Background: Biodiversity underpins environmental, social, and economic well-being and is increasingly central to business and finance. Effective decisions require moving beyond narrow valuation to integrate ecological, cultural, and social values, recognizing the complexity of socio-ecological systems. Businesses both depend on and impact biodiversity, while facing risks from its decline, making systemic approaches essential. Yet business practice often falls short, emphasizing positive contributions while ignoring negative impacts and wider social consequences. Addressing these gaps demands integration of nature, humans, and capital, and partnerships that support mutual learning and capacity building.
Session Structure:
1. Opening Keynote (10 min)
2. Presentations (45 min)
3. Interactive Discussion (30 min)
4. Closing Remarks (5 min)
Contribution: This session will bridge ecological, social, and financial dimensions, foster inclusive and interdisciplinary partnerships, and identify actionable strategies for businesses and investors to halt biodiversity loss while improving risk management.
The concept of ‘Nature Positive’ (NP) has resonated with businesses, governments, and non-governmental organisations; as a way of framing biodiversity commitments and aligning with global sustainability goals. While Nature Positive is well defined, we still lack concrete pathways towards operationalising NP in the context of an economy. This paper aims to provide a definition of the ‘Nature-Positive Economy’ (NPE) and discusses key underlying concepts to unpack NP within an economy. We conducted a survey with over 750 participants from over 50 countries, held targeted stakeholder consultations at several events, and reviewed policy documents, scientific articles, and grey literature. Through extensive stakeholder consultations, we co-developed a definition of a NPE as ‘an economy where the net result of all economic activities combined leads to an absolute increase in nature, to the point of full recovery and prosperity for all of society.’ Operationalising the NPE means that actors take actions across scales and sectors, grounded in social well-being and equity to reduce nature-negative impacts, increase nature-positive actions, and enact transformative change. The stakeholder consultation raised key challenges of: (i) A net outcomes approach; (ii) Full recovery of nature and transitional phase; (iii) Sectors and dealing trade-offs; (iv) Accountability; and (v) Equity and justice.
We seek to clarify underlying concepts of the NPE. First, the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and NPE inherently incorporate a net outcomes approach, which requires the use of biodiversity offsets supported by the mitigation hierarchy. Second, full recovery entails that nature recovers to support future generations and not necessarily a return to a past baseline, thereby including novel ecosystems. Third, the NPE is a transitional state of the economy towards full recovery, where the economy is envisioned to have achieved a stable state of operating within planetary boundaries. Fourth, accountability mechanisms are needed to address the risk of greenwashing. Lastly, equity and justice are key principles to guide deliberative transformative change towards a NPE that prioritises social wellbeing alongside nature restoration. Deepening our understanding of how to achieve NP outcomes in the context of an economy will help further the implementation of the GBF.
How to cite: Koh, N. S., Zandersen, M., Bull, J., and McQuaid, S.: Unpacking the Nature-Positive Economy with key underlying concepts , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-496, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-496, 2026.
Biodiversity loss is accelerating, and funding to address it is insufficient, leading to a global biodiversity financing gap of US$ 600 - 820 billion per year (Deutz et al., 2020). Governments agreed to mobilise $200 billion per year and to accelerate innovative schemes, such as biodiversity credits (BC) (CBD, 2022).
BC share conceptual similarities with biodiversity offsets and carbon credits, which have been criticized to achieve the expected positive outcome for ecosystems. BC may face similar challenges and concerns and there is a significant gap in understanding how the emerging biodiversity credit schemes are addressing those challenges (Palmegiani et al., 2023; Wunder et al., 2024).
Building on a narrative, non-systematic literature review (Snyder, 2019) of 26 grey and peer-reviewed literature, the study identifies four categories of challenges: biodiversity accounting, social safeguards, demand and pricing of the credits, and governance. These challenges are translated into a set of criteria, to compare two biodiversity credit schemes developed by ERA Brazil and Terrasos on the practical implementations of those challenges.
The comparative analysis based on Bryman (2012, pp. 72, 74) reveals that both Terrasos and ERA Brazil demonstrate strong methodological approaches to biodiversity accounting, particularly regarding the definition of credit units, and the incorporation of long-term conservation commitments (Terrasos 2022 & ERA Brazil 2024). Both schemes establish clear monitoring frameworks and rely on third-party verification, reflecting lessons learned from carbon markets. However, social aspects, such as benefit-sharing, community engagement, and the recognition of Indigenous and local rights remain underdeveloped despite being central to the legitimacy and long-term success of BC (BCA, 2023; GEF, 2023). Challenges regarding demand and pricing are not sufficiently addressed, as both schemes largely depend on other actors such as buyers and policymakers in an unregulated emerging market (Ducros & Steele, 2022; WEF 2023).
Overall, BC have the potential to increase private finance for biodiversity by addressing the needs of businesses to comply with new regulations regarding sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Our work contributes to the ongoing discussion on how to finance biodiversity and the results may also support businesses, as potential buyers, in their biodiversity management.
