The effectiveness of these tools and instruments depends on robust, comparable, and scalable biodiversity metrics and standardized frameworks that are transparent, credible, and accountable to develop confidence in biodiversity market and financial sector.
Drawing on theoretical and empirical examples from diverse contexts, the session aims to foster cross-sector learning on what works, and what does not in developing biodiversity markets, and generating private finance to bridge the funding gaps.
We welcome contributions that focus on biodiversity finance and economics to address biodiversity measurement, market, and finance related topics in general. The specific topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
· How biodiversity metrics can be standardized for mainstream investment?
· Lessons from insurance in pricing biodiversity-related risks.
· Designing financial tools/instruments and their effectiveness and scalability to mobilize private finance while reducing corporate impacts.
· Lessons from biodiversity markets – key market determinants (demand- and supply-side factors), and policy innovations
· Integrating indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity financing and financial products
A review of the literature of biodiversity finance—also referred to as conservation finance or nature finance—suggests that much of the work in the area has revolved around three foundational questions, namely (i) how much do we spend on biodiversity conservation globally?; (ii) how much should we spend on global biodiversity if we are to sustainably manage it for the long term?; and, (iii) if there is a difference between actual spend and existing needs, how do we bridge this global biodiversity financing gap? While the various methodologies used to estimate spend and existing needs differ widely and are based in part on debatable assumptions, existing estimates broadly support the notion that the biodiversity financing gap is far wider than what government appropriations and philanthropy could be expected to contribute. This has led researchers and practitioners, in turn, to explore a variety of financial mechanisms, including investment products, that leverage private, return-seeking capital, whether as the sole source of capital or blended with other sources capable of crowding in private capital. Other recent work includes the development of metrics of investment success in biodiversity finance, the role of insurance in attracting capital into the field, and the enabling conditions that could lead to at-scale biodiversity markets. The author will review the development of academic and industry research in biodiversity finance and provide a structured survey of the evolution of the field, from initial efforts (roughly 2010–2015), through early experimentation with biodiversity-themed financial instruments (ca. 2015–2020), to a period of rapid institutionalization and corporate nature-positive pledges (2020–present). This latter period has shown strong momentum, despite various bottlenecks and methodological challenges including measurement uncertainty, weak revenue models, and the lack of broadly agreed definitions. Finally, the author will transition the session towards the promising research frontiers now being advanced by the other speakers in this session: financing structures that support biodiversity conservation, improved risk-pricing models, frameworks for aligning financial flows with global biodiversity targets, and others. The author’s goal is to map the terrain and set the stage for an agenda that can support a credible, scalable, and scientifically grounded ecosystem for biodiversity finance.
How to cite: Tobin-de la Puente, J.: Biodiversity finance: evolution of the field, from initial efforts to a period of rapid institutionalization and corporate nature-positive pledges , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-961, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-961, 2026.
How to cite: Heal, G.: Ambiguity vs. Risk in Investment Decisions: An Illustration from Green Finance , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-321, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-321, 2026.
Mainstream nature requires identifying and repurposing existing financial mechanisms, just like any evolutionary process. Focusing on the dollar value of funding needed to meet nature goals gets in the way. Rather, understanding the pathways available to firms and local governments for managed risks and reframing the nature finance as a risk management problem can help identify existing, but perhaps hidden, nature-related financing opportunities.
Nature loss poses risks for organizations seeking to maintain a flow of services. Firms have pathways to manage risks. Firms can use market-based or self-insurance mechanisms; diversification of suppliers and customer base; and technological substitution. These approaches reduce dependency on nature and enhance firms’ adaptabilities to manage environmental disruptions without directly engaging with nature. Firms are expected to choose these options when they are least cost.
Beyond insurance and diversification, firms can engage in activity-based risk management. When firms can establish control and exclude others, e.g. through privatizing of natural resources, then firms may do so. Imperfect controllability points firms towards legal engagement to increase controllability and excludability of others. When those options fail or are expensive, firms engage in complex conservation efforts, but those may have large transaction costs, e.g., payments for ecosystem services.
Insurance occupies a unique position because insurance is primary tool for firms to manage nature-linked risks. Nature may influence existing swap products or new swaps could be developed. Insures may use payments to pursue nature conservation initiatives to lower aggregate risk of the strike conditions emerging.
Local governments (municipalities) primarily connect to financial markets through municipal bonds, creating indirect exposure to nature-related risks. Municipalities have limited insurance options, and because they are geographically fixed, have fewer spatial diversification options. Full controllability creates governance issues. Thus, local governments are on the frontlines of managing nature-linked risk. An emerging literature suggests that their securities reflect how they manage these nature-linked risks. These investible securities may create a pathway for nature investment.
Rather than starting with nature, starting with risk management, with an eye to nature, may uncover readymade nature investment opportunities.
How to cite: Fenichel, E.: Finding Nature Finance Opportunities that are Hiding in Plain Sight , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-150, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-150, 2026.
Global deforestation has reached unprecedented levels, with more than 10 million hectares of forest lost every year. This rapid decline threatens climate stability, biodiversity, and economic activity by degrading vital ecosystem services. Yet despite the scale of these risks, we still know little about the concrete economic benefits forests provide to firms or how to credibly measure them, limiting both policy and private-sector conservation efforts. Forest cover is spatially non-random and evolves gradually, posing challenges for causal identification. Moreover, links between forests, carbon sequestration, and climate outcomes unfold over long horizons through complex ecological processes.
In this paper, we provide the first causal evidence that forests generate material economic value for firms. Our investigation proceeds in two steps. First, we exploit exogenous variation in prevailing wind patterns over 1985–2024, together with geographic heterogeneity in U.S. forest cover, to identify the causal effect of forest proximity on local summer temperatures. We find robust evidence that forests substantially reduce heat exposure—both locally, through evapotranspiration and shading, and more than 100 km downwind, as prevailing winds transport cooler, moisture-enriched air to nearby regions while leaving upwind areas unaffected.
