At $13.50 per person/day x 4,500 person days in a year over about 50 km2 is about $12/ha/yr.
which, in turn, will increase societal well-being, which we HEALTH BENEFITS

have discussed qualitatively. Mangroves are a direct source of food, fuelwood,
fiber and traditional medicine for local inhabitants
In this study, we assumed that the benefits generated
(Bandaranayake 1998; Chaigneau et al. 2019). They
through mangrove restoration (such as coastal
provide important opportunities for communities
protection and fisheries productivity) will not accrue
to generate incomes from tourism associated with
immediately following the restoration effort but rather
recreational fishing and bird-watching that generate
after there has been improvement in the condition of
recreational and aesthetic value to visitors (Carnell et
the ecosystem. We assume this to be five years after
al. 2019). These livelihood, cultural and recreational
the restoration/rehabilitation work begins (Burke and
benefits, while important to the physical and mental
Ding 2016).17 In addition, the probability of success
health and well-being of local communities as well as
for mangrove restoration is very low. Bayraktarov et
visitors (de Souza Queiroz et al. 2017; Pearson et al.
al. (2016) estimate the median survival of restored
2019), have not yet been quantified. In some developing
mangroves, assessed only within the first one to two
countries such as Kenya and Mozambique, mangrove
years after restoration, to be 51.3 percent. For the
medicine was used by coastal communities to cure
restoration scenarios, we multiply the benefits by the
stomach pains or headaches but did not have direct
probability of success of restoration or the median
commercial value (Chaigneau et al. 2019).
survival rate.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Other ecosystem services. Mangroves also provide
Protection from storm surges. The biggest benefits of many ecosystem services, such as regulating water
mangroves are that they form a natural breakwater that quality and reducing coastal erosion, that we have not
limits the damage to property, economic disruption and been able to quantify (see Appendix A).
loss of life caused by coastal flooding and storm surges,
which become stronger and more frequent with climate ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS
change. The aerial roots, trunks and canopy of mangrove Commercial fisheries. Although some estimates have
forests provide a strong protective barrier against winds, been much higher (e.g., Aburto-Oropeza et al. [2008]
swell waves, storm surges, cyclones and tsunamis. estimated that protecting one hectare of mangroves
Studies indicate that incoming wave heights are reduced in California was associated with increased fish yields
by 13–66 percent by a 100-metre-wide mangrove belt, valued at $37,500 per year), we conservatively used
and by 50–100 percent by a 500-metre-wide belt (World $18,000 per hectare per year (de Groot et al. 2012), based
Bank 2016). on global meta-analysis, to assess the commercial value
of fish yields associated with conserved or restored
Protecting and restoring coastal and marine ecosystems
mangroves (Table 5). We estimate the global economic
can reduce the impacts of cyclones on an estimated
benefit from increased productivity of commercial
208 million individuals in 23 major mangrove-holding
fish species to be $300–$600 million per year for the
countries (Hochard et al. 2019).18 A meta-analysis of 44
conservation scenarios and $1.9–$3.0 billion per year for
studies found a median value of $3,604 per hectare per
restoration scenarios.
year for the coastal protection services (avoided property
damage) provided by mangroves (Salem and Mercer Tourism. Although we have not been able to provide a
2012), which, when updated to 2019 prices, yield annual global estimate on increases in tourism arising from the
benefits of $60–$120 million for conservation scenarios scenarios analysed, these are likely to be significant for
analysed, and $375–$592 million for restoration some countries. Mangrove tourism and recreation is a
scenarios analysed (Table 5). multibillion-dollar industry (Spalding and Parrett 2019).
For example, tourism associated with coral reefs and
Mitigation of climate change and carbon
mangroves in Belize contributed an estimated $150–$196
sequestration benefits. Mangroves play an important
million (12–15 percent of GDP) to the national economy
role in sequestering carbon; hence, they can contribute
in 2007 (Cooper et al. 2009). These benefits are also
towards mitigation solutions aimed at limiting
further discussed in Appendix A. While there will be a
temperature rise to 1.5°C. The discounted climate
short-term dip in coastal tourism following the COVID-19
benefits (calculated based on annual GHG emissions in
lockdown, this assessment focuses on benefits over a
Table 3) from reducing CO2 emissions are estimated at
30-year period. Over the longer term, we estimate these
$42–$83 billion for conservation and $137–$214 billion
benefits will pick up as the global economy emerges out
for restoration over 30 years.
of the pandemic and economic crisis.
Table 5. Benefits of Mangrove Conservation and Restoration in Avoided Property Damage and Fisheries Productivity
TYPE OF BENEFIT BENEFIT (US$/HA/YEAR) ADJUSTED 2019$ REFERENCE
Avoided property damage 3,604 4,000 Salem and Mercer 2012
Fisheries productivity 18,000 19,980 de Groot et al. 2012
Note: ha = hectare.

There is also a strong social angle in terms of the Box 4. Mangroves Protect the Poorest Populations
distribution of the benefits. For example, low-income
communities are most reliant on mangroves for key
ecosystem services (Box 4). Low-income communities rely heavily on mangroves for key
ecosystem services. Over nearly 98 million people from 10 low- or
Estimated Benefits and Costs lower-middle-income countries with major mangrove areas and
We estimated the B-C ratio under two approaches. In a gross national income per capita less than US$4,036 annually
the first approach, we estimated the ratio over 30 years have suffered from cyclones.a This accounts for 50 percent of the
(2020–50) using present value benefits and costs. In global cyclone-affected population from 18 mangrove-holding
the second approach, we calculated the B-C ratio per countries. Poor coastal families are most vulnerable to natural
disasters; hence, building ecosystem resilience to protect them
hectare.
from coastal flooding and cyclones will not only safeguard their
valuable assets but also generate tremendous social benefits
B-C RATIO USING PRESENT VALUE APPROACH
(e.g., feeling safe) that cannot be easily quantified monetarily.
For every $1 invested in mangrove conservation and
restoration, we get a return of $3. Net benefits for Note: a. Hochard et al. 2019.
mangrove conservation are estimated at $48–$96
billion and for restoration at $97–$150 billion over 30
years (2020–50). The value of net benefits for mangrove
restoration is higher than conservation because we
assumed the area of mangroves restored would be 10
B-C RATIO FOR A HECTARE OF MANGROVE
times the area conserved (Table 6).
RESTORED/CONSERVED
However, we find that conservation of mangroves We estimated the benefits for restoring one hectare of
yields significantly more returns per dollar invested mangrove to be $30,080 and for conservation $79,980.
than restoration. For every $1 invested in mangrove Based on the per hectare conservation and restoration
conservation, we get a return of $88 dollars for costs in Table 4, we estimate the B-C ratio per hectare to
conservation, versus $2 for restoration. be 2:1 for restoration and 48:1 for conservation.
Table 6. Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratios for Mangrove Conservation and Restoration
TRANSFORMATION AREAS NET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT-COST RATIO

(US$, BILLIONS, 2019$, 2020–50)
Conservation of mangrovesa 48–96 88:1
Restoration of mangrovesb 97–150 2:1
Total 145–246 3:1
Notes:
a. Conservation of 15,000–30,000 hectares per year based on halting annual loss of mangroves.
b. Based on 184,000 hectares per year for a moderate effort to 290,000 hectares per year for an aggressive estimate.

For both of the approaches, the ROI for restoration is Data Limitations and Caveats
lower, first, because the cost of mangrove restoration is
Data limitations prevented us from assessing other
much higher than conservation due to the high costs of
coastal ecosystems: salt marsh and seagrass beds. Some
seeding and replanting; second, it takes time to accrue
caveats are that the value of mangrove conservation
benefits from restoration since the plants need to regrow
or restoration varies by locality, the costs are higher in
and restoration requires the right conditions to ensure a
developed countries, and coastal development pressure
high survival rate (see caveats in Appendix A).
is a big influence. See Appendix A for important caveats.
The monetised benefits presented under both of the
approaches exclude a number of ecosystem services 3.2 Scale Up Offshore Wind
provided by mangroves. Major ecosystem benefits such Energy Production
as erosion control, water management, nutritional Currently, global electricity generation from all ocean-
benefits from fisheries supported by mangroves19 based energy sources is less than 0.3 percent of the total
and health benefits are excluded from the current (IEA 2019a). The ocean energy sector has seen a dramatic
assessment. This is mainly because our assessment increase in investments over the past decade and is
relies on previous valuation studies or meta-analyses expected to grow (European Commission 2018; Hoegh-
that either do not attribute a value to these particular Guldberg et al. 2019; WBG et al. 2018). Currently, most
services or provide a total value across a range of offshore installations are in Europe, but a significant
services but do not address double-counting issues. increase is expected in Asia, especially China (Hoegh-
Other social benefits that are not accounted for include Guldberg et al. 2019).
employment and the potential for livelihoods associated
with sustainably harvesting timber and nontimber forest In assessing the impacts of expanding offshore wind
products. Taking into account these benefits will likely energy generation, we do not advocate one renewable
result in a higher ROI. energy technology over another. Rather, we focus on the
impact (positive and negative) of expanding offshore
The results from both of the approaches show that both wind energy against a baseline where fossil fuel sources
types of interventions yield significant benefits and are of electricity generation continue to dominate. We
important to ensure a high ROI. To reverse the current looked at how much it would cost to increase production
trend of marine and coastal resource depletion and of offshore wind energy to meet the energy generation
further halt the release of CO2 emissions from marine potential proposed in Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) and
resource degradation, significant investment will need estimate the benefits to society from reductions in GHGs
to be made to transform the way coastal and marine and water usage.
ecosystems are being managed. They would need more
reliable funding for management/enforcement and Baseline, Sustainable Transformation
greater participation/diversification of opportunities Pathway and Target Scenarios
dependent on these ecosystems, in addition to strong
Between 2000 and 2017, the cumulative installed
‘political will’ to involve measures that alter the
capacity of offshore wind energy rose from 67
fundamental attributes of a system (including value
megawatts (MW) to 20 gigawatts (GW) (IRENA 2018a).
systems; regulatory, legislative or bureaucratic regimes;
In 2018, the total global capacity of wind energy was
financial institutions; and technological or biological
564 GW, of which 23 GW were offshore. Offshore wind
systems) (Ellis and Tschakert 2019). These social and
energy produced 77 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity
political investments are important and have not been
annually.20
valued in the analysis.
By 2050, gross global electricity generation is projected
to be between 42,000 and 47,000 (TWh) (IEA 2019a).

In reviewing 15 energy scenarios for 2050 that The global weighted-average LCOE of offshore wind
considered ocean renewable energy, Hoegh-Guldberg et projects commissioned in 2018 was estimated at $127–
al. (2019) concluded that the annual energy generation $140 per megawatt-hour (MWh) based on the standard
from offshore wind technologies would increase cost of capital representing full market risk (7 percent for
between 650 and 3,500 TWh per year.21 To assess the developing countries and 7.5–8 percent for developed
impact of this increase on GHG emissions, the authors countries) (IEA 2019; IRENA 2019). Improved financing
made assumptions about what technologies offshore terms could reduce the LCOE of offshore wind (IEA 2019).
wind would displace. They looked at the impact on GHG For example, applying a 4 percent weighted average
emissions if of capital costs (WACC) to 2018 costs and performance
parameters yields an offshore wind LCOE of about $100/
offshore wind technologies displaced coal; and
MWh, which is 30 percent less than the LCOE derived
offshore wind technologies displaced the current from the standard WACC (7–8 percent) (IEA 2019b).
(2018) energy-generation mix.
Declining recent strike prices22 of offshore wind projects
We used the second scenario, which projected that provide strong market signals of future cost reductions,
scaling up offshore wind energy could reduce GHG indicating increased confidence from investors and
emissions by between 0.3 and 1.61 GtCO2e per year in setting the stage for low-cost financing opportunities
2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). Hoegh-Guldberg et for upcoming projects (Figure 1). Analysis by the
al. (2019) acknowledge that this is a simplistic approach International Energy Agency (IEA) of auction strike prices
and, in reality, the substitution effect of ocean-based shows costs could fall as low as $50/MWh (in some cases
energy will mainly impact certain grids with given including transmission) for delivery in the mid-2020s (for
energy mixes, which, in turn, depends on global trends, example, a UK strike price of $51/MWh was seen in the
including technology costs. September 2019 auction) (IEA 2019b).23 Overall, evidence
shows that with an economy of scale and learning curve
Assessment of Costs effects, significant additional reductions in generation
costs of offshore wind can be anticipated in subsequent
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY GENERATION COSTS years (IEA 2019b).
We use the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) to estimate
the cost of additional offshore wind energy generation. For floating offshore wind energy platforms, the LCOE
The LCOE includes capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and may be higher because this is a less mature technology
variable operations and maintenance costs, financing compared with the predominate bottom-fixed
cost and an assumed utilisation rate for each plant type technology; it represents only 0.03 GW of the total of 23
(IEA 2015). GW of offshore power capacity. While cost reductions
in the sector are expected due to rapidly advancing
The LCOE for offshore wind power has declined since technology and market conditions enabling deployment
2010 due to factors such as increased capacity from new to compete globally,24 given the current low installation
installations (the ratio between realised energy output capacity of floating offshore wind facilities, it is difficult
and theoretical maximum output), declining operational to predict its future global costs. That said, while the
and maintenance costs due to improved turbine relative importance of floating wind power platforms
design (as they are made more robust for the offshore will increase, we assume that within the next 30 years
environment), improved capacity factors (linked to an the majority of offshore wind installations will be bottom
increase in turbine size and hub height) and reduced fixed; thus, for an overall cost estimate, we assume the
transmission costs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). LCOE figures will be close to that of the bottom-fixed
installations.

