Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35613052›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Financing conservation by valuing carbon services produced by wild animals.

Fabio Berzaghi, Ralph Chami, Thomas Cosimano, Connel Fullenkamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The need for carbon finance schemes to tackle overexploitation of tropical forest wildlife.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Climate co-benefits of tiger conservation.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023
    Article
  6. Tiger protection brings carbon benefits.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023
    Article
  7. Megaherbivores modify forest structure and increase carbon stocks through multiple pathways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fabio BerzaghiLaboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, UMR - Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA), 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9139-8274
Ralph ChamiInstitute for Capacity Development, The International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC 20431.
Thomas CosimanoDepartment of Finance, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
Connel FullenkampDepartment of Economics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Filling the global biodiversity financing gap will require significant investments from financial markets, which demand credible valuations of ecosystem services and natural capital. However, current valuation approaches discourage investment in conservation because their results cannot be verified using market-determined prices. Here, we bridge the gap between finance and conservation by valuing only wild animals’ carbon services for which market prices exist. By projecting the future path of carbon service production using a spatially explicit demographic model, we place a credible value on the carbon capture services produced by African forest elephants. If elephants were protected, their services would be worth $20.8 billion ($10.3 to $29.7 billion) and $25.9 billion ($12.8 to $37.6 billion) for the next 10 and 30 y, respectively, and could finance antipoaching and conservation programs. Elephant population growth would generate a carbon sink of 109 MtC (64 to 153) across tropical Africa in the next 30 y. Avoided elephant extinction would also prevent the loss of 93 MtC (46 to 130), which is the contribution of the remaining populations. Uncertainties in our projections are controlled mainly by forest regeneration rates and poaching intensity, which indicate that conservation can actively reduce uncertainty for increased financial and biodiversity benefits. Our methodology can also place lower bounds on the social cost of nature degradation. Poaching would result in $2 to $7 billion of lost carbon services within the next 10 to 30 y, suggesting that the benefits of protecting elephants far outweigh the costs. Our methodology enables the integration of animal services into global financial markets with major implications for conservation, local socioeconomies, and conservation.

Indexed as

CarbonConservation of Natural ResourcesElephantsForestsAnimalsBiodiversityClimate ChangePopulation GrowthCarbonclimate changeecosystem servicesfinancial economicsmegafaunanature-based solutions

Identifiers

PMID35613052
PMCPMC9295732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.