How to cite: Hoffmann, L. and Paleit, R.: Assessing Market-based Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation: A Comparative Analysis of Biodiversity Credit Schemes, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-699, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-699, 2026.
Mobilizing and sustaining biodiversity finance in locally accountable ways remains central to achieving the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet most financing mechanisms still operate through centralized channels, offering limited access to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) who manage large biodiversity-rich landscapes.
The Forest and Biodiversity Management Project (FBMP), initiated in 2021 in Nagaland, India, seeks to address this gap by introducing community-managed Conservation Funds (CFs) within Indigenous governance systems. Communities in Nagaland have long owned and managed forests under customary law, rights also protected under India’s Constitution. Today, over 400 Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) demonstrate this enduring governance and represent one of India’s most extensive networks of locally driven conservation initiatives. Through FBMP, the Nagaland State Biodiversity Board supports 64 CCAs covering over 40,000 hectares by investing in their conservation efforts and institutionalizing a financial mechanism that links local priorities with long-term accountability.
Each participating village receives a one-time endowment of EUR 10,000-12,000. Around 20% is retained as a fixed-deposit corpus, with the interest covering small operational expenses. The remaining 80% supports (i) direct conservation actions such as patrolling, restoration, and awareness, and (ii) a revolving fund for conservation-linked livelihoods, including eco-tourism. Withdrawals are based on approved annual plans and jointly authorized by the CCA Committee, Village Council, and Project Implementing Agency, ensuring shared responsibility and oversight.
Building on similar Eco-Corridor Fund experience from the Caucasus, the Nagaland CF embodies key principles in biodiversity finance: devolving control to local institutions, integrating governance with financial mechanisms, fostering diversification through community enterprises, and promoting performance-based transparency.
By empowering traditional village institutions with ownership and financial authority, the initiative bridges global biodiversity finance goals with the realities of community-based conservation. The experience in Nagaland demonstrates that when communities hold both ecological and financial stewardship, they are more likely to sustain conservation outcomes beyond project cycles, contributing to the global narrative that places Indigenous and local leadership at the heart of lasting biodiversity governance.
How to cite: Agrawal, N. K. and Ao, S.: Decentralizing Biodiversity Finance: Community-Managed Conservation Funds in Nagaland, India, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-87, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-87, 2026.
As biodiversity loss accelerates globally, biodiversity credit schemes have emerged as market-based instruments to mobilize conservation finance. These mechanisms create tradable credits representing measurable conservation outcomes, aiming to incentivize landholders and communities to protect or restore ecosystems. However, significant questions remain about whether Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) – who collectively hold customary tenure rights to roughly 50% of the world's land and steward some of the most biodiverse regions– are genuinely empowered through these schemes or merely symbolically included.
This research critically examines how community participation is structured and practiced within biodiversity credit projects, focusing on the governance mechanisms that enable or constrain equitable engagement. Despite rhetorical commitments to “equity and fairness for people,” critics highlight persistent disconnects between inclusivity claims and implementation realities. Communities often lack real decision-making power, while benefit-sharing mechanisms may reinforce existing inequalities rather than addressing power asymmetries.
Through a comparative multiple case study design examining different biodiversity credit projects across different regions and ecosystems, this study employs a robust analytical framework combining Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, key dimensions of environmental justice, and established governance effectiveness criteria. Semi-structured interviews with project implementers and community representatives, supplemented by analysis of project reports and certification documents, provide empirical insights into participation depth and quality.
The research assesses whether current biodiversity credit schemes align with principles of environmental justice and meaningful community agency, evaluating how governance frameworks influence equity outcomes. By identifying best practices for fair and effective community engagement, this study contributes to ongoing debates about market-based conservation while offering practical guidance for policymakers, project developers, and civil society organizations. The findings illuminate which practices of participation support socially legitimate and ecologically sound “high-integrity” credits, ultimately questioning whether private finance mechanisms for conservation strengthen or undermine local autonomy in Indigenous and community-governed landscapes and how they shape sociobiodiversity in the process.
How to cite: Krebs, K.: Community inclusion and ecological justice in biodiversity credit projects - A critical assessment of participation practices and governance structures, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-210, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-210, 2026.
Using comprehensive data from Italian provinces, we establish financial development as a key transmission mechanism affecting biodiversity outcomes. Through instrumental variable approaches addressing endogeneity concerns, we demonstrate that financial inclusion consistently exhibits negative relationships with all biodiversity indicators. We provide empirical support for the Environmental Kuznets Curve in biodiversity contexts, revealing an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic development and ecosystem degradation. Economic growth initially causes biodiversity deterioration, which later eases as development progresses, though our evidence shows the turning point occurs at relatively high income levels.