Figure 1. Historical Levelised Cost of Electricity Generation of Offshore Wind and Strike Prices in Recent Auctions in Europe
Strike price with transmission Strike price without transmission Project size: 350 MW
300
Historical price range

250
Dollars per MWh (2018)
200
150 Average
100
50
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2028
Note: MWh = megawatt-hour.
Source: IEA 2019b.
For this analysis, we looked at two scenarios based on production and extra costs for investments in reserves for
IEA cost projections (IEA 2019b): handling power plant or transmission facility outages).
A moderate scenario based on a standard cost of Offshore wind power requires an offshore grid as
capital financing representing full market risk (WACC well as expanding the onshore transmission grid. The
is 7–8 percent). In this scenario, the global LCOE falls transmission or grid costs are closely tied to the regional
from $140/MWh in 2018 to less than $90/MWh in 2030 regulations for connecting the project to the onshore
and close to $60/MWh in 2040. grid (IEA 2019b). In 2015, the grid and balancing costs
of integrating 50 percent of offshore wind power into
An aggressive scenario based on the same
the system were estimated at $43/MWh in 2019 prices
underlying technology costs and performance
(or €37/MWh) for offshore projects in Germany (Agora
parameters as the moderate scenario, but which
Energywiende 2015). These estimates were higher than
assumes low-cost financing (WACC of 4 percent). The
the integration costs for photovoltaic (PV) solar and
global LCOE of offshore wind declines from $100/MWh
onshore wind ($5–$20/MWh) because it costs more to
in 2018 to $60/MWh in 2030 and to $45/MWh in 2040).
connect with an offshore generation source. However,
these costs are expected to decline as offshore wind
OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEM INTEGRATION COSTS
projects increase and technologies improve. The average
The costs of integrating offshore power generation into
up-front cost to build an offshore wind project, including
the land-based electricity system include infrastructure
transmission costs, will drop by more than 40 percent
costs (for expanding and adjusting the existing electricity
over the next decade, according to the IEA. Such a drop
infrastructure to feed in electricity production) and
would be due to innovation, economies of scale and
balancing costs (for handling deviations from planned
supportive action to reduce costs by grid operators.25

Table 7. Levelised Cost of Electricity for Conventional Sources of Energy, 2019
TYPE OF ENERGY SOURCEa US$/MWH, 2019$ (3% US$/MWH, 2019$ (7%

DISCOUNT FACTOR) DISCOUNT FACTOR)C
Conventional coal 71–103 72–152
Natural gas 67–146 83–110
Nuclear 28–70 41–111
Hydropower (seasonal)b 74 74
Notes: MWh = megawatt-hour.
a. Levelised cost of electricity generation (LCOE) estimates for coal, natural gas and nuclear are based on NEA and IEA (2015) country-level analysis of LCOE for
the various technologies. The ranges show that the LCOEs will vary by location as each technology and each country faces a different set of risk profiles. Original
estimates are converted from 2013 prices to 2019 prices using the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator.
b. LCOE estimates for hydropower are based on analysis of plants based in the United States (see Stacey and Taylor 2019). They calculate LCOE for new plants using
EIA data (which used WACC of about 4%). They state that new plants have higher fixed costs and LCOE (than existing resources) as they begin their operational lives
with a full burden of construction cost to recover.
Source: IEA and NEA 2015; Stacey and Taylor 2019.
For this analysis, we take a conservative approach and ADDITIONAL COSTS OF ENERGY GENERATION
assume the grid and balancing cost is $43/MWh in 2020 FROM OFFSHORE WIND
and declines by 20 percent ($34/MWh) over 2030–50.
The following equation is used to calculate the
additional costs of scaling up offshore wind production:
BASELINE ENERGY GENERATION COSTS
In 2018, coal, gas, nuclear and hydropower accounted for Costs of offshore wind energy generation =
90 percent of the total electricity generation (IEA 2019a). offshore wind generation costs +
We assume that, under the baseline scenario, demand offshore wind integration costs –
for electricity will increase over 30 years (2020–50) and baseline energy generation costs
additional investments in conventional sources of energy
The total costs of scaling up offshore wind power are
(mainly fossil fuels) will be made to meet the demand.
shown in Table 8, with the moderate scenario costing
We analysed the LCOE of conventional sources of energy
$250–$884 billion and the aggressive scenario costing
to estimate the current costs of energy generation in the
$97–$420 billion.
baseline based on two discount factors (Table 7).
Based on the current energy mix and the discount factor,

we estimate the global weighted average of LCOE in the
baseline to be $86–$94/MWh. We assume that by 2040
the LCOE will fall by 20 percent based on learning effects.

Table 8. Total Costs of Scaling Up Offshore Wind Production, 2020–50
SCENARIOS DESCRIPTION COSTS (US$,

BILLIONS, 2019$)
Moderate Global LCOE falls from $140/MWh in 2018 to less than $90/MWh in 2030
and close to $60/MWh in 2040
250–884
Integration costs: grid and balancing costs are $43/MWh in 2020,
declines by 20% over 2030–50
Aggressive Global LCOE of offshore wind declines from $100/MWh to $60/MWh in 2030
and to $45/MWh in 2050
97–420
Integration costs: grid and balancing costs are $43/MWh in 2020, declines by
20% over 2030–50
Assessment of Benefits ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS

Offshore wind energy can deliver a suite of health, Water consumption impacts. When estimating the
environmental and ecological, and economic and social impact of water usage for energy generation, we looked
benefits. at water withdrawal and water consumption. Water
withdrawal is the volume of water removed from a
HEALTH BENEFITS source, including water that is eventually returned to
Due to its very low CO2 emissions and negligible the same source; by definition, withdrawals are always
emissions of mercury, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur greater than or equal to consumption (IEA 2016).27 The
dioxide, as well as its zero generation of solid or liquid type of cooling technology used mainly determines how
waste, offshore wind energy production could have much freshwater is withdrawn and ultimately consumed,
a positive impact on human health depending on although fuel mix, the power plant’s role in the electricity
what energy sources it displaces. Observational and system, turbine design and weather also influence the
modelling studies indicate that 3 million premature amount of water required (IEA 2016). Thermal power
deaths are attributable to ambient air pollution and plants (coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and geothermal)
another 4.3 million to household pollution (WHO 2016). demand considerable amounts of water for cooling
By multiplying the annual CO2e emissions mitigation (IEA 2016) (Table 9). In contrast, studies show that wind
potential by the marginal cobenefits of avoided mortality systems require near zero water for energy generation
(see Box 2), we estimate the total avoided damage costs and cooling (Macknick et al. 2011).
(or discounted health benefits) from transitioning to We estimate the water consumption to be 860–1,315
offshore renewable energy at $0.15–$4.4 trillion over 30 gallons/MWh under the baseline. Using the true cost of
years (2020–50).26 water in terms of avoided damage to the environment,
we estimate a range from $0.10 per cubic metre (m3)
in water-abundant areas to $15/m3 in extremely water-
scarce areas (Trucost 2013). We estimate the benefits
(discounted) of achieving offshore energy transformation
through water savings alone to be $1.3 billion to $1.4
trillion over 2020–50.

Table 9. Water Consumption Factors for Nonrenewable Technologies
FUEL TYPE COOLING TYPEa,b WATER CONSUMPTION (GALLONS/

MWH)
Nuclear Tower, once-through, pond 269–672
Natural gas Tower, once-through, pond, inlet 198–826
Coal Tower, once-through, pond 103–942
PV solar n/a 26
Offshore wind n/a 0
Notes: MWh = megawatt-hour; PV = photovoltaic.
a. Dry cooling is also an option that is not discussed here as it is expensive and has limited application.
b. Once-through cooling involves lower water consumption but higher water withdrawal than circulating cooling systems. In some jurisdictions (typically arid), once-
through cooling is no longer permitted. However, we provide estimates of this technology to demonstrate a conservative water consumption scenario.
Source: Macknick et al. 2011.
Climate impacts. We used the social cost of carbon be avoided or mitigated (Copping et al. 2016). For
method (see Box 3) to estimate the value of reductions example, spatial planning appears to reduce risks, such
in GHG emissions attributable to offshore wind at $344 as collisions with seabirds and impacts on migratory
billion to $1.4 trillion over 30 years. cetaceans, to manageable levels (Best and Halpin 2019).
However, as wind energy expands into new areas, it
Impacts on biodiversity. Building more offshore wind
could become more difficult to mitigate impacts.
farms could have both positive and negative impacts on
biodiversity. The net impacts have not been quantified Wind farms can have positive environmental impacts by
monetarily, and they would vary depending on the serving as artificial reefs for many organisms (Hammar et
location of the offshore wind farm and the policies and al. 2016). In addition, the prohibition of bottom trawling
measures to address negative impacts. Effective marine near offshore wind farms for safety reasons eliminates
spatial planning, combined with emerging ocean energy the disturbance of fish, benthos and benthic habitats.
technologies, can be effective in mitigating biodiversity Evidence from Belgium and Norway suggests that in
loss from ocean energy technologies and reinforcing areas with a homogeneous seabed, wind farms may
biodiversity cobenefits (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). enhance diversity (Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2012; Degraer
et al. 2012).
The risks of installing wind farms in the marine
environment include biological invasions, noise and
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS
disturbing vibrations to marine species, collisions
This analysis does not monetise the impacts on jobs and
between birds and wind turbine rotors and the presence
livelihoods to the wider community, but it acknowledges
of electromagnetic fields that can disrupt marine life and
them qualitatively. Offshore wind energy can create jobs:
benthic habitats (Langhamer 2012; Sotta 2012). However,
German and UK case studies state that offshore wind
studies have shown a gap between perceived risks and
development is more labour-intensive than onshore
actual risks, and the former arise from uncertainty or
wind development because of the greater challenges
lack of data about the real impacts (Copping et al. 2016).
inherent in building and operating offshore farms in
While it is important to acknowledge possible impacts,
marine environments (BMWi 2018; IRENA 2018a). In
some of the actual risks are likely to be small and can
Germany, the offshore segment accounted for 17 percent

of total German wind employment in 2016, even though B-C RATIO USING PRESENT VALUE APPROACH
it represents no more than about 10 percent of the Table 10 shows the high and low benefit-cost ratios
country’s current total wind capacity. Estimates predict for the first approach—calculating additional energy
that direct full-time employment in offshore wind will production for each year against the BAU using present
be around 435,000 globally by 2030 (OECD 2016).28 values benefits and costs.
Similar analysis by Ocean Energy Systems shows that
deployment of other forms of ocean energy (tidal range, On average, there is a net positive benefit from
wave power and ocean thermal energy) can also provide expanding offshore wind production. The net present
new jobs and additional investments (Huckerby et al. value of benefits was estimated to be $253 billion to $6.8
2016). trillion over 30 years. The ROI in 2050 can be high, as
shown by the B-C ratio of 2-to-1 to 17-to-1 in 2050.
However, the net global impact of the growth of the
ocean-based energy on net jobs across the whole of the B-C RATIO FOR A UNIT OF ENERGY GENERATION
energy sector are less certain because the entire energy AND TRANSMISSION
sector will transition to cleaner energy sources. Moving We estimated the benefits for production of one
to cleaner energy will lead to job losses in the fossil fuel additional unit of energy to be $75–$300/MWh. The B-C
sector, though ocean-based renewable energy has the ratio varies mainly depending on the LCOE of offshore
potential to benefit workers transitioning from declining wind assumed. We examined three scenarios with
offshore fossil fuel industries (IRENA 2018a; Poulsen different LCOE values and found B-C ratios between 0.9-
and Lema 2017; Scottish Enterprise 2016), minimising to-1 and 28-to-1 (Table 11).
the costs of transition and the risks of structural
unemployment. Both approaches show that the value of the ROI will
increase as the costs of energy generation for offshore
Estimated Benefits and Costs wind fall with improved technologies and as actions are
taken to reduce integration costs. The estimates should
We estimated the B-C ratio under two approaches.
be treated as partial because they do not include key
In the first approach, we estimated the ratio over 30
impacts that are discussed qualitatively, such as impacts
years (2020–50), where additional energy production
(positive and negative) on biodiversity and on jobs and
is calculated for each year against the BAU scenario,
livelihoods in coastal communities.
using present value benefits and costs. In the second
approach, we calculated the B-C ratio for one unit of
energy produced.
Table 10. Net Benefits from Scaling Up Offshore Wind Energy and Benefit-Cost Ratio
ACTION NET PRESENT VALUE; NET BENEFIT BENEFIT-COST RATIO BENEFIT-COST RATIO
(US$, BILLIONS, 2020–50) (LOW) (HIGH)
Scale up offshore wind

253–6,849 2:1 17:1
production

Table 11. Benefit-Cost Ratio for Offshore Wind Production under Varying LCOE Levels
SCENARIO BENEFIT–COST RATIO
Scenario 1: LCOE is US$140/MWh; integration costs are $43/MWh; baseline costs are $86–$94/MWh 0.9:1–3:1
Scenario 2: LCOE is $60/MWh; integration costs are $43/MWh; baseline costs are $86–$94/MWh 4:1–16:1
Scenario 3: LCOE is $45/MWh; integration costs are $30/MWh; baseline costs are $68–$75/MWh 7:1–28:1
Note: LCOE = levelised cost of electricity; MWh =megawatt-hour.
Data Limitations and Caveats of the total emissions in the sector (Olmer et al. 2017).
The following scenarios were considered from Hoegh-
Data limitations and caveats are described in Appendix
Guldberg et al. (2019).
B. They include potential risks to biodiversity, variations
in GHG mitigation depending on the fuel mix in the Under the BAU scenario, it is estimated that total annual
local grid, variations in LCOE depending on local market GHG emissions from international shipping will grow
conditions, and omitting financial benefits from water from 800 megatonnes (Mt) in 2012 to 1,100 Mt in 2030
savings. to 1,500 Mt in 2050. The mitigation potential assumes
a 20–39 percent emissions reduction in 2030 from a
3.3 Decarbonise the International 2008 baseline, and in 2050, a 50–100 percent emissions
Shipping Sector reduction from the 2008 baseline emissions (Table 12).
Shipping is a significant source of emissions with The upper-bound emissions reduction for 2050 assumes
identifiable reduction pathways (Hoegh-Guldberg et that all vessels move to full use of nonfossil fuels from
al. 2019). The sector is responsible for approximately renewable feedstock. The lower bound is set at 50
1 GtCO2e per year and represents around 3 percent of percent, taken as the minimum interpretation of the
global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Smith et al. 2015). IMO’s objectives in the initial GHG reduction strategy
Based on current trends, GHG emissions will double by (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
2050 to roughly 2 GtCO2e, compared with 2010 (Hoegh-
Guldberg et al. 2019). In 2018, the United Nations
Assessment of Costs
International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a Because only a small subset of the fleet is likely to
resolution29 to reduce GHG emissions from shipping by at be ‘zero-carbon-fuels ready’ by 2030, we assume the
least 50 percent by 2050, relative to 2008 emission levels. mitigation potential for 2030 to be mainly driven by
However, greater ambition is needed to keep global maximising energy efficiency (Hoegh-Guldberg et
temperature rise under 2°–1.5°C (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. al. 2019). This includes technological measures that
2019; UNFCCC 2015). increase the energy efficiency of a ship, such as altering
its weight (using lighter materials) or design (such as
Baseline, Sustainable Transformation hull coatings and air lubrication to reduce friction), and
Pathway and Target Scenarios other ways to reduce or recover energy (such as via
The sustainable transformation pathway focuses on propeller upgrades and heat recovery). These measures
decarbonising only the international shipping sector. could result in fuel savings of up to 25 percent (ITF
Although there is potential to reduce emissions in both 2018). In addition, energy could be saved by changes
domestic and international shipping, we focused on in how ships—and, more broadly, maritime transport
international shipping, which accounts for 55 percent systems—are operated, such as changes in speed,