In the second step, we examine how these temperature reductions translate into firm value. Focusing on U.S. manufacturing firms, we test whether proximity to forested areas—particularly those located upwind—enhances operational efficiency, both economically and environmentally. We study whether forests increase firms’ revenues and operating profits and reduce plants’ emission intensity, consistent with heat mitigation easing production constraints and lowering cooling needs. Finally, we investigate whether financial markets value the risk-mitigating benefits of surrounding natural ecosystems or instead respond indirectly through improved firm fundamentals.
Overall, our results show that forests provide a natural hedge against extreme heat, with measurable and economically significant effects on firm operations and financial performance. The findings carry important implications for conservation policy and for private investments in nature-based climate solutions.
How to cite: Ramelli, S., Rizzi, C., and Xu, S.: Hedging the Heat with Nature: How Forests Create Firm Value, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-783, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-783, 2026.
Policymakers and investors increasingly recognize that firms’ dependence on nature can create financial risks and opportunities. While recent evidence shows that investors demand compensation for risks associated with nature dependence and biodiversity loss (Coqueret et al., 2025; Garel et al., 2024), survey results reveal that only few companies expect these risks to affect firm value (Gjerde et al., 2025). Although all firms rely on nature, the channels through which nature dependence affects cash flows remain poorly understood (TNFD, 2023). We study these channels in biotechnology, a setting where production is directly linked to living organisms. Biotechnology allows firms to capitalize on nature and monetize science across many sectors, but most biotech companies remain unprofitable outside a few pharmaceutical outliers (Pisano, 2006; Ernst & Young, 2024). Rapid biodiversity loss further complicates this proposition, as technologies based on vulnerable biological inputs may face premature write-downs and become stranded assets.
We assess the economic value of nature dependence in biotech innovations and examine how extinction risk affects firm value. First, we identify biotech patents as those involving the application of science to living organisms and document 65,798 biotech patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to publicly traded U.S. firms between 1980 and 2019, with patenting activity spanning industries and categories. Second, we quantify the incremental value of biotech among granted patents. Our most conservative estimate indicates that biotech patents are $639,000 (2024 dollars) more valuable than non-biotech patents. This higher value is reflected at the firm level, with firms that own more biotech patents being more valuable and profitable, consistent with the monetization appeal of biotech. Third, exploiting variation in the timing of species-level extinction risk recognition in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List, we find that operationally or financially constrained firms have lower valuation and cash flows. These constraints limit the scope of adaptive strategies, creating barriers to transition away from biodiversity risk. Collectively, our findings show that while biotech provides companies a pathway to capitalize on nature and monetize science, biodiversity risk can significantly affect firm value if there are barriers to transition.
How to cite: Wiedemann, M., Lam, A., and Licher, D.: Nature Dependence, Economic Value, and Extinction Risk: Evidence from Biotech Innovations, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-461, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-461, 2026.
Addressing global sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate change, and ecosystem degradation requires levels of financing far beyond what public budgets can provide, especially in emerging and developing economies where nature-dependent risks and opportunities are most pronounced. Blended finance has emerged as a key mechanism to mobilize private capital toward nature-positive and biodiversity-enhancing investments, yet rigorous evidence on how investors perceive these opportunities remains limited. This paper presents a comprehensive global survey of CIOs, CROs, and CEOs across the full spectrum of capital providers, including foundations, family offices, impact investors, pension and sovereign funds, development finance institutions, and multilateral development banks, to map their expectations, preferences, and constraints when engaging in blended finance for sustainability and nature-related outcomes.
Our survey benchmarks investor risk tolerance, return expectations, and perceived impact across regions, sectors, and asset classes, with particular attention to capital allocation toward emerging and developing markets. Respondents report significantly higher perceived risks in EMDEs relative to developed markets, including political instability, currency volatility, and limited project pipelines, which directly constrain the scaling of nature-based and biodiversity-focused investments. We document substantial variation in the expected returns and default probabilities investors associate with blended finance vehicles, as well as heterogeneous views on the appropriate level of concessional capital required to crowd in private investors. Preliminary results also highlight key bottlenecks, including insufficient risk-sharing mechanisms, unclear impact measurement standards for biodiversity, and limited internal capacity to assess nature-related financial risks, that prevent many institutions from participating in blended finance.
By providing one of the first benchmarks of investor expectations for blended finance, this study advances transparency and understanding of how capital providers evaluate risk-return-impact trade-offs. Our findings offer actionable insights to improve the design of blended finance structures, strengthen public–private partnerships, and accelerate the flow of capital toward sustainable and nature-positive investments at scale.
How to cite: Giroux, T.: Mobilizing private capital for nature: Evidence from a global survey of capital providers, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-398, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-398, 2026.
Standard financial securities have not proven to be effective tools to attain sufficient private capital for biodiversity protection. How to finance a reversal in biodiversity deterioration remains a challenge. Based on ongoing work, we propose a theoretical model of Biodiversity-related Sustainability-Linked Bonds (BrSLBs) as an innovative financing instrument for biodiversity conservation and restoration. We first derive a pricing model where the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is related to contrasting biodiversity loss and nature deterioration. Specifically, our pricing formula, which is based on multivariate digital options, accounts both for the KPI provision and default risk. We then investigate a few relevant questions about these financial instruments, for example, the existence of a “bio-sustainium,” the interaction between sustainability performance and issuer’s credit risk and the optimal design of these contracts. Our work extends some previous results of ours and contributes to the understanding and expansion of biodiversity finance. Although biodiversity-related bonds still represent a niche segment of the universe of sustainable finance, there is growing interest in nature preservation from sustainability-focused investors and demand for financing from issuers with nature-related strategies and targets. Despite this, biodiversity finance instruments are still few. In our paper we examine under which circumstances SLBs may represent an alternative to use-of-proceeds bonds, allowing for more versatility in the use of proceeds and alleviating the concern for greenwashing. Our paper discusses the main KPIs with a biodiversity focus and develops a comprehensive pricing model with the structure of real-world BrSLBs in view. We study the role of several variables and risk factors in price formation and in appeal to issuers and investors. In particular, we show how the dependence structure between credit risk and environmental performance has a material impact on the bio-sustainium. Our results are linked to the challenging problem of an optimal design of these outcome-contingent financial instruments and the fine tuning of the bond characteristics aimed at attracting investors and bond issuers.
