Costing global biodiversity framework delivery in megadiverse Australia

Most nations worldwide face substantial funding gaps to halt biodiversity loss, yet many governments lack comprehensive cost estimates essential for effective budget allocation and implementation planning. This study provides a comprehensive estimate of the costs Australian governments would need to bear to deliver the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in Australia. Using interpretive principles and evidence from peer-reviewed literature, and spatial analysis, we derived actions, unit costs, and cost factors (the amount of each action required to achieve the GBF's targets). We populated an automated model with these inputs to produce national and jurisdictional government cost estimates to inform planning and cost-sharing between national and subnational governments. Our method captures cost efficiencies from actions that benefit multiple targets. Our model estimates that delivering GBF targets in Australia will cost governments approximately AU$28.5 billion per annum from 2025 to 2050. At 1.1 per cent of GDP, this estimate shows comprehensive biodiversity conservation is arguably fiscally realistic. Our cost factor data can be disaggregated at various scales-such as bioregions, ecosystems, or Indigenous nations-to inform biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning. Our analysis and cost model offer a replicable methodology for other national governments to quantify their financial resourcing requirements for GBF implementation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Environmental Management
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.130756
Primary Topic
Environmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Costing global biodiversity framework delivery in megadiverse Australia

Martine Maron, Sarah Clément, Michelle Ward, Paul Elton
Journal of Environmental Management
Environmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
article

Costing global biodiversity framework delivery in megadiverse Australia

Martine Maron, Sarah Clément, Michelle Ward, Paul Elton
article en

Abstract

Most nations worldwide face substantial funding gaps to halt biodiversity loss, yet many governments lack comprehensive cost estimates essential for effective budget allocation and implementation planning. This study provides a comprehensive estimate of the costs Australian governments would need to bear to deliver the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in Australia. Using interpretive principles and evidence from peer-reviewed literature, and spatial analysis, we derived actions, unit costs, and cost factors (the amount of each action required to achieve the GBF's targets). We populated an automated model with these inputs to produce national and jurisdictional government cost estimates to inform planning and cost-sharing between national and subnational governments. Our method captures cost efficiencies from actions that benefit multiple targets. Our model estimates that delivering GBF targets in Australia will cost governments approximately AU$28.5 billion per annum from 2025 to 2050. At 1.1 per cent of GDP, this estimate shows comprehensive biodiversity conservation is arguably fiscally realistic. Our cost factor data can be disaggregated at various scales-such as bioregions, ecosystems, or Indigenous nations-to inform biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning. Our analysis and cost model offer a replicable methodology for other national governments to quantify their financial resourcing requirements for GBF implementation.

Journal of Environmental ManagementVol. 416
Griffith University (AU), Australian National University (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), Queensland Department of Environment and Science (AU)
Nature Conservancy, Australian Government, Australian National University, University of Tasmania, Advanced Low Carbon Technology Research and Development Program
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Environmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.