Table 12. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential from Decarbonising International Shipping, 2030 and 2050
2030 MITIGATION POTENTIAL 2050 MITIGATION POTENTIAL

ACTION (GTCO2E/YEAR) (GTCO2E/YEAR)
Reduce emissions from international shipping 0.2–0.4 0.75–1.50
Note: GtCO2e = gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Source: Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019.
ship-port interface and onshore power. Over the last Assessment of Benefits
few years, both slower speeds and larger ship sizes have
The health, environmental and ecological, and economic
contributed to a decrease in shipping emissions (ITF
and social benefits from the international shipping
2018).
sector reducing its GHG emissions are summarised
However, efficiency measures are ultimately limited below.
by factors such as the efficiency of a propeller or an
internal combustion engine that are impossible to HEALTH BENEFITS
improve beyond a certain point (IMarEST 2018). As those Reduced PM2.5 from marine engine combustion mitigates
limits are approached, improvements have increasingly ship-related premature mortality and morbidity (Sofiev
diminishing returns and become less cost-effective et al. 2018). The annual avoided health damage cost to
(IMarEST 2018). Hence, the cost of decarbonising adults is calculated by multiplying the CO2e emission
international shipping is ultimately capped by the cost of mitigation potential by the average marginal cobenefits
switching to zero CO2 emissions fuels and technologies of avoided mortality (see Box 2). In addition to the
(IMarEST 2018). impact on adult mortality, evidence shows that reducing
shipping emissions will positively impact childhood
We refer to the IMarEST (2018) study to estimate the morbidity by reducing childhood asthma (Sofiev et al.
cost of GHG reduction in international shipping. The 2018). Based on the methodology outlined above for
study assumes that significant absolute emissions reducing adult mortality and for childhood asthma (see
reductions are achieved even at low marginal cost of Appendix C), we estimate the discounted cumulative
carbon ($50/tonne) (IMarEST 2018).30 The results from health benefits from reducing emissions to be $1.3 to
the same IMarEST (2018) model state that, depending $9.8 trillion over 30 years (2020–50).
on how prices evolve for renewable electricity in coming
decades and other assumptions in the scenarios, a ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
70–100 percent absolute reduction in GHG emissions by Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can
2050 can be achievable for a marginal abatement cost produce seasonal ‘hot spots’ of ocean acidification
of $100–$500/tCO2e. By multiplying the cost per tCO2e in areas close to busy shipping lanes. Hot spots harm
abated with the mitigation potential estimated in the local marine ecology and commercially farmed seafood
Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) study, we estimate the total species (Hassellöv et al. 2013). Reducing global GHG
costs (capital and operational) over 30 years to be $2.3 emissions, including shipping emissions, is critical to
trillion to decarbonise shipping by 100 percent.31 mitigating local and global ocean acidification.

A recent study found that lower trophic species such ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS
as bivalves were affected disproportionately due to Estimates suggest that improved hull shape and
the compounding effects of shifts in temperature, materials, larger ships, drag reductions, hotel-load
chlorophyll and ocean acidification. The commercial savings and better engines and propulsors, together
mollusc industry is estimated to lose over $100 billion by with routing improvements, can deliver overall efficiency
2100 due to ocean acidification alone (Narita et al. 2012). improvements of 30–55 percent (ETC 2018). The analysis
indicates that reducing a vessel’s speed by 10 percent
In addition, reducing ship speeds could positively
(e.g., from 20 knots to 18 knots) results in a 19 percent
impact marine mammals and other species. A 10 percent
reduction in cargo-hauling fuel consumption after
reduction in ship speed could reduce the total sound
accounting for the reduced shipping speed and the
energy generated underwater by 40 percent and reduce
associated loss in shipping time (Faber et al. 2012). These
the overall whale strike rate by 50 percent (Leaper
savings are already included in the cost calculations for
2019). Such measures would benefit marine species
2030.
(including the whale population) globally, resulting in
higher ecosystem service values (both recreational and
ESTIMATED BENEFITS AND COSTS
nonuse values32) that will, in turn, improve human well-
Based on the methodology outlined above, we estimated
being. Because of uncertainty about the exact impact
that there are net benefits from making investments to
that measures to reduce GHG emissions would have on
decarbonise the shipping sector. The net discounted
ocean acidification and noise, we have not been able to
benefit (average) over 30 years (2020–50) is estimated to
monetarily quantify these key impacts.
be $1.2–$9.1 trillion. The B-C ratio is estimated to be 2-to-
Reducing emissions in shipping will help avoid the most 1 to 5-to-1 in 2050 (Table 13).
catastrophic impacts of climate change. We estimate
the climate benefits (see Box 3) from reducing carbon Data Limitations and Caveats
emissions to be $0.8–$1.6 trillion over 30 years. Data limitations and caveats include a lack of
consideration of the secondary impact on commodity
prices and the impact of all cost reductions (technology
change) in the future. For details, see Appendix C.
Table 13. Net Benefit from Decarbonising International Shipping and Benefit-Cost Ratio
ACTION NET BENEFIT BY 2050 BENEFIT-COST BENEFIT-COST

(US$, BILLIONS, 2019$) RATIO (LOW) RATIO (HIGH)
Decarbonise international shipping 1,152–9,050 2:1 5:1

3.4. Increase the Production of Fed mariculture production. In the BAU scenario,
fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements remain at
Sustainably Sourced Ocean-
current levels due to the absence of large investments
Based Proteins
into improving feed efficiency, limiting the growth of
The analysis for this section builds on the estimates fed aquaculture (FOLU 2019). Under the sustainable
provided in The Global Consultation Report of the Food transformation pathway scenario, aquaculture
and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019), the analysis of fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements decrease by
Costello et al. (2016) that looks at the return from global 50 percent by 2050, allowing increased production
fisheries under contrasting management regimes, the in fed aquaculture to be achieved via measures such
analysis of Sumaila et al. (2012) that measures the net as feed efficiency and alternative feed replacement
present value of rebuilding fish stocks over 50 years, and (FOLU 2019).
the analysis of Mangin et al. (2018) that compares the
benefits from fisheries management against the costs for Nonfed mariculture production. In the sustainable
individual countries. transformation pathway scenario, policy incentives to
boost the eating of low-carbon food increase bivalve/
To determine the level of ocean-based protein mollusc production and consumption to 4 percent
production required to ensure a healthy, balanced per annum as opposed to the BAU average annual
human diet by 2050, we refer to the EAT-Lancet growth rate of 3.1 percent over the last 10 years (FOLU
Commission report (Appendix D; Willett et al. 2019), 2019).
which states that the ocean will be required to produce
85–90 million metric tonnes (mmt) of edible-weight Assessment of Costs
ocean protein annually by 2050. It is estimated that the
The analysis in this paper builds on the investment cost
world (freshwater and ocean) currently produces only
estimates and assumptions in The Global Consultation
half that amount (FOLU 2019; Willett et al. 2019).
Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019),
Sumaila et al. (2012) and Mangin et al. (2018).
Baseline, Sustainable Transformation
Pathway and Target Scenarios CAPTURE FISHERIES REFORM
The 2019 FOLU report looks at ocean-based production Analysis by Mangin et al. (2018) estimates that under
across three sectors: wild marine capture fisheries, a fisheries reform scenario, annual global fisheries
ocean-based fed aquaculture (finfish) and ocean-based management costs would be $13–$15 billion, whereas
nonfed aquaculture (bivalves). The production scenarios under BAU, the costs are estimated at $8 billion.33
under BAU and the sustainable transformation pathways Sumaila et al. (2012) estimate that the amount
are shown in Table 14. Production is measured in million governments need to invest to rebuild world fisheries is
metric tonnes live-weight equivalent. Broadly, the between $130 billion and $292 billion in present value
transformation scenarios for the sectors were modelled over 50 years, with a mean of $203 billion.34
in terms of possibilities of expanded production.
NONFED AND FED MARICULTURE PRODUCTION
Wild-capture fisheries. Costello et al. (2016) and
Additional bivalve production (compared with BAU) is
Sumaila et al. (2012) estimate fisheries management
estimated at an average cost of $605 per tonne (FOLU
that aims to maximise long-term catch (maximum
2019).
sustainable yield) could increase fisheries production
up to 96–99 mmt. This is higher than the current catch
(80 mmt) and the projected BAU catch in 2050 (67
mmt) (Costello et al. 2019).

Table 14. The Business-as-Usual and Sustainable Transformation Pathways
TYPE OF OCEAN-BASED BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION

FOOD PRODUCTION PATHWAY SCENARIO
Wild-capture fisheries Global annual marine capture production will Global annual marine capture production
(marine) decline from 80 mmt in 2020 to 67 mmt in 2050a stabilises at 96–99 mmtb by 2050
Fed mariculture (finfish) Fed mariculture production remains at the 2020 Fed mariculture production increases to 22.4
level of 11.2 mmtc mmt by 2050d
Nonfed mariculture (bivalves) Bivalve mariculture grows to 28.5 mmt in 2050 Bivalve mariculture grows to 65.2 mmt in 2050f
from 16.3 mmt in 2020e
Notes: mmt = million metric tonnes.
a. Costello et al. 2019.
b. Costello et al. 2019; Costello et al. 2016; Sumaila et al. 2012; this refers to the higher estimates of the Sumaila et al. optimal catch range under reform.
c–f. FOLU 2019.
In the sustainable transformation pathway scenario, Increasing the scale of fed mariculture and replacing
the capital costs for setting up fed mariculture farms fishmeal and fish oil with alternative fish feed will
are estimated at $157 million for offshore mariculture lead to a change in the variable costs of mariculture
and $60 million for nearshore mariculture for 2020–30 farms. To calculate the impact on variable costs, we
(FOLU 2019; O’Shea et al. 2019).35 Between 2020 and assumed that, until 2030, the price of alternative
2030, it is assumed that 25 percent of the additional feed would be twice the price of fishmeal and then,
production will come from new capital expenditures because of innovations, it would fall to equal the price
to build these farms (FOLU 2019). After 2030, we of fishmeal in 2030–50.
assume that the cost of investment will fall by 15
Public and private R&D spending across food and
percent. The capital costs will fall from $157 million to
land-use systems was assumed to grow from 0.07
$133 million over 2031–50. All increases in production
percent GDP (2018) to 0.1 percent of GDP by 2030.
beyond 2030 come from new farms.
FOLU analysis assumes 20 percent of the additional
Because mariculture expansion is limited by R&D spending on food and land-use systems ($197
shortages and the rising costs of fishmeal made from billion over 2018–30) is allocated to alternative fish
forage fish, we assume that fed mariculture expansion feed, intensification impacts and the scaling up of
is possible over 30 years (2020–50) because of a 50 innovative production methods such as multitrophic
percent reduction in traditional fishmeal, with the mariculture and offshore mariculture. After 2030,
gap filled by novel feed ingredients such as insects we assumed the R&D expenditure in the food and
or algae.36 Although these alternatives currently cost land-use systems would continue to grow at the same
more than fishmeal,37 we assume prices will decline rate38 (reaching 0.13 percent of GDP in 2040 and 0.17
with innovation and scaled-up production. percent in 2050), and the proportion spent on ocean-
based proteins would remain the same.

Under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
and Development 2030 scenario, mariculture Livestock production has high GHG emissions and
would employ 3 million farmers (OECD 2016). We requires extensive land use. The demand for animal-
assumed all mariculture farmers would receive based protein is projected to increase even more quickly
training for sustainable production and improving than overall food demand by 2050 due to increases in the
feed efficiency ($450 per farmer [FOLU 2019]) over world population and in incomes across the developing
2020–50. world (Searchinger et al. 2019). Since foods vary widely
in their embedded land use and GHG emissions per
Based on these estimates and assumptions, the
unit of protein (Poore and Nemecek 2018), changes in
discounted costs are estimated to be $656 billion over 30
the composition of future diets could greatly affect the
years (2020–50).
emissions consequences of growth in protein demand
(González Fischer and Garnett 2016). It is estimated that
Assessment of Benefits
CH4 and N2O emissions in the BAU food system scenario
HEALTH BENEFITS will grow from 5.2 GtCO2e in 2010 to 9.7 GtCO2e in 2050
The real gain in health benefits is the potential to (Springmann et al. 2018). Of that projected growth, over
increase sustainable protein supplies by encouraging 75 percent will come from projected growth in animal
more fish consumption (produced via sustainable products (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
means) over other protein sources. This would reduce
Ocean-based proteins are substantially less carbon
human mortality and morbidity from reduced GHG
intensive than land-based animal proteins (especially
emissions (see below for the link between GHG
beef and lamb), with farmed bivalves being particularly
emissions and animal-based proteins), increase healthier
climate friendly (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).39
diets and reduce health costs from reduced pesticide
Therefore, actions that shift diets towards ocean-based
and antimicrobial exposure. This is estimated to be
proteins can reduce pressure on land and also reduce
approximately $170 billion in 2030 and $390 billion in
emissions. Moving to diets that are less dependent on
2050 (FOLU 2019).
terrestrial animal products, especially beef and lamb,
Sustainable sourcing of ocean protein and would also slow the growth in demand for freshwater
micronutrients also helps diversify nutritious food to support livestock agriculture (Hoegh-Guldberg et al.
supplies, particularly for poorer coastal communities 2019). The transition, if properly managed, could yield
that depend disproportionately on fish for their protein benefits of $330 billion in 2050 (FOLU 2019).
and micronutrient consumption. The distributional
In addition, such diet shifts will reduce deforestation, the
health benefits to poorer communities have not been
majority of which will be driven by clearing forests for
analysed or quantified here.
future meat production and consumption. Searchinger et
al. (2019) estimated that animal-based foods accounted
for roughly two-thirds of agricultural production
emissions in 2010 and more than three-quarters of
agricultural land use. Under BAU, the analysis estimated
that agriculture would expand by nearly 600 million ha
(an area nearly twice the size of India), including the
expansion of 400 million ha of pasturelands (Searchinger
et al. 2019). The additional reduction in emissions from
preventing deforestation has not been included in the
estimated benefits.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS Estimated Benefits and Costs
Reforming fisheries will result in an increase in revenues Based on key reports and papers, the benefits from
and profits to fishers in the long term. Costello et increasing the share of sustainably produced ocean-
al. (2016) state that after all fisheries are optimally based proteins in diets is estimated to be 10 times the
managed, it will take 10 years for stocks to recover costs (Table 15). Evidence indicates that while the global
and will result in $53 billion in fisheries profits against B-C ratio for fisheries management reform is about
the BAU scenario. Sumaila et al. (2012) estimate that 9.2-to-1, the ratio is higher than 200 for some countries
rebuilding world fisheries could increase profits from (Mangin et al. 2018). Sumaila et al. (2012) estimate the
the current negative $13 billion to a positive $77 billion B-C ratio for rebuilding global fisheries to be as high
per year. Comparing these benefits to the cost of as 7:1. The value of net benefits is estimated to be $6.7
management, Sumaila et al. (2012) and Mangin et al. trillion over 30 years; the total benefits are $7.4 trillion
(2018) show that the cumulative benefits of sustainable versus $769 billion total costs.41
management of fish stocks exceed the management
costs. Sumaila et al. (2012) state that rebuilding fisheries Data Limitations and Caveats
stock will deliver a net gain (net present value) of The estimates do not fully take into account the effects
between $600 billion and $1.4 trillion over 50 years, of climate change and ocean acidification. We recognise
versus transition costs of $130–$292 billion.40 that there are regional differences and that there are
barriers to shifting diets. See Appendix D for more
details.
Table 15. Net Benefits from Increasing the Production of Sustainably Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins and Benefit-Cost Ratio
ACTION NET BENEFIT BY 2050 BENEFIT-COST RATIO

(US$, BILLIONS, 2019$)
Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based

6,678 10:1
protein in diets
Source: Authors’ calculations based on estimates from FOLU 2019; Mangin et al. 2018; Sumaila et al. 2012.