How to cite: Agliardi, E. and Agliardi, R.: Financing Biodiversity with SLBs, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-271, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-271, 2026.
This talk reports key messages and lessons learned from work I have been doing for the United Nations (UNECA, UNESCWA and UNECLAC), on biodiversity credits and their role in catalysing private finance for nature and sustainable development in Arab, African, Latin American and Caribbean States. At the time of abstract submission, this work was just beginning, drawing on knowledge products and principles developed by the Biodiversity Credit Alliance, the World Economic Forum and the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits. It is also informed by the ongoing IPBES Monitoring Assessment, of which I am part. The brief for the work was twofold: produce (1) an analytical overview, providing context and foundational knowledge, and (2) clear and implementable guidelines, tools and modules for policymakers in developing countries. The aims are to develop enabling environments for biodiversity credit markets, catalyse private finance flows aligned with biodiversity and development priorities, and support inclusive, transparent, and accountable market development that benefits communities and safeguards biodiversity. To do this, I have worked with a range of experts, particularly in the Biodiversity Credit Alliance, the International Institute for Environment and Development the UNDP Biofin programme and UNECA itself. The work utilises case studies from the target regions, drawing where possible on storytelling expertise (collaboration being pursued at the time of abstract writing). Issues addressed include: the value of biodiversity and its capture by market instruments; scientific measurement of biodiversity and its weaving with Indigenous learning and knowledge and other forms of local recognition and valuing of nature; measurement standardisation; the role of regulation; legal and governance considerations; potential biases, distortions and perverse incentives; and coordination and cooperation at national and international levels, including spatial planning. One key aspect is examination of market demand dynamics, including key drivers and barriers and strategies to address them. Another is communication and engagement – strategies for raising awareness, building political and public support, and engaging key stakeholders throughout the policy and project lifecycle. I reflect on the process of bringing together academic research and regional-level policy and practice.
How to cite: Field, R.: Supporting the development of credible biodiversity credit markets in developing countries, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-730, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-730, 2026.
Financial institutions increasingly recognize biodiversity degradation as a material driver of financial risk, yet most pricing models still underestimate these risks because scientific ecological data often detect deterioration only after ecosystems have already entered decline. Satellite vegetation indices, hydrological measurements, and species richness records all suffer from this information lag, creating persistent mispricing in sectors dependent on ecosystem services. This study proposes a new biodiversity risk pricing framework that integrates Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) into financial models using a quantitative Bayesian structural approach. ILK is treated not as contextual background but as a mathematical component capable of shifting ecological hazard distributions and improving forward looking risk estimates.
Indigenous communities such as the Navajo and Ojibwe maintain long standing systems of ecological monitoring, tracking changes in plant phenology, pollinator activity, soil texture, river acoustics, and the behavior of culturally significant species. Many of these indicators reveal ecological stress five to ten years earlier than satellite or regulatory datasets. Their temporal advantage positions ILK as an important early warning input for anticipating ecological tipping points and the resulting financial impacts.
To incorporate ILK formally, this study introduces a Quantification Engine that translates Indigenous observations into numerical signals. ILK functions as a structured prior within a Bayesian ecological hazard model, modifying both the mean and the shape of the parameter distribution θ, thickening tails and increasing skewness when sustained stress is observed. Phenological deviations between ILK observations and long-term ecological averages are standardized into early warning metrics, while natural language analysis of Indigenous narratives extracts the frequency and intensity of ecological warning expressions. These signals are combined through Bayesian model averaging to form an ILK index that shifts the ecological hazard distribution.
The ILK adjusted hazard probability becomes a central input to a biodiversity Value at Risk model, enabling earlier recognition of losses related to pollination decline, water cycle disruption, and soil instability. By embedding ILK directly into probabilistic risk architecture, this framework improves risk premia estimates, cost of capital calculations, and insurance pricing, while supporting more natural positive capital allocation.
How to cite: Zhang, J.: Quantifying Biodiversity Related Financial Risks Through Indigenous Ecological EarlyWarning Indicators: A Bayesian Structural Pricing Framework, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-570, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-570, 2026.
Biodiversity is making its way into the corporate sphere and becoming a key topic of target setting and disclosure for companies and investors. This is welcome for two reasons; because biodiversity underpins the ecological goods and services that economies and societies depend on, and because information on corporate impact on biodiversity is a prerequisite for estimating likely progress towards biodiversity targets and informing corporate, financial and societal risk analyses. In other words, corporate reporting standards are the infrastructure that promise to generate the much-needed data necessary to assess sustainability progress and related risks in the corporate community.
Ecological goods and services on which economies depend range from water and air purification in urban environments, to soil formation in agricultural land, flood protection and pollination services, to name a few. Many of these described services are not automatically associated with biodiversity hotspots, or areas referred to as ‘biodiversity/ecologically sensitive’. In fact, most represent provisioning or supporting services provided by nature in environments that have already been heavily impacted by humans. Yet, contrary to conservation areas, they underpin most corporate dependencies on nature.
