30×30 Goal: How Much Will It Cost Latin America and the Caribbean to Achieve It?

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is among the most biodiverse regions in the world, home to ecosystems that are globally significant and central to the region’s development. The region is among the most committed to pursuing the 30x30 goal — conserving 30% of land, waters, and seas by 2030. However, turning this undertaking into concrete action requires significant investment.  

To help countries plan effectively for this challenge, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), has published a new policy brief: “National-Level Costs of Implementing ‘30x30’ in Latin America and the Caribbean”. Based on the first regional cost assessment of its kind, the study provides estimates of how much it could cost to expand and manage protected areas, helping governments design realistic biodiversity financing strategies. Its findings offer a clearer picture: the total cost of establishing and managing protected areas to meet 30x30 goals is between $9.6 billion and $11.4 billion — less than 0.2% of the region’s GDP.

The study breaks down three main cost categories that countries must consider when expanding and managing protected areas:

• Establishment costs: One-time expenses to create new protected areas.
• Management costs: Recurring annual costs to operate and maintain them.
• Opportunity costs: Economic trade-offs in agriculture and fisheries due to land or sea use restrictions.

It also explores three scenarios for terrestrial and marine areas — each based on different assumptions about how governments might prioritize biodiversity and economic considerations: 

• Scenario 1: Biodiversity Priority. Focuses on protecting the most biodiverse areas, without considering potential economic downsides.
• Scenario 2: Economic Priority. Focuses on minimizing opportunity costs, giving priority to economic needs — agriculture in the case of terrestrial areas, and fisheries in the case of marine ones.
• Scenario 3: Compromise Approach. Balances biodiversity importance with economic considerations—a compromise between scenarios 1 and 2. 

LAC countries are leading the way. The region has jointly achieved 24.5% terrestrial and 25.3% marine protected area coverage, both above the global average. Some countries have already achieved 30x30 or are approaching it:

• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): Colombia and Chile have already reached the 30%, while Costa Rica (28.4%), Brazil (26.7%), Panama (26.3%), and Mexico, (22.6%) are close behind.
• Terrestrial Protected Areas (TPAs): The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela have already exceeded 30%. 

Protecting biodiversity is generally more cost-effective. Focusing on ecologically rich areas maximizes conservation benefits but also provides long-term economic and social benefits, reducing the overall financial burden of meeting the 30x30 target.

Terrestrial establishment costs represent the highest direct expenses, while annual management costs are dependent on the size of land in the country. For example:

• In Guyana, managing new protected areas would cost around $1 million per year.
• In Brazil that estimate could exceed $2 billion per year.

Creating territorial protected areas does not necessarily reduce agricultural profits. Across the region, total agricultural opportunity costs by 2050 are projected to range between $350 million and $3.75 billion per year, depending on the scenario — equivalent to less than 0.5%, and potentially as little as 0.04% of overall agriculture profits. Under Scenario 1, some countries — Argentina, Bahamas, and Costa Rica — show no projected opportunity costs at all. This is largely because many high-biodiversity areas have minimal overlap with zones identified for future agricultural expansion.

Establishment costs for MPAs are significantly lower than for TPAs. In most countries, establishing MPAs requires less than $1 million, totaling about $21.3 million regionally. Annual marine management costs for 2030 are projected between $1.4 and $1.7 billion. Notably, Scenario 2 is the most expensive option and Scenario 1 the least costly, largely because MPAs with strict no-fishing rules are cheaper and easier to manage than those with multiple, lightly regulated zones.

MPAs can restore sustainability and productivity in the long run. The more overfished an area has been, the greater the long-term benefits of allowing fish populations to recover. While it may seem politically easier to protect areas with low fishing activity, doing so could limit long-term gains for food security, GDP, and biodiversity. 
 

Each LAC country can use these three scenarios to tailor its biodiversity finance needs, strategic plans, and protected area budgets. The cost data can also inform debt management, public policy reforms, and regional conservation financing strategies — providing a practical tool to align national priorities with the 30x30 target.

Ultimately, protecting 30% of land and sea is not only a biodiversity goal, it’s also an economic one. While upfront investments and short-term costs are inevitable, the long-term returns are far greater: stronger economies, healthier ecosystems, more resilient communities, and new opportunities for food security and sustainable tourism.

For Latin America and the Caribbean, where biodiversity loss is accelerating at an alarming pace, investing in nature means investing in the region’s future.

Explore the full policy brief paper to see the estimated costs under each scenario, and stay tuned for our upcoming interactive online dashboard, which will allow countries to model cost scenarios tailored to their own priorities and biodiversity plans. 
 

Read the policy brief