4. Conclusion
The overall rate of ROI can be high, with the average and research costs) and costs to households (loss of
B-C ratio ranging from 3-to-1 to 12-to-1 (Table 16), and forgone income).
in some cases, such as conservation of mangroves and
A number of impacts (both benefits and costs) have
fisheries reform (for particular countries), it can be much
not been monetised but are important and must be
higher. Our research found that investing $2.0–$3.7
considered during the policy decision-making process.
trillion globally across the four areas from 2020 to 2050
These include the following considerations:
could generate $8.2–$22.8 trillion in net benefits.
Reduced GHG emissions have a positive correlation
Actions to transform these four areas will bring multiple
with the reduced risk of ocean acidification. The
benefits. The total monetised and discounted benefits
measures assessed can positively impact lower
are estimated at $10.3–$26.5 trillion over 2020–50.
trophic species such as bivalves, which are affected
Monetised benefits include health benefits, such as
disproportionately due to the compounding effects
reduced mortality from improved air quality, reduced
of shifts in temperature, chlorophyll and ocean
childhood asthma and improved health outcomes from
acidification.
dietary shifts towards sustainably produced ocean-
based protein; environmental benefits, such as avoided The tourism value of mangroves (and other coastal
property losses from coastal flooding, the prevention ecosystems) may increase over time as biomass and
of land degradation and reduced water usage; and diversity increase within the protected areas.
economic benefits, such as reduced production costs
due to technological improvements and increased A number of ecosystem services from mangrove
profits from higher fisheries productivity. protection and restoration have not been quantified.
For example, vegetated coastal habitats are used
The total monetised and discounted costs are estimated by a remarkable number of marine and terrestrial
to be $2.0–$3.7 trillion over 2020–50. The costs assessed animals. Dense mangroves buffer ocean acidification
include costs to business (capital costs to set up new and are becoming recognised as valuable natural
infrastructure, R&D costs and increases in variable costs), systems that can help treat wastewater (Ouyang and
costs to government (regulatory costs, monitoring costs Guo 2016).
Table 16. Summary of Benefit-Cost Ratios for the Four Action Areas in 2050
ACTION AVERAGE BENEFIT-COST RATIO
Conserve and restore mangrovesa 3:1
Decarbonise international shippingb 4:1
Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins 10:1
Scale up offshore energy productionc 12:1
Notes:
a. The ratio presented is the combined ratio for mangrove conservation and restoration. When assessing specific interventions, the benefit-cost ratio for conservation
is estimated to be 88:1 and for restoration 2:1.
b. The benefit-cost ratio estimated for decarbonising international shipping ranges from 2:1 to 5:1.
c. The benefit-cost ratio estimated for scaling up of global offshore wind energy production ranges from 2:1 to 17:1.

Measures to reduce emissions in shipping that economy will generate a host of benefits that are larger
involve lowering ship speeds reduce the total sound in magnitude than the costs:
energy generated and overall whale strike rate and,
Conserving and restoring mangroves. While the B-C
hence, positively impact marine mammals and other
ratio for restoration is lower than for conservation,
species.
both types of interventions yield significant benefits
The distributional impacts of the benefits and costs and, hence, are both important to ensure a high ROI.
have not been measured. For example, poor coastal Protection measures to conserve these ecosystems
families are the most vulnerable in natural disasters, should be enhanced along with measures that provide
so building ecosystem resilience to protect them from incentives for restoration (e.g., payment for ecosystem
coastal flooding and cyclones will not only safeguard services schemes) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
their valuable assets but also generate tremendous
Scaling up offshore wind energy production.
social benefits (e.g., feeling safe) that cannot be
Scaling up offshore wind energy to replace fossil
easily monetised. The estimates also do not take into
fuel–based sources of power generation will help
account the additional nutritional benefits to human
deliver better local health outcomes, reduce risks
health in terms of micronutrients, particularly in low-
of damages from climate change, create jobs and
and middle-income countries.
deliver immediate environmental benefits such as
The analysis does not account for changes to the reduced water usage. Measures such as marine spatial
B-C ratio based on changes in the global physical planning is key to ensuring offshore wind technologies
risk profile associated with climate change. Often, amplify these benefits as well as mitigate any
the costs of climate change–related risks are environmental risks to habitats and marine species
underestimated, including the potential damage (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
of weather-related shocks and sea level rise. If
Decarbonising the international shipping sector.
‘resilience’ (e.g., through the integration of natural
Transitioning international shipping to net-zero
flood defences) is built into investments, then the
emissions by 2050 will be costly, but these measures
benefits (e.g., of protective mangroves) could include
will be key to realising the estimated scale of benefits
a reduction in the cost of capital (due to improved
(health outcomes and environmental benefits), which
risk-adjusted performance metrics) and/or reduced
substantially outweigh the costs.
long-term operational expenses (e.g., through
avoided losses and reduced maintenance costs). Increasing the production of sustainably
sourced ocean-based proteins. Substantial gains
Given that the B-C ratios in Table 16 are a partial estimate
in fisheries productivity can be achieved through
of all benefits and costs likely to accrue as a result of
better management of fish stocks, which eliminates
the specified investments, they should be treated as
overfishing, illegal and unregulated fishing and
indicative to provide the relative scale of benefits from
discards of nonmarketable fish. Sustainable marine
sustainable ocean-based investments compared with the
aquaculture practices will also help meet the growing
costs. Further research and analysis to address gaps in
food demand. Technological innovation and adoption
quantifying benefits will help provide a more complete
in breeding, production systems, disease control
picture of their value versus their costs. The analysis does
and environmental management will help improve
not attempt to show the regional variation of the costs and
mariculture’s productivity and environmental
benefits, nor does it show the distribution of benefits and
performance (Waite et al. 2014). Encouraging
cost across society (especially focusing on the impact on
innovation can make valuable contributions to the
vulnerable groups). Conducting these assessments should
future scalability and lower prices of substitutes as
be a key step when implementing ocean-based policies
forage fish resources become scarce (Konar et al.
and regulations.
2019). Incentives are required to shift diets towards
Although data limitations prevented a full accounting of low-carbon ocean-based proteins and away from
all benefits and costs, the results of the analyses suggest high-carbon land-based sources of protein (Hoegh-
that taking the following actions to transform the ocean Guldberg et al. 2019).

Appendix A: Conservation
and Restoration of
Mangrove Habitats
Increasing Ecosystem Services was found to assess the improvement in fisheries

productivity through seagrass conservation, but the
from Mangrove Conservation and
estimate is very local, pertaining only to Australia.
Restoration
Restoring salt marshes and seagrasses is found to be
Vegetated coastal habitats are used by a remarkable more expensive than restoring mangroves because
number of marine and terrestrial animals (Li et al. 2018; most salt marsh and seagrass restoration efforts did
Rog et al. 2017). Dense mangroves trap and stabilise not reach economy of scale.
sediments that buffer the effects of floodwaters and
tidal movements. They are becoming recognised as The actual conservation and restoration costs for
valuable natural systems that can play an important mangroves might be lower or higher depending on
role in wastewater treatment systems (Ouyang and Guo the specific location, the sizes of the targeted areas
2016). The values of these ecosystem services can be and the measures used. Total restoration costs are
significant, as demonstrated in Box A1, which provides a up to 30 times cheaper in countries with developing
local example of the scale of these values for mangroves economies (compared to Australia, European
in Myanmar. While global value estimates of ecosystem countries and the United States) (Bayraktarov et al.
services exist (i.e., Costanza et al. 1997, 2014; de Groot 2016).
et al. 2012), many of these estimates are resulting from The analysis assumes a survival rate of 51.3 percent
meta-analysis (i.e., analysis of analyses) rather than for the restored area, based on median survival
primary valuation studies. Hence, there have been rates provided by Bayraktarov et al. (2016). In reality,
concerns around the validity of using these values for however, survival rates vary significantly between
simple benefit transfer without accounting for specific sites due to a few factors in play. First, the survival
characteristics of the sites where ecosystem service value rate of mangroves is highly species-specific (Mitra
needs to be estimated (Himes-Cornell et al. 2018). We et al. 2017). Second, a lack of incentives to engage
thus excluded them from the current B-C ratio analysis. local residents in the long-term management of
However, as new primary valuation data become restored areas is another reason for low survival
available, incorporating such benefits will improve rates (Hai et al. 2020). Addressing these factors
marine decision-making. will be key to improving restoration survival rates
and achieving the scale of the benefits described
Data Limitations and Caveats in this study. Restoration efforts should follow a
We excluded salt marshes and seagrasses from the protocol that includes diagnosing the causes of the
calculation due to limited global data availability deterioration or deforestation of the mangroves,
for both in terms of benefit assessment. During the setting a baseline, planning restoration activities
literature review, only one study (Carnell et al. 2019) and long-term monitoring of the restoration project

Box A1. The Economic Value of Key Mangrove Benefits in Myanmar
The values for ecosystem services of mangroves in Myanmar, as estimated by Estoque et al. (2018), illustrate the scale of the benefits
that accrue to society from various ecosystem services.
In Myanmar, a mangrove’s most valuable service is as a fish nursery (US$9,122 per hectare [ha] per year) and as coastal protection
from storm surges ($1,369/ha/year). Recreational benefits are estimated at $476/ha/year. Mangroves also regulate water flow ($275/
ha/year) and water quality ($61/ha/year) (see Table BA1.)=
Table BA1: Value of Mangroves in Myanmar
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION METHOD VALUE (2018US$

PER HECTARE PER
YEAR)
Wood-based energy and timber Value of marketed and nonmarketed production 7.22
Coastal protection Avoided expenditures on physical reclamation and 1,369.28

replenishment
Hazard mitigation Costs of equivalent engineered storm protection defences 349.01
Regulation of water flow Expenditures saved on alternative freshwater sources 275.25

(alternative deep well and borehole drilling, piping)
Regulation of water quality Reduced costs of wastewater treatment and sediment 617.13
trapping
Mitigation of climate change Potential value of carbon emissions reductions offsets 304.64
sales
Maintenance of fisheries nursery Contribution to on-site and off-site capture fisheries 9,112.45
populations and habitat
Recreation and experiential Tourism expenditures and earnings 475.97
Cultural, amenity and aesthetics Domestic and international visitor willingness to pay 28.46
Source: Estoque et al. 2018.

(Hai et al 2020). Strong community participation in out to the economic value of coastal development—
managing the ecosystem, including in the planning, even when sea level rise, storm surge and other
implementation, management and monitoring, will risks are clearly present. To mitigate these risks, a
be essential to ensure the success of restoration better understanding of the drivers of degradation
efforts. is needed, as are measures (policy and educational)
that aim to change consumer/human behaviour and
It is not yet understood how climate change will affect
raise awareness of the benefits derived from nature-
the productivity and resilience of coastal mangroves.
based solutions.
In marine ecosystems, rising atmospheric CO2 and
climate change are associated with concurrent shifts Marine and coastal ecosystem conservation may
in temperature, circulation, stratification, nutrient result in short-term economic losses due to the
input, oxygen content and ocean acidification, with forgone economic gains from any prohibited or
potentially wide-ranging biological effects (Doney et reduced commercial fishing activities (opportunity
al. 2012). However, there is less confidence regarding costs). However, in the long term, this will help
the influence temperature will have on interactions increase the productivity of fisheries in nearby
among organisms, which is important for ecosystem fishing grounds through fish migration and reduce
productivities (Kennedy et al. 2002). the risk of ecosystem collapse due to overfishing.
The conservation benefits estimated are highly
The analysis does not account for the opportunity
dependent on the annual carbon mitigation potential
costs of coastal developments. The economic value of
estimated by Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) and the
protecting and restoring coastal habitats, even when
avoided risk of climate damages estimated using the
the necessary legal framework is in place, often loses
social cost of carbon.

Appendix B: Scaling Up
Offshore Wind Energy
Production
Data Limitations and Caveats The analysis focuses solely on offshore wind energy
generation because the projected future costs
Potential risks to biodiversity could arise or increase with
of other ocean renewable energy installations
the expansion of wind energy, especially as it moves
are subject to high uncertainty because energy
farther from the coast. In such cases, it could be more
development is still immature. Further analysis in this
difficult or costly to mitigate impacts on habitats and
area will help provide a more holistic picture on the
wider biodiversity.
ROI for the ocean energy sector overall.
The types of generation displaced by ocean energy
Water-saving benefits are estimated based on the
will depend on the specific generation technologies
opportunity costs of water. Direct financial benefits
and costs in places where ocean energy is located.
are also associated with water savings, but we
On grids that have a high share of zero-carbon
excluded them from the benefit assessment because
generation, including hydropower and nuclear
local water prices vary greatly across countries.
energy, adding ocean energy will not decrease
emissions significantly. Conversely, for grids with a
high share of carbon-intensive generation, emission
displacements could be significant.
The cost of building more offshore wind generation

will vary depending on the supply chain and
infrastructure available in each market. The
investment required will be much higher for
developing nations than for countries like Denmark
that already have a wind power market.