It is therefore remarkable and concerning that all three corporate sustainability reporting standards (GRI, ESRS) and frameworks (TNFD) that dominate the reporting space for nature-related disclosures essentially incorporate proximity to biodiversity sensitive areas into their materiality assessment, using it to help companies prioritize locations for which further disclosure of impacts should be done. An obvious risk with such an approach is that by emphasising proximity to BSAs as a criterion for site selecting for reporting, companies may under-report other sites that have material impacts but are not near a BSA. The risks of such underreporting are significant.
This paper discusses these risks supported by a structured review of what biodiversity and environmental science concludes regarding the relative contribution of managed land, protected areas, and biodiversity hotspots to ecosystem service provision. It also proposes alternative ways to design disclosures that can capture relevant indicators of pressure on biodiversity across all sites and thus avoid the growing risk of reporting bias and materiality distortion.
How to cite: Meacham, M., Crona, B., and Peterson, G.: Corporate biodiversity reporting standards and the risk of distorting what is material, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-197, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-197, 2026.
This talk will describe research and outreach to develop and implement a functioning Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program to protect critical linkages in the Florida Wildlife Corridor and align funder priorities with Wildlife Corridor opportunities. PES programs compensate private landowners for provision of ecosystem services on their lands, including habitat connectivity, aquifer recharge, and water quality. The objective was to develop an additional mechanism for maintaining corridor-compatible land uses, while minimizing transaction costs and time, for situations in which conservation easements and land acquisitions cannot happen or cannot happen quickly enough.
Lands enrolled in PES required consistent, regular, accurate monitoring to ensure the continued provision of quality ecosystem services. New and innovative monitoring approaches include development of replicable frameworks for advanced monitoring and conservation prioritization actions through use of NASA Earth Observations. The specific ecosystems currently adopted in the pilot PES include habitat connectivity, water quality, and groundwater/aquifer recharge, all of which are supported through a variety of EO and in situ data.
Integrating EO data with in situ data provides information to more efficiently evaluate and prioritize candidates for enrollment, and expands the use and effectiveness of landowner incentive programs like PES by reducing transaction costs and time. Improved, consistent initial measurements of habitat type and extent are achieved through the use of EO, supplemented where deemed appropriate with field work. Ecosystem services changes that result from vegetation changes such as canopy height and structure changes are captured using EO data annually, at a fraction of the cost of in situ inspections. The EO data provides ongoing monitoring data for restoration projects for decision makers, researchers, land managers, and other stakeholders.
The talk will describe how facilitating the integration of EO data into conservation decision-making has supported the sustainable use of decision-support tools for ecological conservation. We will share findings regarding the challenges and solutions presented by EO data in PES implementation, and ongoing research to expand ES and geographies included in the program.
How to cite: Racevskis, L., Seidel, V., and Dourte, D.: Seeing PES: Monitoring Payments for Ecosystem Services Compliance using Earth Observations data, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-548, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-548, 2026.
Promoting sustainable business practices has become increasingly difficult in a world shaped by overlapping global crises. Companies are under pressure to demonstrate clear economic value from any investment, including those aimed at understanding their impacts on biodiversity and the ecosystem services that support their operations. Yet these natural assets—fundamental to long-term business resilience—remain largely invisible in conventional market valuations. A major barrier to improving natural capital accounting and place-based assessments is the widespread perception that high-quality biodiversity data are prohibitively expensive to obtain.
In reality, biodiversity is monitored daily across the globe through site surveys, environmental impact assessments, compliance with environmental regulations, and routine ecological studies - activities often funded by businesses themselves. Despite their value, most of these datasets remain private or inaccessible, leaving significant gaps in the global biodiversity information landscape. This fragmented and incomplete picture of nature has two major implications. First, society misses critical opportunities to monitor biodiversity change, evaluate progress toward the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), and develop more effective conservation strategies. Second, businesses lose access to richer, in situ datasets that could dramatically strengthen verification, benchmarking, and the development of defensible counterfactuals in sustainability reporting and nature-related disclosures.
Here, we explore the persistent disconnect between the biodiversity data that exist and the data needed to support credible nature finance, high-integrity corporate assessments, and evidence-based policy implementation. We highlight the structural, technical, and cultural barriers that limit data sharing, from confidentiality concerns to inconsistent standards and the absence of clear value propositions for contributors. We then examine emerging solutions, including data-sharing partnerships, incentives for open biodiversity information, and innovations in governance and digital infrastructure, that can unlock privately held datasets while safeguarding sensitive information.
By clarifying the steps needed to move from aspiration to action, we show how we can accelerate the availability, quality, and usability of biodiversity data, enabling both society and business to make more informed, accountable, and nature-positive decisions.
How to cite: Schrodt, F. and Winter, M.: Unlocking Biodiversity Information for Nature Finance: Challenges, Opportunities, and Pathways Forward, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-488, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-488, 2026.
