Towards a green economy Percentage

20 10

0

-10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60

2015 2030 2050 5.0

3.0 4.0

2.0 BAU1

BAU2 G1 G2

1.0 0 Cropland Figure 14: Fossil fuel CO2 emissions in additional

BAU and green scenarios relative to the BAU case (selected years)

billion and 1.7 billion in 2050 in the G1 and G2 cases respectively, well above the BAU1 (1.6 billion), BAU2 (1.66 billion) and BAU (1.5 billion) scenarios.

In line with the medium- to long-term improvements, the same trends are observed in the short-term, albeit to a lesser extent, with crop production and nutrition being 3.3 to 5.1 per cent and 1 to 2 per cent higher than BAU in 2015. Soil quality, in particular, will rise by only 1 to 2 per cent in five years compared to 10 to 14 per cent and 21 to 27 per cent in 20 and 40 years due to the delayed effect of more sustainable agriculture practices.

It can be argued that green investments should be allocated to agriculture more predominantly where this sectors is a major driver of economic and social development. This is the case of sub-Saharan countries, among the least developed countries in the world, where investments in the promotion of more sustainable agriculture could increase yields and production, also improving nutrition and food security. As an exercise, if all investments simulated in the primary sector (including agriculture, fishery and forestry) were allocated to agriculture-based countries, the value added per capita of rural inhabitants would grow on average by around US$ 600 per year, or US$ 1,450 when considering only the rural poor population.21

Even if only 20 per cent of

these investments were to reach agriculture-based countries, increasing per capita GDP by US$ 118 and US$ 290 per person per year for rural population and rural poor respectively, it would still be a important increase considering that GDP per capita in agriculture-based countries in 2005 was US$ 524 per year. A disaggregated agricultural sector, for example most simply between smallholder agriculture of developing countries and

21. Population estimates and trends were calculated using data published in the 2008 World Development Report (World Bank 2008).

524 BAU

Fishing ground Footprint/biocapacity ratio

BAU2

Grazing land Carbon

G2 0.5 0.0

Forest Built-up land

Figure 15: Composition of ecological footprint in 2050 in various scenarios, relative to 1970 value (left), and indication of the projected footprint- biocapacity ratio in 2050 (right)

high external input agriculture typical of industrialised countries, would provide an even clearer picture of the potential equity benefits of such investments.22

Forestry In the green economy scenarios, green investment in the forestry sector, totalling US$ 40 billion per year on average between 2010 and 2050, is allocated to both deforestation reduction and reforestation. The average annual deforestation rate of natural forests in the green scenarios is projected to be 50 per cent lower than BAU between 2010 and 2030 (See Figure 17 and Figure 18). With the deforestation rate declining to 6.7 million hectares per year from 2030 in the green cases, an estimated 283 million hectares (or 8 per cent) of natural forest area is saved. Additional green investments will considerably increase reforestation (planted forest) to 19 million hectares per year in 2050. Thus, planted forests will be 497 million

hectares (or 143 per

cent) more than BAU by then, providing sufficient resources for forestry production to exceed baseline projections in the longer-term (after 2015). In accordance with the forestry production growth in green scenarios, forestry employment will reach 30 million people in 2050, which is 20 per cent above BAU. As a result of the enhanced reforestation and avoided deforestation efforts, total forestland is projected to reach 4.5 billion hectares over the 40- year period, outperforming the BAU case by 21 per cent. This will allow 502 Gt of carbon to remain in

22. The feasibility depends primarily on the availability of adequate data and this is being explored in further versions of the model.

2.0 1.5 1.0 6.0 2.5

Ecological footprint-biocapacity ratio

Relative to 1970