Appendix C: Decarbonising
International Shipping
Estimating the Avoided Costs of States (Perry et al. 2019). We take this as a proxy of the
Childhood Asthma global health care cost to treat the illness.
In schoolchildren, asthma leads to lost school days,

which limits academic performance and has consequent
Data Limitations and Caveats
psychological effects. Therefore, children with asthma The analysis does not incorporate all potential cost
have more indirect costs than older asthmatics, as the reductions from innovation and increased R&D
direct cost to parents is limited to missed workdays and efforts. In this respect, the model is conservative
other expenses. The total avoided costs from childhood because these factors would be expected to reduce
asthma are estimated by summing the health care technology capital costs. The analysis does not
costs, the cost of school absenteeism and adult missed account for additional infrastructure investments
workdays. The following assumptions are made to derive such as safe storage and handling of hydrogen/
the avoided costs from childhood asthma: ammonia at the ship-to-shore interface.
Globally, 86 million children could suffer from The costs of investments increase (and consequently
asthma, based on the fact that 334 million people in B-C ratio decreases) if we assume a scenario where
the world have asthma and 26 percent of the world the cost of alternative fuel is higher.
population is 14 years or younger (Global Asthma
The analysis does not compare the carbon impact
Network 2014).42 Evidence-based regression analysis
of ship transportation versus air transportation.
shows that 16 percent of these cases could be
Investment in cleaner ships to meet demands from
attributed to shipping (Sofiev et al. 2018), accounting
a growing economy will lead to a lower carbon
for 14 million childhood asthma cases.
footprint solution for global trade and travel (versus
Sofiev et al. (2018) states that childhood asthma ground or air transport of goods and people).
morbidity due to shipping declines by 54 percent, from
The analysis is static and does not analyse the
14 million children affected in the BAU case to 6.4 million
secondary or indirect impacts following the shipping
children in the 2020 Action case.43 We assume these
sector transitioning to a low-fuel economy. Although
benefits are delivered in 2030 (i.e., when 54 percent
switching to cleaner fuel will impose costs to the
of children suffering from asthma are asthma free).
shipping industry, the overall impacts on the economy
We assume a 100 percent reduction of GHG emissions
will depend on how the firms absorb the increase in
in shipping will reduce childhood morbidity cases
costs and, thus, are relatively uncertain. Being faced
(attributable to shipping) by 100 percent (14 million).
with higher cost, the industry could transfer part of the
The average missed days is estimated to be 6.4 days impacts to the price of final commodities (more likely
per child (Nunes et al. 2017; Ojeda et al. 2013; Sullivan if they are price inelastic), produce more local product,
et al. 2008), and we assume at least one adult loses or reduce profit margins, which would lead to lower
that many days of work per year to care for the child. future capital investment until the industry’s market
The value of additional days lost attributable to equilibrium returns. The overall impact on consumers
asthma per year was $301 for each worker and $93 for and households will depend on which of these impacts
each student (Nunes et al. 2017). dominate, and by what extent. In most developed
economies, impacts are expected to be negligible,
The average annual health financial costs to and there are policy options for managing impacts
government for treating pediatric asthma is estimated in especially vulnerable and/or disproportionately
to range from $3,076 to $13,612 per child in the United impacted countries.

Appendix D: Increasing the
Production of Sustainably
Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins
Data Limitations and Caveats The projections do not incorporate the potential
impacts of ocean acidification on fish and fisheries.
The report by the EAT-Lancet Commission has set
There is a lack of sufficient understanding of the
out scientific targets for healthy diets that will
capacity for marine organisms to adapt through
optimise human health (Willett et al. 2019). By its
acclimation as well as transgenerational and
own admission, the report did not have the scope
evolutionary adaptation (Gaylord et al. 2015; Munday
to fully analyse fishing and mariculture systems
2014; Munday et al. 2013) to reliably predict ocean
globally. Therefore, while some estimates were
acidification impacts on marine populations and
included on recommended fish intake, more detailed
ecosystems (FAO 2018).
analysis is needed. EAT, along with other partners,44
is supporting further work to expand scientific The FOLU (2019) analysis states that the benefits
understanding of the role of ocean-based protein are the difference between the global hidden
for planetary health and human well-being. This costs under the better future and current trends
research, referred to as the Blue Food Assessment, scenarios. It provides an indicative estimate of the
aims to outline pathways for a transformation to potential benefits accruing to the global economy
sustainable and healthy blue food for all people on from following the better future development path
the planet, now and into the future. Analysis has relative to remaining on the current trajectory. For the
focused on marine food production, but a greater aquaculture sector the FOLU does not estimate the
understanding of aquatic food production as a whole increase in revenues from production or direct benefit
(including freshwater fisheries and aquaculture)45 in terms of value added to GDP (which is accounted
is needed to evaluate the benefits and costs of for under the fisheries reform scenario); rather, it is
aquatic food to human health and the environment. a reduction in the size of the externalities currently
Those working on the Blue Food Assessment have stemming from food and land use.
recognised this and aim to incorporate it into the
There are many barriers to shifting diets away from
analysis.
emission-intensive land-based sources of protein
The fisheries reform scenarios are optimistic and such as beef and lamb.46 Consumer purchases are
assume optimal fisheries management everywhere, typically based on habit and unconscious mental
which may not be achievable in reality. In addition, processing rather than on rational, informed
the impacts of climate change, such as warming sea decisions (Ranganathan et al. 2016). Factors such as
temperatures, on fish stocks and their movements price, taste and quality tend to be more important
have not been fully taken into account in this paper than sustainability in purchasing decisions
because they are difficult to model and cost. The (Ranganathan et al. 2016). The costs of policy
authors recognise that impacts on production could measures and business practices—such as private/
be significant in some regions. public procurement, marketing and campaigning
costs or sending clear market signals via carbon taxes

or changes in subsidies—to enable a change in diet
have not been estimated in this analysis. Several
assumptions have been used to estimate the costs;
hence, these should be treated with caution.
The estimates do not take into account the additional

nutritional benefits to human health in terms of
micronutrients, not just protein, particularly in low-
and middle-income countries. Ocean-based food
production provides food security during extreme
events (e.g., heavy rainfall and hurricanes) when the
supply of land-based food sources is affected and
limited.
The average B-C ratio calculated here hides the

regional and local variances that will occur in aquatic
food production. These variances are likely to impact
the livelihoods of smaller-scale fishers and farmers
the most, and they often have the lowest resilience to
changes in capture/farming levels.

Endnotes
1. For example, the B-C ratio for double measles immunisation in the ocean and coasts are evaluated with a low discount rate, but no
Canada is estimated to be 2-to-1 to 4-to-1; for influenza vaccination country is required to act if its own internal discount rate is higher
in Italy, it is estimated at 4-to-1 to 12-to-1; for the meningitis and the project does not pass its own internal return on investment
prevention program in the Philippines, it is 8.4-to-1; and for the criteria (unless international transfers change that balance), or (2) a
universal Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccination (starting at two global agreement is reached so that there are parallel evaluations—
months) in the United States, it is 3.4-to-1 to 5.4-to-1 (Bärnighausen one with the low internationally agreed-upon discount rate and the
et al. 2009; Colombo et al. 2006; Limcangco et al. 2001; Pelletier et al. other with the country’s own rate for public investments.
1998; Zhou et al. 2002).
9. In addition, the benefit-cost analysis does not apply any ‘equity
2. The conservation scenario assumes stopping the additional loss of weighting’ when aggregating benefits across countries or regions
mangroves whereas the restoration scenario assumes replanting that have very different levels of wealth, thus giving relatively greater
large areas of mangroves already lost; that is we are doing more weight to the impacts of rich people relative to poor people.
restoration in the scenarios analysed than conservation. The overall
10. Working in a highly polluted setting for a long period of time can
ratio of both conservation and restoration is calculated by adding
affect your mood or disposition to work. Evidence shows statistically
the total present value benefits and costs of both measures. The very
significant adverse output effects (resulting in lower productivity)
high restoration costs is the main factor driving the overall B-C ratio
from prolonged exposure to ambient particles (He et al. 2019).
for both conservation and restoration.
11. There is a link between shipping pollution and childhood asthma
3. The return on investment for wind energy investments will vary
(Sofiev et al. 2018) that leads to children missing school and their
depending on the specific generation technologies and costs
parents missing work. The shipping sector analysis explores this in
in places where the offshore wind installations are located. On
more detail.
grids that have a high share of zero-carbon generation, including
hydropower and nuclear energy, adding ocean energy will not 12. Tourism-based income can improve economic and social conditions
decrease emissions significantly. Conversely, for grids with a high in local communities; hence, it indirectly contributes to health
share of carbon-intensive generation, emission displacements could benefits.
be significant.
13. Climate change can have a positive or negative impact on regional
4. For example, this is particularly true for the majority of ecosystem fisheries; overall, though, there will be a decline in fisheries
service benefits for mangroves that are not privately owned or productivity.
traded, and hence their “value” is not reflected in price signals.
14. This is based on avoiding the current loss of mangroves per year
We refrained from monetising some of the benefits due to the
under BAU (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).
uncertainty of nonmarket valuation techniques. Further information
is available in section 3.1. 15. The range of CO2 sequestration potential per unit area for each
ecosystem was calculated using default emission/removal factors
5. Although the interventions selected are key to achieving the
from the IPCC (2013).
2050 sustainable ocean economy vision, they do not represent
an exhaustive list of actions that will be required to make such a 16. The range is obtained by multiplying the median cost (point
transition. For example, this analysis does not look at the impacts estimate) with the area of restoration (range).
of moving towards a sustainable coastal tourism sector, of reducing
17. The time frame for generating these benefits will vary, and in some
marine pollution, or of expanding the network of marine protected
extreme cases, full development of the aboveground biomass will
areas.
not be achieved for 20–30 years (Osland et al. 2012; Salmo et al.
6. It is often argued that social discount rates are likely to be higher for 2013).
developing countries because the social opportunity costs for capital
18. Countries receiving the largest benefits in avoided flood damage in
is higher or the cost of borrowing capital tends to be higher. For
absolute dollar terms include China, India, Mexico, the United States
example, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank typically
and Vietnam. The largest beneficiaries relative to the size of their
apply a real discount rate of 10–12 percent when evaluating projects
economies include many low-income countries, such as Guinea,
in developing countries (Warusawitharana 2014).
Mozambique and Sierra Leone (Beck et al. 2018).
7. For example, the Stern Review recommends a declining social
19. It can be argued that the value of nutritional benefits is already
discount rate with rates lower than 3 percent for investments beyond
embedded in the value of fish sold.
30 years (Stern 2007). The review states, ‘If the ethical judgement
is that future generations count very little regardless of their 20 Within offshore wind energy technologies, bottom-fixed water
consumption level then investments with mainly long-run pay-offs technologies dominate the current capacity of offshore wind energy.
would not be favoured. In other words, if you care little about future
21. The authors based their estimation on several studies that have
generations you will care little about climate change. As we have
included offshore wind in scenarios projecting future energy mix.
argued that is not a position which has much foundation in ethics
These include International Energy Agency scenarios, Bahar et al.
and which many would find unacceptable’.
(2019) and Teske et al. (2011). We assume a linear increase in energy
8. Based on the recommendation of the Stern Review, the treasury for generation from 2020 to 2050.
the United Kingdom recommends the use of a 3.5 percent discount
22. The strike price is a guaranteed price to be paid to wholesale
rate for the first 30 years, followed by a declining rate until it reaches
generators of electricity.
1 percent for 301 years and beyond (Lowe 2008). It can be argued
that a lower rate can be implemented in different ways if agreement
to use a low rate is reached. For example, there could be two
options: (1) a global agreement is reached so that investments on