The presentation proposes a theoretical framework for evaluating the sustainability of capital flows in nature markets. Nature and biodiversity markets are structurally illiquid and incomplete due to social-ecological non-fungibility, spatial and temporal interdependence, path-dependence, context-dependent value creation and incompleteness of tradable claims. Nature markets derive and convert value into transactions from underlying social-ecological assets whose regenerative capacity and biodiversity composition evolve over time. The analysis models social-ecological assets as reproductive systems whose cash-flow potential depends on ecosystem condition and resilience, biodiversity attributes, spatial configuration, and interactions with surrounding non-marketed social-ecological systems. Because of structural illiquidity, policy measures are required to establish standardization of tradable units, verification infrastructure, contractability and scalability to mobilize capital. In offsetting markets, bankability is facilitated through enforcement of liabilities and predictable returns from restoring land plots. Nature-based value creation is still subject to a variety of risks that can be addressed through risk sharing, financial structuring and complementary measures ensuring resilience and climate adaptation. Under these conditions, liquidity, price formation, and risk are partially endogenous since they arise from social-ecological feedbacks, information asymmetries and institutional architecture and not only from exogenous market depth. To remain investible, nature markets need to balance social-ecological with financial stability over time. To structure these dependencies, the paper introduces a sustainability function H(x) that maps a vector of market design variables - such as unit definition, standardisation, verification cycles, liability rules, and diversification - onto a scalar measure of market sustainability. H(x) characterises the regions in which capital flows remain aligned with long-term ecological integrity, biodiversity resilience, and stable financial return expectations. By extending insights from financial-stability theory (e.g. Brunnermeier & Pedersen, 2009) to biodiversity markets, the framework seeks to describe how different architectures can generate stable or unstable equilibria depending on social-ecological feedbacks, information asymmetry and institutional incompleteness. The model provides a conceptual basis for evaluating when capital allocation into biodiversity outcomes becomes regenerative, extractive or self-undermining.
How to cite: Fiegenbaum, H.: Evaluating sustainability of capital flows in nature markets, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-155, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-155, 2026.
Nature markets are increasingly promoted as a mechanism for addressing the nature finance gap, yet their effectiveness hinges on the coherence of five interdependent components: financial mechanisms, contractual mechanisms, validation, outcome tracking, and governance. We argue that fragmentation across these elements produces systemic incoherence that undermines market performance. Using a systems-mapping approach, we conceptualize nature markets as complex socio-ecological-financial systems in which planners, implementers, and buyers interact through coupled market, ecological, and regulatory subsystems.
Through a systems-level framing, we identify five structural weaknesses that manifest as dysfunctional feedback patterns. First, slow–fast dynamics create temporal mismatches between business cycles and ecological time lags, resulting in market instruments that fail to anticipate delayed disturbance risks. Second, technological innovation (such as tokenized credits or automated monitoring) often outpaces the development of governance and data infrastructures, hindering adoption and generating market asymmetries. Third, distorted incentives misalign ecological realities with financial and contractual design, rewarding short-term gains, overlooking long-term risks, weakening the integrity of validation processes, and producing unstable returns for buyers and unreliable revenue streams for sellers. Fourth, weak governance mechanisms function as open-loop control systems vulnerable to methodological failures and greenwashing, lacking the corrective feedback typical of mature financial regulatory regimes. Fifth, fragmented validation and tracking systems increase information entropy, hinder system learning, and exacerbate equity-related fragility by marginalizing Indigenous and local actors whose participation is essential for system resilience.
Contractual mechanisms emerge as a pivotal leverage point for enabling secure, transparent, and scalable market engagement. However, they remain constrained by a lack of standardization, limited scalability, high transaction costs, and poor interoperability across platforms and methodologies. While innovative solutions (such as standardized digital/smart contracts, shared ecological data infrastructures, and adaptive governance frameworks) offer potential pathways toward integration, these remain isolated and insufficiently coordinated.
We argue that meaningful progress requires intentional system-level design. By diagnosing how fragmentation, misaligned feedback, and limited adaptive capacity weaken current nature markets, this paper highlights the need for advancing more coherent, resilient, and equitable market architectures capable of mobilizing private finance for nature.
How to cite: Nyasulu, M. K., Sheikh, H. A., and Caldecott, B.: The Five Components of Nature Market Architecture: A Systems-Mapping Evaluation , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-512, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-512, 2026.
Biodiversity holds significant economic, socio-cultural, and intrinsic ecological value, yet current financial systems struggle to capture this complexity. As governments and markets look to scale investments in nature positive action, a central question that emerges is: how can effective regulatory-driven markets reliably mobilise biodiversity finance to foster measurable progress towards societal biodiversity goals?
Outstanding gaps remain in regard to the above question. Metrics for valuing biodiversity are non-standardised, fragmented, and often inaccurately used for decision-making Turnhout et. al 2014). The commensurability of ecological factors is difficult to verify in practice (Kashyap et al. 2025). At the market level, market designs rarely integrate ecological, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions in coherent or logical ways that adequately or accurately capture the value of ecological systems at local or global levels (Zhu and Carrasco 2025). Evidence on whether regulatory frameworks actually unlock sustained private finance is also limited, while risks of greenwashing, asset bankability, and market credibility remain recognised but poorly understood (Sjåfjell, 2025).
This paper builds on previous work in this field and introduces a conceptual framework for understanding how biodiversity financing needs and demands are (or are not) met through current regulatory-driven and compliance-based markets. Through a scoping review and historical case analysis, we identify the structural dynamics and “market levers” that determine whether and how these mechanisms achieve real ecological outcomes or simply create transactional activity. By mapping actors, regulatory instruments, and inter-firm dynamics across key legislative contexts (e.g., the EU, US, UK, and Australia), the framework will highlight how integrity, success, and failure are defined and operationalised within biodiversity markets. The analysis provides an initial framework for policymakers and market actors to understand the conditions under which regulatory driven mechanisms can mobilise finance at scale while delivering high-integrity outcomes, and to identify critical relationships and levers for future market design and governance.
How to cite: Sheikh, H. A., Nyasulu, M. K., and Kashyap, S.: The Promise and Limits of Regulatory-Driven Biodiversity Markets, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-169, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-169, 2026.
Voluntary biodiversity credits are a new and growing approach to structuring and financing biodiversity investment. While biodiversity credits in different forms have a multidecadal history in a regulatory (offset) context, the voluntary market is in the early stages of piloting, market testing, and methodological innovation. Amidst this global growth and the ongoing Roadmap towards Nature Credits process in the European Commission, this session will review market and policy development in the United States, where pilots are underway in a variety of ecosystems and land ownership contexts, and practitioners are facing a challenging decline in public financing for biodiversity conservation.
Several trends are supporting the growing interest in voluntary credits. First, an increase in corporate focus on biodiversity impact in their operations and supply chains, tied to the adoption of disclosure initiatives such as TNFD, SBTN, and for multinationals, the EU’s CSRD. Second, the demand for improved measurement, methodological rigor, and standardization of investments in restoration and preservation. Third, the recognition among conservation practitioners and advocates that new sources of funding are needed, beyond the traditional avenues of philanthropic (including corporate charitable contributions) and public funding. These shifts underpin the interest in alternative project structures and financing that voluntary credits can provide. Concurrently, the US’s legacy of policy innovation in regulatory offset markets for wetlands, streams, and endangered species habitat provide clear guidance (overlapping but often distinct from carbon credit practice) for core integrity principles that must be upheld for a robust and ecologically beneficial market, such as project durability, clear and robust additionality, monitoring protocols, third party verification, and ecological equivalence.
The pilot projects to be discussed include American bison restoration on Tribal lands, credit development integration into sustainable forest management, and montane meadow wetland restoration. Project ideation, financing structures, marketing, restoration strategies, corporate engagement, and ongoing debates around credit use, corporate claims, proposals for voluntary offsetting, and “positive contributions” will be addressed as well.
How to cite: Sarsfield, R.: The Development of the Voluntary Biodiversity Credit Market in the United States: Pilot projects, Challenges, and Links to Regulatory Precedents, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-923, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-923, 2026.
Addressing knowledge gaps to mainstream biodiversity in private and public decision-making is urgent to meet global and national biodiversity targets and goals. In parallel, there is a growing need to understand the economic and financial sides of biodiversity-linked impacts and dependencies of economic activities. Western Australia is uniquely placed in both economic activities and its biodiversity. It has a globally important mining or resources sector, as well as it is one of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots. In this context, identifying the knowledge gaps in biodiversity economics and finance is logical and important to advancing a nature-positive future.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to describe the bottom-up approach adapted to identify the knowledge gaps in biodiversity economics and finance for Western Australia, and second, to identify the priority knowledge gaps. We followed an iterative process, engaging both end-users who demand knowledge and researchers who provide it through research. Following extensive consultations with stakeholders, we identified issues, problems, and challenges related to biodiversity economics and finance. These issues, concerns, and challenges were analysed, transformed into knowledge gaps, which were then prioritised through a series of workshops.
During the issue identification and knowledge gap prioritization process, we identified two themes and nine knowledge gap focus areas. These focus areas include learn, measure, value, account for, enabler, economics, markets, finance, and practice. The focus areas of knowledge gaps as top priorities needing targeted research in biodiversity economics and finance for Western Australia are economics, valuation, and measurement. Within each focus area, a series of knowledge gaps were identified and prioritized, which were further exemplified by relevant research questions. Through this process, a catalogue of knowledge gaps or research needs in biodiversity economics and finance for Western Australia was developed. It is currently in the implementation phase through research service providers in the state to generate evidence to mainstream biodiversity into private and public decisions.
How to cite: Pandit, R. and Nevin, O.: Identifying and prioritising knowledge gaps to mainstream biodiversity in economic and financial decision-making: The case of Western Australia, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-357, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-357, 2026.
This study aims to address long-standing predicaments in conventional ecological protection initiatives, including sub-optimal investment and financing efficiency, challenges in performance oversight and compliance supervision, and inadequate incentive and disincentive mechanisms. It seeks to design a biodiversity financial instrument system grounded in Contract Theory and Incentive-Compatibility Theory. The core innovation lies in the development of a flexible financing cost mechanism that dynamically links debt servicing costs to quantifiable biodiversity conservation performance. Specifically, first, it will establish a diversified financial instrument matrix covering core tools such as green credit, ecological credit pre-purchase financing, and financing for the development of Mitigation Banks. Among them, green credit business explicitly links key elements such as corporate financing interest rates and credit lines directly to the specific content, duration of corporate ecological protection performance commitments and actual ecological performance; ecological credit pre-purchase financing introduces an advance payment mechanism, where demanders pre-purchase the credit value corresponding to potential ecological protection achievements to provide initial start-up funds for ecological protection projects; financing for the development of Mitigation Banks focuses on providing special fund support for the creation, restoration and long-term protection projects of key ecosystem, and the core output of such investments is tradable “mitigation credits”, which provide a compensation channel for the ecological impacts of development projects. Second, it will establish a conversion channel between ecological value and financial prices. By constructing a quantitative evaluation model covering dimensions such as biodiversity richness, ecosystem service value, and ecological risk prevention and control effects, the abstract concept of “ecological protection” is converted into specific and measurable price signals in financial contracts, enabling capital to clearly identify the value returns of ecological protection projects. Third, it will strengthen the capital guidance effect. Through the coordinated operation of the above-mentioned financial instruments and the accurate transmission of price signals, it will break the inertial orientation of traditional capital that “values development over protection”, and accurately guide social capital from the high-energy-consumption and high-pollution “nature-destroying” field to the “nature-investing” field of ecological restoration and biodiversity protection.
How to cite: Zhang, T., Chang, C.-P., and Gui, L.: Design of a Biodiversity Financial Instrument System Based on China’s National Conditions, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-71, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-71, 2026.
The accelerating biodiversity crisis exposes a structural weakness in current biodiversity finance: most mechanisms rely on ex-ante project models that estimate future ecological outcomes, generate uncertainty and integrity risks, and produce forms of impact (e.g., carbon or abstract biodiversity metrics) that consumers struggle to relate to. This combination erodes trust, limits societal mobilisation and fails to attract meaningful private capital.