33. The paper estimates a country-level B-C ratio for management
23. There is a risk that, depending on how auctions are designed, low
improvements for 30 countries. It categorises landings in each
bids may be associated with no delivery and/or renegotiations. For
country into three broad management categories: catch share,
example, Welisch and Poudineh (2019) state that one-shot auctions
where managers and regulators set a scientifically determined catch
and the lack of a nondelivery penalty clause increase the probability
limit on the amount of fish that can be caught using measures (e.g.,
of speculative bidding and prevent bidders from learning and from
community-based allocation, individual quotas, individual vessel
utilising information efficiently.
quotas, individual transferable quotas, and territorial use rights
24. In 2015 the costs of floating offshore energy were estimated to for fisheries); strong catch controls, which include a broad range of
range between $187/MWh and $316/MWh (IEA and NEA 2015), management that can be classified as strong biological management
with predictions that costs would fall by 40 percent by 2030 due without catch shares; and a broad ‘other’ category that consists
to rapidly advancing technology and market conditions that of the rest of the fisheries referred to as open access. It focuses
enable offshore wind deployment to compete globally. These cost on three types of fisheries management costs: administration (or
declines are also reflected in recent studies. Previous National management), research and surveillance, and enforcement (Mangin
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studies estimated the LCOE et al. 2018).
for an offshore wind project in the Massachusetts wind energy area
34. The estimated transition costs include the costs to society of
to be $77/MWh (Moné et al. 2016). Later NREL studies revised the
reducing the current fishing effort to levels consistent with the
LCOEs downward to $74/MWh by 2027 and $57/MWh by 2032 for
maximum sustainable yield and the payments governments may
floating offshore technologies in Maine (Musial et al. 2020). The
decide to employ to adjust capital and labour to uses outside the
recent technological and commercial improvements in the global
fisheries sector (such as vessel buyback programs and alternative
industry are applicable to the turbine design, turbine scaling effects
employment training initiatives for fishers).
on the balance of station, lower financing terms and lower costs for
the floating platform, array and export cables. Commercial-scale 35. This is based on estimates that the average capital expenditure for a
plant costs (in terms of dollars per kilowatt) modelled for the Aqua large-scale, high-tech farm is $6.50– $20.00 per kilogram (O’Shea et
Ventus technology were found to be approximately five times lower al. 2019). The average production per farm is estimated to be 3,000
than the pilot-scale demonstration project cost that was originally tonnes per year (FOLU 2019).
estimated at $300/MWh.
36. We estimated the increase in fishmeal and alternatives required
25. Wind corridors for onshore wind have helped to streamline the siting under the sustainable transformation pathway scenario where
of transmission for multiple projects that allow multiple developers mariculture increases to 22.4 t by 2050. The gap filled by novel
to share the cost. These innovations could help bring down costs. alternatives and associated costs is calculated via the following
steps. (1) We calculated the existing fishmeal requirements in the
26. This is due to reduced criteria pollutants such as ozone and
BAU using the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and fishmeal inclusion
particulate matter (that are indirectly displaced).
rate for salmon production. We use an FCR of 1.5 and a fishmeal
27. This analysis does not account for the impact of returning the water inclusion rate of 25 percent (Konar et al. 2018). We assume the
because it often gets returned at a different temperature, leading to fishmeal inclusion rate decreases by 50 percent (to 13 percent) in
thermal pollution. the sustainable transformation pathway scenario. (2) We assumed
that under the sustainable transformation pathway scenario, 50
28. This is an estimate of direct jobs, not including indirect or induced
percent of the fishmeal production (100 million t) will be replaced
jobs, derived from the economic activity of an offshore wind farm.
by alternative ingredients by 2050. (3) Finally, we used the current
29. See IMO 2018. capital cost to produce feed ($1,426/t) as a proxy to calculate the
additional capital investment required to expand alternative feed
30. This is because of the assumption about the availability of
(Suleiman and Rosentrater 2018). Using these steps, we estimated
bioenergy; in these scenarios, it is significant relative to international
$145 billion in additional investments will be required in alternative
shipping’s total demand for energy. In this modelling, bioenergy is
feed to expand production to meet the gap caused by reducing
assumed to enter the fuel mix as a substitute for fossil fuels and,
traditional fishmeal usage.
therefore, is at the same price as the fossil fuel equivalent and is
not dependent on additional carbon price to stimulate its take-up. 37. The fishmeal price in 2018 was approximately $1,600/t.
For example, the study assumes that bioenergy enters the fuel mix
38. This reflects the gradual growth of R&D expenditure observed for
as a substitute for fossil fuels at the same price as the fossil fuel
the world over 2000–10 (OECD 2020). For all countries within the
equivalent (and is not dependent on additional carbon price to
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, R&D
stimulate its take-up), the supply of bioenergy is 4.7 exajoules and
expenditure grew from 2.1 to 2.4 percent in 2017.
there is a low price/capital cost of moving to future shipping energy
sources, particularly electricity, biofuel, hydrogen and ammonia. 39. This does not include farmed shrimp, which can be quite high in
The costs of investments increase (and, consequently, the B-C ratio GHGs. However, salmon/marine fish and bivalves score well in terms
decreases) if we assume a scenario where the cost of alternative fuel of lower GHG emissions.
is higher.
40. The lower bound corresponds to 82 t of catch and the upper bound,
31. Our estimates reflect both operational costs and capital investments. It 99 t, which is closer to the Costello et al. (2016) estimates. To be
is, hence, higher than the cost estimate provided in the recent analysis consistent, we used both cumulative benefit and cost estimates from
by the University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS) and the Energy Sumaila et al. (2012), which offer a scenario in which the optimal
Transitions Commission for the Getting to Zero Coalition (2019), which fish landings increase to 99 t when calculating the total net present
states that approximately up to $1.6 trillion ‘capital investments’ is value for increasing consumption of sustainably produced ocean-
needed between 2030 and 2050 to achieve the IMO target of reducing based protein from capture fisheries, fed aquaculture and nonfed
carbon emissions from shipping by 100 percent by 2050. aquaculture. The net gains are present value estimates calculated
using a 3 percent discount rate (Table 15).
32. Nonuse values (e.g., existence, bequest and option values) are
the benefit values assigned to environmental goods that 41. The B-C ratios vary across the countries and range from 1.7 up to
people have not used or do not intend to use. For example, the 268, with a median of about 14 for catch share management (Mangin
current generation can place a value on ensuring the availability et al. 2018).
of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning to future generations
(bequest value).

42. Without adjusting for the higher prevalence for asthma among
young and old persons.
43. The 2020 Action assumes on-time implementation of the IMO’s 0.5
percent low-sulphur fuel standard.
44. Partners include the Food and Agriculture Organization, Friends
of Ocean Action, Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions, Stockholm
Resilience Centre, World Economic Forum and World Resources
Institute.
45. Currently, the majority of aquaculture production is inland or
freshwater, which constitutes 64 percent of the total global
aquaculture production, and the proportion is likely to be higher in
Asia (FAO 2018).
46. Reducing consumption of animal-based foods should not be a goal
for people who are underconsuming. Animal-based foods provide
a concentrated source of some vitamins and minerals that are
particularly valuable to young children in developing countries
whose diets are otherwise poor (Ranganathan et al. 2016).

References
Aburto-Oropeza, O., E. Ezcurra, G. Danemann, V. Valdez, Beck, M.W., S. Narayan, D. Trespalacios, K.
J. Murray, and E. Sala. 2008. “Mangroves in the Gulf of Pfliegner, I.J. Losada, P. Menéndez, A. Espejo, et
California Increase Fishery Yields.” Proceedings of the al. 2018. The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Reduction. Summary report. Berlin: The Nature
America 105 (30): 10456–59. https://doi.org/10.1073/ Conservancy.https://www.conservationgateway.org/
pnas.0804601105. ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/
GlobalMangrovesRiskReductionSummaryReport10.7291/
Agora Energywiende. 2015. The Integration Costs of
V9930RBC.pdf.
Wind and Solar Power: An Overview of the Debate on the
Effects of Adding Wind and Solar Photovoltaic into Power BEIS (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Systems. Berlin: Agora Energywiende. https://www. Strategy). 2019. Updated Short-Term Traded Carbon Values:
agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2014/ Used for UK Policy Appraisal (2018). London: BEIS, National
integrationskosten-wind-pv/Agora_Integration_Cost_ Archives. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
Wind_PV_web.pdf. government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/794186/2018-short-term-traded-carbon-values-for-
Arrow, K.J. 1962. “The Economic Implications of Learning
appraisal-purposes.pdf.
by Doing.” Review of Economic Studies 29 (3): 155–73.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2295952. Best, B.D., and P.N. Halpin. 2019. “Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts for Offshore Wind Energy Development: Winning
Bahar, H., D. D’Ambrosio, R. Malischek, and H. Paillere.
Tradeoffs for Seabirds in Space and Cetaceans in Time.”
2019. Tracking Power. Paris: International Energy Agency.
PLOS ONE 14 (5): e0215722. https://doi.org/10.1371/
https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-power-2019.
journal.pone.0215722.
Bandaranayake, W.M. 1998. “Traditional and
Blas, A., A. Garrido, O. Unver, and B. Willaarts. 2019.
Medicinal Uses of Mangroves.” Mangroves and
“A Comparison of the Mediterranean Diet and
Salt Marshes 2 (September): 133–48. https://doi.
Current Food Consumption Patterns in Spain from a
org/10.1023/A:1009988607044.
Nutritional and Water Perspective.” Science of the Total
Barbier, E.B. 2007. “Valuing Ecosystem Services as Environment 664 (May): 1020‒29. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Productive Inputs.” Economic Policy 22 (49): 178–229. pubmed/30769304.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2007.00174.x.
BMWi (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie).
Bärnighausen, T., D.E. Bloom, D. Canning, A. Friedman, 2018. “Economic Indicators of the Energy System.”
O.S. Levine, J. O’Brien, L. Privor-Dumm, and D. Walk. www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Studien/
2011. “Rethinking the Benefits and Costs of Childhood oekonomische-indikatoren-undenergiewirtschaftliche-
Vaccination: The Example of the Haemophilus Influenzae gesamtrechnung.pdf.
Type B Vaccine.” Vaccine 29 (13): 2371–80. https://doi.
Buhl-Mortensen, L., P. Buhl-Mortensen, M.F.J. Dolan,
org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.090.
J. Dannheim, V. Bellec, and B. Holte. 2012. “Habitat
Bayraktarov, E., M.I. Saunders, S. Abdullah, M. Mills, J. Complexity and Bottom Fauna Composition at Different
Beher, H.P. Possingham, P.J. Mumby, and C.E. Lovelock. Scales on the Continental Shelf and Slope of Northern
2016. “The Cost and Feasibility of Marine Coastal Norway.” Hydrobiologia 685 (February): 191–219. https://
Restoration.” Ecological Applications, 26 (4): 1055–74. doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0988-6.
https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1077.

Bunting, P., R. Lucas, A. Rosenqvist, L.-M. Rebelo, L. Copping, A., N. Sather, L. Hanna, J. Whiting, G.
Hilarides, N. Thomas, A. Hardy, et al. 2018. “The Global Zydlewski, G. Staines, A. Gill, et al. 2016. Annex IV 2016
Mangrove Watch—a New 2010 Baseline of Mangrove State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of
Extent.” Remote Sensing 10 (10): 1669. https://doi. Marine Renewable Energy Development around the World.
org/10.3390/rs10101669. Lisbon: Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/
publications/state-of-the-science-2016.
Burke, L., and H. Ding. 2016. “Valuation of Coastal
Protection near Paramaribo, Suriname.” Final report for Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M.
World Wildlife Fund Guianas. Washington, DC: World Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997. “The
Resources Institute. http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront. Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural
net/downloads/3__16_02_project_peri_urban_coastal_ Capital.” Nature 387 (May): 253–60. https://doi.
protection_options_paramaribo___pre_final_report_ org/10.1038/387253a0.
wri.pdf.
Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S.J.
Carnell, P.E, Reeves, S.E, Nicholson, P. Macreadie, D. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, et al. 2014. “Changes
Ierodiaconou, M. Young, J. Kelvin, et al. 2019. Mapping in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services.” Global
Ocean Wealth Australia: The Value of Coastal Wetlands to Environmental Change 26 (May): 152–58. https://doi.
People and Nature. Melbourne: The Nature Conservancy. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
Chaigneau, T., K. Brown, S. Coulthard, T.M. Daw, and Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich, et al. 2019. The Future of
L. Szaboova. 2019. “Money, Use and Experience: Food from the Sea. Washington, DC: World Resources
Identifying the Mechanisms through Which Ecosystem Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/
Services Contribute to Wellbeing in Coastal Kenya and files/2019-11/19_HLP_BP1%20Paper.pdf.
Mozambique.” Ecosystem Services 38 (August): 100957.
Costello, C., D. Ovando, T. Clavelle, C.K. Strauss, R. Hilborn,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100957.
M.C. Melnychuk, T.A. Branch, S.D. Gaines, et al. 2016.
Collins J.J., C.M. Baase, C.E. Sharda, R.J. Ozminkowski, “Global Fishery Prospects under Contrasting Management
S. Nicholson, G.M. Billotti, R.S. Turpin, M. Olson, and Regimes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
M.L. Berger. 2005. “The Assessment of Chronic Health of the United States of America 113 (8): 5125–29. https://
Conditions on Work Performance, Absence, and Total www.pnas.org/content/113/18/5125.
Economic Impact for Employers.” Journal of Occupation
Degraer, S., R. Brabant, and B. Rumes, eds. 2012. Offshore
and Environmental Medicine 47 (6): 547–57. https://doi.
Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Heading
org/10.1097/01.jom.0000166864.58664.29.
for an Understanding of Environmental Impacts. Brussels:
Colombo, G.L., A. Ferro, M. Vinci, M. Zordan, and Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences.
G. Serra. 2006. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Influenza
de Groot, R., L. Brander, S. van der Ploeg, R. Costanza,
Vaccination in a Public Healthcare Unit.” Therapeutics
F. Bernard, L. Braat, M. Christie, et al. 2012. “Global
and Clinical Risk Management 2 (2): 219–26. https://doi.
Estimates of the Value of Ecosystems and Their Services
org/10.2147/tcrm.2006.2.2.219.
in Monetary Units.” Ecosystem Services 1 (1): 50–61.
Cooper, D. 2018. “Scenarios for the 2050 Vision for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
Biodiversity.” Paper presented at the Convention on
de Souza Queiroz, L., S. Rossi, L. Calvet-Mir, I. Ruiz-
Biological Diversity Second Bogis-Bossey Dialogue for
Mallén, S. García-Betorz, J. Salvà-Prat, and A.J. de
Biodiversity, “Framing and Setting the Scene,” March 3.
Andrade Meireles. 2017. “Neglected Ecosystem
https://www.cbd.int/cooperation/bogis/2018/DC.pdf.
Services: Highlighting the Socio-Cultural Perception of
Cooper, E., L. Burke, and N. Bood. 2009. “The Economic Mangroves in Decision-Making Processes.” Ecosystem
Contribution of Belize’s Coral Reefs and Mangroves.” Services 26 (Part A): 137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources ecoser.2017.06.013.
Institute. https://www.wri.org/publication/belizes-
coastal-capital.

Doney, S.C., M. Ruckelshaus, J.E. Duffy, J.P. Barry, F. Fleming, L.E., N. McDonough, M. Austen, L. Mee,
Chan, C.A. English, H.M. Galindo, et al. “Climate Change M. Moore, P. Hess, M.H. Depledge, et al. 2014. “Oceans
Impacts on Marine Ecosystems.” Annual Review of Marine and Human Health: A Rising Tide of Challenges
Science 4 (January): 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/ and Opportunities for Europe.” Marine Environment
annurev-marine-041911-111611. Research 99 (August): 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marenvres.2014.05.010.
Ellis, N.R., and P. Tschakert. 2019. “Triple-Wins as
Pathways to Transformation? A Critical Review.” FOLU (Food and Land Use Coalition). 2019. The Global
Geoforum 103 (July): 167–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition.
geoforum.2018.12.006. London: FOLU. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.
org/global-report/.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016.
“Social Cost of Carbon.” EPA Fact Sheet. Washington, Gaylord, B., K.J. Kroeker, J.M. Sunday, K.M. Anderson,
DC: EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ J.P. Barry, N.E. Brown, S.D. Connell, et al. 2015. “Ocean
files/2016-12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_ Acidification through the Lens of Ecological Theory.”
sheet.pdf. Ecology 96 (1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0802.1.
Estoque, R.C., S.W. Myint, C. Wang, A. Ishtiaque, T.T. GCA (Global Commission on Adaptation). 2019. Adapt
Aung, L. Emerton, M. Ooba, et al. 2018. “Assessing Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience.
Environmental Impacts and Change in Myanmar’s Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://
Mangrove Ecosystem Service Value Due to Deforestation openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32362.
(2000–2014).” Global Change Biology 24 (11): 5391–410.
Glaser, M., and K. Diele. 2004. “Asymmetric Outcomes:
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14409.
Assessing Central Aspects of the Biological, Economic
ETC (Energy Transitions Commission). 2018. Mission and Social Sustainability of a Mangrove Crab Fishery,
Possible: Reaching Net-Zero Carbon Emissions from Ucides cordatus (Ocypodidae), in North Brazil.” Ecological
Harder-to-Abate Subsectors by Mid-century. London: ETC. Economics 49 (3): 361–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
http://www.energy-transitions.org/sites/default/files/ ecolecon.2004.01.017.
ETC_MissionPossible_FullReport.pdf.
Global Asthma Network. 2018. The Global Asthma Report
European Commission. 2018. In-Depth Analysis in 2018. Auckland, New Zealand: Global Asthma Network.
Support of the Commission Communication (2018) 773: http://www.globalasthmareport.org/Global%20
A Clean Planet for All—a European Strategic Long-Term Asthma%20Report%202018.pdf.
Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate
González Fischer, C.G., and T. Garnett. 2016. Plates,
Neutral Economy. Brussels: European Commission.
Pyramids, Planet. Developments in National Healthy
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/
and Sustainable Dietary Guidelines: A State of Play
com_2018_733_ analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf.
Assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
Faber, J., D. Nelissen, G. Hon, H. Wang, and M. Tsimplis. the United Nations; Oxford, UK: Food Climate Research
2012. Regulated Slow Steaming in Maritime Transport: Network, University of Oxford. http://www.fao.org/3/a-
An Assessment of Options, Costs and Benefits. Delft, i5640e.pdf.
Netherlands: CE Delft. https://theicct.org/publications/
Hai, N., B. Dell, V. Phuong, and R.J. Harper. 2020.
regulated-slow-steaming-maritime-transport.
“Towards a More Robust Approach for the Restoration of
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Mangroves in Vietnam.” Annals of Forest Science 77 (18).
Nations). 2018. The State of World Fisheries and https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-0921-0.
Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development
Goals. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/
i9540en.pdf.

Halpern, B.S., M. Frazier, J. Afflerbach, J.S. Lowndes, F. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. The Ocean as a Solution
Micheli, C. O’Hara, C. Scarborough, and K.A. Selkoe. 2019. to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.
“Recent Pace of Change in Human Impact on the World’s Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://
Ocean.” Scientific Reports 9 (August): 11609. https://doi. oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/HLP_Report_
org/10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9. Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf.
Hammar, L., D. Perry, and M. Gullström. 2016. “Offshore Hollander, A., R. De Jonge, S. Biesbroek, J. Hoekstra, and
Wind Power for Marine Conservation.” Open Journal of M.C. Zijp. 2018. “Exploring Solutions for Healthy, Safe,
Marine Science 6 (1): 66–78. https://doi.org/10.4236/ and Sustainable Fatty Acids (EPA and DHA) Consumption
ojms.2016.61007. in the Netherlands.” Sustainability Science 14 (2): 303‒13.
https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/6325482.
Hassellöv, I-M., D.R. Turner, A. Lauer, and J.J. Corbett.
2013. “Shipping Contributes to Ocean Acidification.” Huckerby, J., H. Jeffrey, A. de Andres, and L. Finlay. 2016.
Geophysical Research Letters 40: 2731–36. https:// An International Vision for Ocean Energy. Version III.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ Lisbon: Ocean Energy Systems Technology Collaboration
grl.50521. Programme. https://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/
news/oes-vision-for-international-deployment-of-ocean-
Hausker, K. 2011. “The Social Cost of Carbon and energy/.
Competing Decision Frameworks for Climate Policy.”
Paper presented at the fall meeting of the American IEA (International Energy Agency). 2016. Special Report:
Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Water-Energy Nexus. Paris: IEA. https://webstore.iea.org/
Resources, Indianapolis, October 12–17. weo-2016-special-report-water-energy-nexus.
He, J., H. Liu, and A. Salvo. 2019. “Severe Air Pollution IEA. 2019a. Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2019: The
and Labor Productivity: Evidence from Industrial Latest Trends in Energy and Emissions in 2018. Paris: IEA.
Towns in China.” American Economic Journal: Applied https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2-status-
Economics 11 (1): 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1257/ report-2019.
app.20170286.
IEA. 2019b. Offshore Wind Outlook 2019. Paris:
Himes-Cornell, A.H., S.O. Grose, and L. Pendleton. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-wind-
2018. “Mangrove Ecosystem Service Values and outlook-2019.
Methodological Approaches to Valuation: Where Do We
IEA and NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). 2015. Projected
Stand?” Frontiers in Marine Science 5 (October): 1–15.
Costs of Generating Electricity. Paris: Organisation for
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00376.
Economic Co-operation and Development, IEA; Issy-
HMT (Her Majesty’s Treasury). 2018. The Green Book: les-Moulineaux, France: Organisation for Economic
Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Co-operation and Development, NEA. https://www.oecd-
Evaluation. London: HMT. https://assets.publishing. nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-electricity-2015.
service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ pdf.
attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf.
IMarEST (Institute of Marine Engineering, Science
Hochard, J.P., S. Hamilton, and E.B. Barbier. 2019. and Technology). 2018. Further Consideration of How
“Mangroves Shelter Coastal Economic Activity from to Progress the Matter of Reduction of GHG Emissions
Cyclones.” Proceedings of the National Academy of from Ships: The Costs of GHG Reduction in International
Sciences of the United States of America 116 (25): 12232– Shipping. ISWG-GHG 3/3. London: IMarEST.
37. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820067116.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2018. ITF (International Transport Forum). 2018.
Resolution MEPC.304(72) (Adopted on 13 April 2018) Initial “Decarbonising Maritime Transport: Pathways to
IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships. Zero-Carbon Shipping by 2035.” ITF Policy Paper 47.
London: IMO. http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/ Paris: ITF, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
IndexofIMOResolutions/Marine-Environment- Development. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/
Protection-Committee-%28MEPC%29/Documents/ files/docs/decarbonising-maritime-transport.pdf.
MEPC.304%2872%29.pdf.
Kennedy, V.S., R.R. Twilley, J.A. Kleypas, J.H.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Cowan Jr., and S.R. Hare. 2002. Coastal and Marine
2013. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for Ecosystems & Global Climate Change: Potential Effects
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Edited on U.S. Resources. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global
by T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Climate Change. https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/
Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, and T.G. Troxler. Geneva: IPCC. uploads/2002/08/marine_ecosystems.pdf.
IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Konar, M., S. Qiu, B. Tougher, J. Vause, M. Tlusty, K.
Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Fitzsimmons, R. Barrows, and L. Cao. 2019. “Illustrating
Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global GHG Emission the Hidden Economic, Social and Ecological Values of
Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Global Forage Fish Resources.” Resources, Conservation
Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable and Recycling 151 (December): 104456. https://doi.
Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Edited by org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104456.
V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J.
Langhamer, O. 2012. “Artificial Reef Effect in Relation
Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, et al. Geneva: IPCC. https://
to Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion: State of the
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_
Art.” In Marine Renewable Energies: Perspectives and
Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf.
Implications for Marine Ecosystems,xs special issue,
IPCC. 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Scientific World Journal 2012 (December): 386713.
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Edited by H.-O. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/386713/.
Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M.
Leaper, R. 2019. “The Role of Slower Vessel Speeds
Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, et al. Geneva:
in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Underwater
IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/
Noise and Collision Risk to Whales.” Frontiers in Marine
sites/3/2019/11/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf.
Science 6 (August): 505. https://doi.org/10.3389/
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). fmars.2019.00505.
2018a. Offshore Wind Investment, Policies and Job
Lee, S.Y., S. Hamilton, E.B. Barbier, J. Primavera, and R.R.
Creation: Review of Key Findings for G7 Ministerial
Lewis. 2019. “Better Restoration Policies Are Needed
Meetings. Halifax, Canada: IRENA. https://www.irena.
to Conserve Mangrove Ecosystems.” Nature Ecology &
org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Sep/
Evolution 3 (6): 870–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-
IRENA_offshore_wind_note_G7_2018.pdf?la=en&hash=
019-0861-y.
B186614D923AB1F0A07D7285612C4B037057A0C0.
Li, X., R. Bellerby, C. Craft, and S.E. Widney. 2018.
IRENA. 2018b. Renewable Energy Benefits: Leveraging
“Coastal Wetland Loss, Consequences, and Challenges
Local Capacity for Offshore Wind. Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
for Restoration.” Anthropocene Coasts 1 (1): 1–15. https://
IRENA. 2019. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018. doi.org/10.1139/anc-2017-0001.
Abu Dhabi: IRENA. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/
Limcangco, M.R., C.L. Armour, E.G. Salole, and S.J.
IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/May/IRENA_Renewable-
Taylor. 2001. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Haemophilus
Power-Generations-Costs-in-2018.pdf.
Influenzae Type B Meningitis Prevention Programme in
the Philippines.” PharmacoEconomics 19 (4): 391–400.
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119040-00006.

Lowe, J. 2008. Intergenerational Wealth Transfers Munday, P.L., R.R. Warner, K. Monro, J.M. Pandolfi, and
and Social Discounting: Supplementary Green Book D.J. Marshall. 2013. “Predicting Evolutionary Responses
Guidance. London: Her Majesty’s Treasury. https://assets. to Climate Change in the Sea.” Ecology Letters 16
publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ (12):1488–1500. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12185.
uploads/attachment_data/file/193938/Green_Book_
Musial, W., P. Beiter, and J. Nunemaker. 2020. Cost of
supplementary_guidance_intergenerational_wealth_
Floating Offshore Wind Energy Using New England Aqua
transfers_and_social_discounting.pdf.
Ventus Concrete Semisubmersible Technology. Strategic
Macknick, J., R. Newmark, G. Heath, and K.C. Hallett. Partnership Project Report NREL/TP-5000-75618. Golden,
2011. A Review of Operational Water Consumption CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://
and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75618.pdf.
Technologies. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-50900.
Narita, D., K. Rehdanz, and R.S.J. Tol. 2012. “Economic
Washington, DC: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Costs of Ocean Acidification: A Look into the Impacts
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf.
on Global Shellfish Production.” Climatic Change 113
Macknick, J., R. Newmark, G. Heath, and K.C. Hallett. (August): 1049–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-
2012. “Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal 0383-3.
Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies: A
Nunes, C., A.M. Pereira, and M. Morais-Almeida. 2017.
Review of Existing Literature.” Environmental Research
“Asthma Costs and Social Impact.” Asthma Research and
Letters 7 (4): 045802. https://iopscience.iop.org/
Practice 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40733-016-0029-3.
article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802/pdf.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Mangin, T., C. Costello, J. Anderson, R. Arnason, M.
Development). 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Paris:
Elliott, S.D. Gaines, R. Hilborn, E. Peterson, and R.
OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en.
Sumaila. 2018. “Are Fishery Management Upgrades
Worth the Cost?” PLOS ONE 13 (9): e0204258. https://doi. Oita, A., I. Nagano, and H. Matsuda. 2018. “Food Nitrogen
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204258. Footprint Reductions Related to a Balanced Japanese
Diet.” Ambio 47 (3): 319‒26. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Mcleod, E., G.L. Chmura, S. Bouillon, R. Salm, M. Björk,
s13280-017-0944-4.
C.M. Duarte, C.E. Lovelock, W.H. Schlesinger, and B.R.
Silliman. 2011. “A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Toward Ojeda, P., V. Sanz de Burgoa. 2013. “Costs Associated
an Improved Understanding of the Role of Vegetated with Workdays Lost and Utilization of Health Care
Coastal Habitats in Sequestering CO2.” Frontiers in Resources because of Asthma in Daily Clinical ractice in
Ecology and the Environment 9 (10): 552–60. https://doi. Spain”. Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical
org/10.1890/110004. Immunology 23 (4): 234–241.
Mitra, A., N. Pal, A. Saha, T.R. Chaudhuri , P. Fazli, and S. Olmer, N., B. Comer, B. Roy, X. Mao, and D. Rutherford.
Zaman. 2017. “Survival Rate of Mangroves: A Proxy to 2017. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping,
Assess Ecosystem Health.” Indian Journal of Geo-Marine 2013–2015. Washington, DC: International Council
Sciences 46 (10): 2046–53. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/ on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/sites/
handle/123456789/42756. default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-
emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf.
Moné, C., T. Stehly, and W. Musial. 2016. “Levelized Cost
of Energy Analysis Using a Floating Concrete Semi- O’Shea, T., R. Jones, A. Markham, E. Norell, J. Scott,
submersible Foundation for the University of Maine.” S. Theuerkauf, and T. Waters. 2019. Towards a Blue
Unpublished contractor report. Revolution: Catalyzing Private Investment in Sustainable
Aquaculture Production Systems. Arlington, VA: The
Munday, P.L. 2014. “Transgenerational Acclimation of
Nature Conservancy and Encourage Capital.
Fishes to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.”
F1000Prime Reports 6 (99). https://doi.org/10.12703/P6-99.