We propose an alternative architecture that treats whole-ecosystem regeneration as an economic activity, monetised through ex-post, measured and quality-rated ecological gains issued as Nature Gain Rights (NGRs). Drawing on ecological science, financial market design and empirical work in landscapes such as the Borana Conservancy, we show that realised increases in ecosystem mass (“biomass”) provide the universal quantity unit for nature recovery. Biomass gains—measured via remote sensing–based allometric modelling and field validation—represent the ex-post increments of primary producer mass (vegetation and water) that anchor each NGR vintage.
A complementary biodiversity quality rating evaluates ecological composition, structure, functioning and resilience. Grounded in Noss’s Hierarchy and Essential Biodiversity Variables, this rating acts as the quality marker, analogous to purity grades in commodity markets or ratings in fixed-income markets. Separating quantity (biomass gain) from quality (ecosystem condition) enables transparent, auditable and comparable nature outcomes.
This architecture creates a self-reinforcing economic value chain: Nature-as-a-Service enterprises regenerate ecosystems; independent specialists measure and rate ecological outcomes; a financial market-compliant exchange trades and records NGRs; and corporate buyers purchase NGRs to make verifiable, place-based nature-positive claims that enhance product differentiation, consumer engagement and revenue growth.
Crucially, this corporate demand for revenue-generating nature-positive claims—rather than investor ESG commitments—creates the price signals that make large-scale regeneration investable for yield-seeking capital. In this way, NGR markets replace fragmented project funding with continuous production of ecological improvement, enabling scale, repeatability and long-term investment.
NGRs thus support the emergence of a Nature-as-a-Service economic sector in which professionally regenerated ecosystems supply credible, measurable nature-positive contributions. By aligning scientific measurement with business incentives, ex-post nature markets offer a scalable pathway to mobilise private capital and expand biodiversity-positive economic activity.
How to cite: Vandesteen, P.: Nature-as-a-Service: Making nature regeneration a sector in our economic model, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-141, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-141, 2026.
Bridging the $700 billion biodiversity finance gap demands a shift towards standardised, decision-useful metrics that connect corporate disclosures with on-the-ground conservation outcomes. Our research tackles this challenge through an alignment analysis of biodiversity indicators across EU policy (CSRD/ESRS E4 and the Nature Restoration Law), market frameworks (TNFD, SBTN) and certification systems. A central focus is the credit marketplace, AgoraNatura, which serves as a testing ground for these integrations.
To compare these policy, market and certification documents in a consistent way, we use an automated workflow that combines rule-based search, NLP and selective LLM support. In a first step, we scan documents to detect biodiversity indicators and record their evidence and context; in a second step, we assign them to categories of the ALIGN taxonomy (“State of Nature”, “Ecosystem Condition”), developed in the EU-funded Align project as a common reference for corporate biodiversity measurement and valuation by companies and financial institutions. For ambiguous categorisation, we use LLM suggestions sparingly; rule-based and vocabulary searches remain the backbone and are checked against a human-coded benchmark. To validate our results and discuss implications, semi-structured interviews and workshops with key actors – EU policymakers, standard-setters, certification bodies and biodiversity credit buyers – are planned. The interviews and workshops help us test which forms of alignment actors see as workable, which indicators they would use, and where they anticipate conflicts or trade-offs.
From the analysis, we obtain an Indicator Alignment Matrix that groups more than one hundred indicators across frameworks and highlights ecosystem metrics that cluster around “priority ecosystems”, while species indicators remain fragmented and trend concepts diverge. The interviews and workshops then focus on how framework stakeholders and market actors prioritise a cross-regime core set, minimum data needs and credit-ready extent–condition–trend metrics.
Taken together, the mapping, interviews and workshops will give framework owners and market participants a view of where indicator convergence is within reach and where tensions remain, and to offer investors a clearer basis for allocating capital to biodiversity projects.
How to cite: Petrat, P., Chen, C., Matzdorf, B., Kronenbitter, J., Reuter, A., and Hörmann, S.: Aligning Biodiversity Indicators for Finance: An AI-Supported Multi-Method Study across EU and Market Frameworks, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-217, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-217, 2026.
Due to its significance for the environment and its ecosystems, preventing biodiversity loss has become a pressing issue. Rising public awareness leads financial institutions and investors to increasingly consider biodiversity in their investments, either by measuring biodiversity risks or investing in organizations and projects that aim at conserving or restoring biodiversity.
However, enabling investors to pursue such strategies and to measure their contribution requires efficient and reliable measurement frameworks. Financial institutions and investors face a large variety of different approaches on the market, which vary significantly in their measurement scope and objective. Therefore, careful selection of the measurement approach and the corresponding data is required.
The goal of the present paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the current landscape of biodiversity measurement frameworks and metrics and thereby support corporations, investors and other stakeholders in selecting suitable methods for their purpose. As a first step, a theoretical framework is presented that clusters and categorizes the variety of different measurement approaches. Input-output-outcome-impact (IOOI) models, commonly used in the field of impact measurement, are applied to illustrate causal relationships how organizations can contribute to protect or restore biodiversity. Based on such models, different categories of metrics are defined and characterized. Secondly, the currently available biodiversity measures in theory and practice are mapped against this framework to illustrate the status quo of the market. In the third and final step, the paper aims at identifying trends and developments within the biodiversity measurement field, to indicate the direction in which the field is developing.
Through this analysis, the present paper offers a comprehensive review of the current landscape of corporate biodiversity measurement in the financial market. This can help investors, policy makers and researchers to better understand how biodiversity impact can be measured, and, thus, support them in quantifying and communicating their efforts to protect biodiversity.
How to cite: Sauer, S.: Market adaptation of biodiversity measurement- where is it standing, where is it going? , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-410, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-410, 2026.