Osland, M.J., A.C. Spivak, J.A. Nestlerode, J.M. Richards, D.R., and D.A. Friess. 2016. “Rates and Drivers
Lessmann, A.E. Almario, P.T. Heitmuller, M.J. Russell, of Mangrove Deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–
et al. 2012. “Ecosystem Development after Mangrove 2012.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
Wetland Creation: Plant–Soil Change across a 20-Year the United States of America 113 (2): 344–49. https://doi.
Chronosequence.” Ecosystems 15 (August): 848–66. org/10.1073/pnas.1510272113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9551-1.
Rog, S.M., R.H. Clarke, and C.N. Cook. 2017. “More than
Ouyang, X., and F. Guo. 2016. “Paradigms of Mangroves Marine: Revealing the Critical Importance of Mangrove
in Treatment of Anthropogenic Wastewater Pollution.” Ecosystems for Terrestrial Vertebrates.” Diversity and
Science of the Total Environment 544 (February): 971–79. Distributions 23 (2): 221–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.013. ddi.12514.
Pearson, J., K.E. McNamara, and P.D. Nunn. 2019. Sala, E., C. Costello, D. Dougherty, G. Heal, K. Kelleher,
“Gender-Specific Perspectives of Mangrove Ecosystem J.H. Murray, A.A. Rosenberg, and R. Sumaila. 2013. “A
Services: Case study from Bua Province, Fiji General Business Model for Marine Reserves.” PLOS
Islands.” Ecosystem Services 38 (August): 100970. https:// ONE 8 (4): e58799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100970. pone.0058799.
Pelletier, L., P. Chung, P. Duclose, P. Manga, and J. Scott. Salem, M.E., and D.E. Mercer. 2012. “The Economic Value
1998. “A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Two-Dose Measles of Mangroves: A Meta-analysis.” Sustainability 4 (3):
Immunization in Canada.” Vaccine 16 (9–10): 989–96. 359–83. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4030359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-410X(97)00281-8.
Salmo, S.G., C. Lovelock, and N.C. Duke.
Perry, R., G. Braileanu, and T. Palmer. “The 2013. “Vegetation and Soil Characteristics as
Economic Burden of Pediatric Asthma in the United Indicators of Restoration Trajectories in Restored
States: Literature Review of Current Evidence.” Mangroves.” Hydrobiologia 720 (December): 1–18.
PharmacoEconomics 37 (February): 155–67. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1617-3.
org/10.1007/s40273-018-0726-2.
Scottish Enterprise. 2016. Oil and Gas “Seize the
Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2018. “Reducing Food’s Opportunity” Guides: Offshore Wind. Glasgow, UK:
Environmental Impacts through Producers and Scottish Enterprise. https://www.offshorewindscotland.
Consumers.” Science 360 (6392): 987–92. https://doi. org.uk/media/1116/sesdi-oil-and-gas-div-guide-
org/10.1126/science.aaq0216. offshore-wind.pdf.
Poulsen, T., and R. Lema. 2017. “Is the Supply Chain Searchinger, T., R. Waite, C. Hanson, J.
Ready for the Green Transformation? The Case of Ranganathan, and E. Matthews. 2019. Creating a
Offshore Wind Logistics.” Renewable and Sustainable Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed
Energy Reviews 73 (June): 758–71. https://doi. Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050. Final Report. https://
org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.181. www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-
future-final-report.
Ranganathan, J., D. Vennard, R. Waite, P. Dumas, B.
Lipinski, T. Searchinger, and GlobAgri-WRR Model Simões-Wüst, A.P., and P.C. Dagnelie. 2019. “To Be or
Authors. 2016. “Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Not to Be for Humankind: Organic Diets Revisited for
Future.” Working Paper, Installment 11 of Creating a Sustainable Development.” Sustainable Earth 2 (1).
a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-019-0008-7.
Resources Institute. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/
Smith, T., J.P. Jalkanen, B.A. Anderson, J.J. Corbett, J.
s3fs-public/Shifting_Diets_for_a_Sustainable_Food_
Faber, S. Hanayama, E. O’Keefe, et al. 2015. Third IMO
Future_1.pdf.
Greenhouse Gas Study 2014. London: International
Maritime Organization. http://www.imo.org/en/

OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ Sumaila, U.R., W. Cheung, A. Dyck, K. Gueye, L. Huang,
AirPollution/Documents/Third%20Greenhouse%20 V. Lam, D. Pauly, et al. 2012. “Benefits of Rebuilding
Gas%20Study/GHG3%20Executive%20Summary%20 Global Marine Fisheries Outweigh Costs.” PLOS ONE 7 (7):
and%20Report.pdf. e40542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040542.
Smith, T., C. Raucci, S. Haji Hosseinloo, I. Rojon, Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and
J. Calleya, S. Suárez de la Fuente, P. Wu, and K. C. Lins. 2011. “Energy [R]evolution 2010—a Sustainable
Palmer. 2016. CO2 Emissions from International World Energy Outlook.” Energy Efficiency 4 (August):
Shipping. Possible Reduction Targets and Their 409–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.
Associated Pathways. London: University Maritime
Tilman, D., and M. Clark. 2014. “Global Diets Link
Advisory Services. https://u-mas.co.uk/LinkClick.
Environmental Sustainability and Human Health.” Nature
aspx?fileticket=na3ZeJ8Vp1Y%3D&portalid=0.
515 (7528): 518–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959.
Sofiev, M., J.J. Winebrake, L. Johansson, E.W. Carr,
Tol, R.S.J. 2019. “A Social Cost of Carbon for (Almost)
M. Prank, J. Soares, J. Vira, et al. 2018. “Cleaner Fuels
Every Country.” Energy Economics 83 (September):
for Ships Provide Public Health Benefits with Climate
555–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.07.006.
Tradeoffs.” Nature Communications 9 (406). www.nature.
com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9. Trucost. 2013. “White Paper: Valuing Water to Drive More
Effective Decisions.” London: Trucost. https://www.
Sotta, C. 2012. Documentary Summary of the
trucost.com/publication/white-paper-valuing-water-
Environmental Impact of Renewable Marine Energy. Le
drive-effective-decisions/.
Conquet, France: Parc naturel marine d’Iroise. https://
tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/3-2-1_ UMAS (University Maritime Advisory Services) and
Documentary_summary_EN-MERiFIC-web.pdf. Energy Transitions Commission. 2019. “The Scale of
Investments Needed to Decarbonize International
Spalding, M., and C.L. Parrett. 2019. “Global Patterns
Shipping.” Insight Brief. London: UMAS and Energy
in Mangrove Recreation and Tourism.” Marine Policy
Transitions Commission. https://u-mas.co.uk/LinkClick.
110 (December): 103540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aspx?fileticket=03IebWyJns8%3d&portalid=0.
marpol.2019.103540.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on
Springmann, M., M. Clark, D. Mason-D’Croz, K. Wiebe, B.L.
Climate Change). 2015. Decision 1/CP.21: Adoption of the
Bodirsky, L., Lassaletta, W. de Vries, et al. 2018. “Options
Paris Agreement. Paris: Conference of Parties, UNFCCC.
for Keeping the Food System within Environmental
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/
Limits.” Nature 562 (7728): 519. https://doi.org/10.1038/
cop21/eng/10a01.pdf.
s41586-018-0594-0.
Valiela, I., J.L. Bowen, and J.K. York. 2001.
Stacey, T.F., and G.S. Taylor. 2019. The Levelized Cost
“Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened
of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources.
Major Tropical Environments.” BioScience 51
Washington, DC: Institute for Energy Research. https://
(10): 807–15. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/
(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW]2.0.CO;2.
uploads/2019/06/IER_LCOE2019Final-.pdf.
Waite, R., M. Beveridge, R. Brummett, S. Castine,
Stern, N.H. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern
N. Chaiyawannakarn, S. Kaushik, R. Mungkung, S.
Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
Nawapakpilai, and M. Phillips. 2014. “Improving
2007.
Productivity and Environmental Performance of
Suleiman, R., and K.A. Rosentrater. 2018. “Techno- Aquaculture.” Working Paper, Installment 5 of Creating
Economic Analysis (TEA) of Extruded Aquafeeds.” Journal a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World
of Food Research 7 (5): 57–68. https://doi.org/10.5539/jfr. Resources Institute. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/
v7n5p57. s3fs-public/WRI14_WorkingPaper_WRR5_final.pdf.

Warusawitharana, M. 2014. “The Social Discount Rate Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” Lancet
in Developing Countries.” FEDS Notes. Washington, 393 (10170): 447–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 6736(18)31788-4.
https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.0029.
Witt, E. 2016. “A Financial and Economic Assessment
WBG (World Bank Group), ESMAP (Energy Sector of the Conservation of Northwestern Madagascar
Management Assistance Program), and SERIS (Solar Mangroves.” Master’s thesis, Nicholas School of the
Energy Research Institute of Singapore). 2018. Where Sun Environment, Duke University. https://dukespace.lib.
Meets Water: Floating Solar Market Report. Washington, duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/11911/E.
DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank. Witt_MP.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
org/curated/en/579941540407455831/Floating-Solar-
World Bank. 2016. Managing Coasts with Natural
Market-Report-Executive-Summary.
Solutions: Guidelines for Measuring and Valuing the
West, J.J., S.J. Smith, R.A. Silva, V. Naik, Y. Zhang, Z. Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves and Coral
Adelman, M.M. Fry, S. Anenberg, L.W. Horowitz, and J.-F. Reefs. Edited by M.W. Beck and G.-M. Lange. Wealth
Lamarque. 2013. “Co-benefits of Global Greenhouse Gas Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services
Mitigation for Future Air Quality and Human Health.” Partnership Technical Report. Washington, DC: World
Nature Climate Change 3 (October): 885–89. https://doi. Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
org/10.1038/nclimate2009. en/995341467995379786/Managing-coasts-with-natural-
solutions-guidelines-for-measuring-and-valuing-the-
Welisch, M., and R. Poudineh. 2019. Auctions for
coastal-protection-services-of-mangroves-and-coral-
Allocation of Offshore Wind Contracts for Difference in
reefs.
the UK. Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/ World Resources Institute. Forthcoming. Towards a
uploads/2019/02/Auctions-for-allocation-of-offshore- Sustainable Ocean Economy: Summary Input to the
wind-contracts-for-difference-in-the-UK-EL-33.pdf. High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. Burden of
Disease from the Joint Effects of Household and Ambient Zhou, F., K.M. Bisgard, H.R. Yusuf, R.R. Deuson, S.K. Bath,
Air Pollution for 2012. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who. and T.V. Murphy. 2002. “Impact of Universal Haemophilus
int/airpollution/data/AP_jointeffect_BoD_results_ Influenzae Type B Vaccination Starting at 2 Months of Age
Nov2016.pdf. in the United States: An Economic Analysis.” Pediatrics
110 (4): 653–61. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.4.653.
Willett, W., J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann,
T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, et al. 2019. “Food
in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on

Abbreviations
BAU business-as-usual
B-C benefit-cost
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
FCR feed conversion ratio
FOLU Food and Land Use Coalition
GDP gross domestic product
GHG greenhouse gas
Gt gigatonne
GW gigawatt
IEA International Energy Agency
IMO International Maritime Organization
LCOE levelised cost of electricity
mmt million metric tonnes
Mt megatonne
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
N2O nitrous oxide
PV photovoltaic
R&D research and development
ROI return on investment
SCC social cost of carbon
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
TWh terawatt hour
WACC weighted average of capital costs

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people for their review, feedback and inputs: Juan Carlos Altamirano,
Maximilian Bucher, Lauretta Burke, Linda Cornish, Diletta Giuliani, Craig Hanson, Peter Haugan, Norma Hutchinson,
Catherine Lovelock, Sara MacLennan, Justin Mundy, Finn Gunnar Nielsen, Eliza Northrop, Linwood Pendleton,
Alex Perera, Carlos Muñoz Pina, Tristan Smith, Mark Spalding, Michael Tlusty, Laura Malaguzzi Valeri, Adrien Vincent,
Richard Waite, Jacqueline Wharton and Sophie Wood. While our colleagues were very generous with their time and input,
this report reflects the views of the authors alone.
The authors would also like to acknowledge Maximilian Bucher for his valuable assistance, advice and contribution,
especially in terms of providing essential data from The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition,
clarifying its underlying assumptions and suggesting modifications for the purposes of this study.
Thank you also to Mary Paden, Lauri Scherer, Carni Klirs and Rosie Ettenheim for providing administrative, editing and
design support.
About the Authors

Manaswita Konar is the Lead Ocean Economist at the World Resources Institute’s Sustainable Ocean Initiative.
Contact: Manaswita.Konar@wri.org
Helen Ding is an Environmental Economist at the World Resources Institute..
Contact: Helen.Ding@wri.org

About WRI
World Resources Institute is a global research organization that turns big ideas into action at the nexus of
environment, economic opportunity, and human well-being.
Our Challenge
Natural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. But today, we are
depleting Earth’s resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies and people’s lives. People
depend on clean water, fertile land, healthy forests, and a stable climate. Livable cities and clean energy are
essential for a sustainable planet. We must address these urgent, global challenges this decade.
Our Vision
We envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise management of natural resources. We aspire
to create a world where the actions of government, business, and communities combine to eliminate poverty and
sustain the natural environment for all people.
Our Approach
COUNT IT
We start with data. We conduct independent research and draw on the latest technology to develop new insights
and recommendations. Our rigorous analysis identifies risks, unveils opportunities, and informs smart strategies.
We focus our efforts on influential and emerging economies where the future of sustainability will be determined.
CHANGE IT
We use our research to influence government policies, business strategies, and civil society action. We test
projects with communities, companies, and government agencies to build a strong evidence base. Then, we work
with partners to deliver change on the ground that alleviates poverty and strengthens society. We hold ourselves
accountable to ensure our outcomes will be bold and enduring.
SCALE IT
We don’t think small. Once tested, we work with partners to adopt and expand our efforts regionally and globally.
We engage with decision-makers to carry out our ideas and elevate our impact. We measure success through
government and business actions that improve people’s lives and sustain a healthy environment.

10 G Street NE
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20002, USA
+1 (202) 729-7600
oceanpanel.org

A Sustainable Ocean Economy For 2050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Sustainable Ocean Economy For 2050

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Sustainable Ocean Economy For 2050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commissioned by

ii | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 1

 When assessing individual interventions, the rate of return on investment is high,

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 3

ACTION AVERAGE BENEFIT- COST RATIO

Conserve and restore mangrovesa 3:1

Decarbonise international shippingb 4:1

Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins 10:1

Scale up offshore energy productionc 12:1

Source: Authors’ calculations.

4 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Benefit–cost ratio (average) Net benefit

Total $15.5 trillion

Source: Authors’ calculations.

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 5

Total Benefits Total Costs

Source: Authors’ calculations.

6 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 7

Table 1. The Four Ocean-Based Areas Analysed

OCEAN-BASED SECTORS/ SPECIFIC ACTIONS

Mangrove coastal habitats Conserve and restore mangrove coastal habitats

8 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Box 1. Estimating the Benefit-Cost Ratio

Present value of benefits Sum of discounted benefits over 30 years B0 Bn C0 Cn

where n = year; B = benefits; C = costs; r = discount rate

Source: a, b. HMT 2018.

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 9

10 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

FOUR ACTIONS BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION PATHWAY

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 11

12 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Box 3. Measuring Climate Benefits Using the Social Cost of Carbon

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 13

14 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

 Conservation of mangroves. The total area for

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 15

MODERATE AGGRESSIVE MODERATE AGGRESSIVE

Hectares conserved or restored per year 15,000 30,000 184,000 290,000

Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; GtCO2e = gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019.

The GHG emission mitigation estimates are likely RESTORATION COSTS

16 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

COST (US$/ ADJUSTED

Monitoring and maintenance cost: median

Opportunity cost: net economic returns from 1,873

Opportunity cost: net economic returns from

Opportunity cost: net economic returns from

which, in turn, will increase societal well-being, which we HEALTH BENEFITS

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050 | 17

TYPE OF BENEFIT BENEFIT (US$/HA/YEAR) ADJUSTED 2019$ REFERENCE

Avoided property damage 3,604 4,000 Salem and Mercer 2012

Fisheries productivity 18,000 19,980 de Groot et al. 2012

Source: Authors’ calculations.

18 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

TRANSFORMATION AREAS NET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT-COST RATIO

Conservation of mangrovesa 48–96 88:1

Restoration of mangrovesb 97–150 2:1

When assessing individual interventions, the rate of return on investment is high,

Conservation of mangroves. The total area for