Nature underpins value in global economic activity, yet its decline continues even as trillions in annual ecosystem-service value and accelerating losses in the most sensitive ecosystems remain largely unrecognized in financial decision-making. Corporate natural capital accounting (CNCA) offers a pathway to correct this omission by translating nature-related dependencies, impacts, and risks into decision-ready information.
Structured guidance exists through the Natural Capital Protocol, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, the Science Based Targets for Nature, and related frameworks, yet these tools are highly complex, technically demanding, time-consuming, and difficult to apply consistently across corporations of all sizes and in all sectors. The methodological complexity and technical difficulty underscore the need for an accessible entry pathway that enables companies to begin internalizing ecological value even before comprehensive biophysical accounting is feasible.
A rapid-entry solution is proposed through shadow-pricing approaches that include an internal “Earth Fee” mechanism allocating a proportional share of annual global nature-value loss to corporate revenues. This creates an interim financial signal that supports early mitigation budgeting and resource allocation while avoiding assumptions of full substitutability or valuation precision. The urgency of action is far greater than the time available for complete analysis, making simplified methods essential for identifying mitigation opportunities, evaluating tradeoffs, and directing resources to the most urgent areas of change even before full TNFD- or SBTN-aligned assessments are complete or operational.
The conceptual foundation for this approach draws on the distinction between weak and strong sustainability, emphasizing why non-substitutable natural capital and ecological thresholds must serve as constraints on business strategy. This framing strengthens the case for precautionary action and clarifies why companies should integrate simplified valuation mechanisms while more comprehensive accounting systems mature.
Valuation evidence and examples of corporate application in practice illustrate how CNCA, supported initially by rapid valuation methods and eventually by threshold-aligned, strong-sustainability accounting, can help companies and financial institutions confront rising physical, transition, and systemic nature-related risks. Embedding natural capital considerations within core finance functions is essential for reducing exposure, strengthening long-term value creation, and contributing meaningfully to a nature-positive global economy.
How to cite: Pittman, J. and Burkhart, K.: The Challenge of Internal Nature “Pricing": Guidance for Starting Corporate Natural Capital Accounting, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-427, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-427, 2026.
The demand for standardized metrics to measure biodiversity outcomes is becoming an economic and political priority for countries around the world to tackle the biodiversity crisis. England’s Statutory Biodiversity Metric is a pioneering model being adapted by other countries, particularly as the European Union recently published its Nature Credits Roadmap. This Roadmap aims to increase private finance for nature restoration and to establish markets for biodiversity credits. England’s mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requires a minimum 10% uplift in units to deliver positive gains in biodiversity. However, its calculation is dependent on subjective habitat condition assessments done in the field by competent assessors through a series of habitat specific criteria. We used simulations to understand the influence of uncertainty in these assessments on calculated biodiversity units, showing where assessment variability can generate the required 10% uplift in biodiversity units, even when the true ecological state of the habitat remains the same. We validated these simulations through an online test targeting 155 professional ecologists using England’s Biodiversity Metric, followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of 21 participants. Our analysis reveals that ecologists were more likely to correctly assess habitats in poor condition than those in good condition, showing there is a significant bias introduced by inherent variability among assessors. While we are aware that an online test is not the same as carrying out an assessment in the field, our findings suggest that there is a high demand for training to reduce inter-observer variability and for improved guidance, to ensure the metric calculation shows genuine measures of nature recovery. Our findings can be an important lesson to the EU and other nations when adapting England’s metric. Detailed guidance, high-quality training , and the integration of new technologies and responsible AI use need to be considered when designing metrics. England’s statutory biodiversity metric was ten years in the making and is the 7th in a series of test metrics. It is crucial that metrics go through rigorous testing before becoming mandatory to ensure transparent methodologies that capture real change in biodiversity, and to achieve trust and integrity in nature credit markets.
How to cite: Salamanca Leon, I., Hallman, T., Warren-Thomas, E., and PG Jones, J.: Condition Assessment Variability in England’s Biodiversity Net Gain: Implications for Nature Credit Markets, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-930, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-930, 2026.
Biodiversity data such as occurrence of species or habitats are a fundamental feature to assess and evaluate impacts of economic activities on biodiversity, one of the basis for sustainable strategies in companies. One persistent barrier to improving natural capital accounting and place-based assessments of corporate impacts and dependencies on nature is the perceived high cost of obtaining high-quality biodiversity data.
An unknown but likely huge amount of relevant biodiversity data are actually in the hands of those who need better data now: companies. Yet biodiversity is measured daily, across the globe, in countless contexts, often privately funded through site surveys, environmental impact assessments, and compliance with nature protection laws. Since decades companies have to assess biodiversity via these often mandatory reporting activities. These valuable data are mostly not publicly accessible, not supporting the enrichment of a jagged biodiversity data matrix. While corporate reporting requirements such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and biodiversity credit schemes (e.g. the UK’s Biodiversity Net Gain) are now generating unprecedented volumes of new biodiversity data, much of it remains outside public repositories despite existing infrastructure and data-sharing standards.
This lack of open access (and missing interoperability) has two critical consequences: (1) society forfeits valuable opportunities to monitor, understand and model biodiversity change, track progress towards the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), and refine conservation strategies; and (2) companies lose access to higher-quality in situ datasets for verification, benchmarking, and the establishment of robust counterfactuals in sustainability reporting.
In this presentation I’m presenting some examples of a surprisingly scarce species occurrence data matrix. I’m showing why improving data availability is highly needed to improve existing data and models, which were created to overcome data gaps, to support e.g. sustainability footprint analyses. We discuss which workflows might need to be developed to mobilize these important data, leading to a win-win situation for companies and the public in the light of improving sustainability and potential mandatory CSRD reporting efforts.
How to cite: Winter, M. and Schrodt, F.: Biodiversity data & corporate sustainability: From a lose-lose to a win-win situation or from the drawers to databases, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-942, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-942, 2026.