Our analysis reveals an important tension in sustainable finance: social capital that facilitates financial development and economic growth may simultaneously contribute to natural capital depletion. This finding poses some possible challenges for private capital mobilization and suggests that effective biodiversity finance instruments must account for these complex interdependencies. The methodology leverages scalable satellite technologies to measure biodiversity at granular provincial levels, examining differential impacts across economic sectors and taxonomic groups including amphibians, birds, mammals, plants, and reptiles.
Addressing the $700 billion annual biodiversity finance gap requires robust, comparable, and scalable metrics to build investor confidence and enable effective risk pricing. Therefore, this paper additionally contributes to biodiversity finance by developing and validating four distinct biodiversity measurement approaches using satellite and geospatial data, demonstrating their potential for standardized investment applications. Our metrics, Mean Species Abundance, Biodiversity Intactness Index, Deviation from Potential Natural Vegetation, and a composite Principal Component Analysis measure, capture fundamentally different information than traditional climate indicators, with correlations to CO2 emissions ranging only from 0.22 to 0.27. This finding has critical implications for financial risk assessment, suggesting that climate-focused metrics alone provide incomplete pictures of material biodiversity risks facing businesses and investors.
These empirical results offer practical insights for mainstream investors seeking to integrate biodiversity metrics into investment decisions, price biodiversity-related risks, and design financial instruments that genuinely reduce corporate impacts. By providing comparable, transparent metrics derived from objective geospatial data, this research addresses critical infrastructure needs for developing credible biodiversity markets and mobilizing private finance to bridge funding gaps.
How to cite: Tonetto, A., Karakaş, O., and Widmaier, A.: Natural, Social and Financial Capitals, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-49, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-49, 2026.
While business is a key driver of biodiversity loss, management research and corporate practice have been slow in recognising this crisis. Extant research has focused on incremental corporate means of addressing biodiversity, whether via reporting or measurement. In this paper, we engaged in an explorative, grounded theory research design to appreciate how companies address biodiversity in their business.
We focused our analysis on the food sector, ranking among the sectors contributing most to biodiversity loss worldwide. Our qualitative study consisted in 46 in-depth interviews with business leaders from 37 companies, theoretically sampled to represent the Finnish food sector.
Our main finding is in developing a grounded maturity model portraying how companies’ approaches to addressing biodiversity in business are not uniform. We identified four maturity categories — forerunners, awakened ones, followers and laggards, which represent the maturity levels of the studied companies as regards how they addressed biodiversity in their business. Taking a closer look, each maturity category reflects a different approach regarding the companies’ strategic leadership of biodiversity, i.e. leadership on the one hand, and strategic management of biodiversity on the other hand.
Notwithstanding, our second, related finding, is in offering a grounded conceptualization highlighting that companies need to approach biodiversity from the perspectives of both leadership and strategic management. Paralleling decisions on ‘what’ strategy to adopt vis-à-vis biodiversity, also the question of ‘how’ needs to be addressed. Our findings posit ‘leadership for biodiversity’ to consist in a company’s attitude, responsibility, agency toward biodiversity as well as collaboration in addressing biodiversity loss. All the while, we found ‘the strategic management of biodiversity’ to relate to how biodiversity is perceived in a company, whether biodiversity-related goals have been set and resources allocated for this purpose, and further, what kind of management style is used in this endeavour. In summary, our conceptualization posits that addressing biodiversity requires an organisation-wide approach combining both leadership and strategic management.
Overall, we show food sector companies’ slow awakening toward addressing biodiversity. As regards business implications, the developed maturity model offers a developmental lever for companies, as they engage in the transformative change needed to address biodiversity loss.
How to cite: Turunen, M. and Teerikangas, S.: Strategic Leadership of Biodiversity in Companies – A Grounded Maturity Model , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-437, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-437, 2026.
Biodiversity governance is characterized by a rapidly expanding yet fragmented landscape of global, regional, and sectoral initiatives, policy agendas, and legislative instruments. These remain insufficiently coordinated in their recognition and translation of science-based ecological impacts and dependencies into measurable risks, disclosure practices, and enforceable accountability. Globally, the Global Biodiversity Framework sets targets with limited enforcement. Internationally, the TNFD covers impacts and risks but is voluntary, and the ISSB focuses on financial rather than impact materiality. Regionally in Europe, the CSRD/ESRS strengthens mandatory biodiversity reporting under double materiality, but firms retain wide discretion in deciding what topics are material. Concurrently, the EU Green Deal integrates biodiversity in principle, yet monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are underdeveloped and harmonization across frameworks and jurisdictions remains a challenge. In other jurisdictions, biodiversity governance is similarly fragmented. Accountability remains a challenge across all jurisdictions.
The core governance issue is not a lack of frameworks, but the absence of coherent translation between biophysical impacts, dependencies, risk implications, disclosure systems, and accountability mechanisms. These elements remain largely siloed across research, policy, and practice. Such siloes undermine the capacity of governance systems to deliver on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Without coherence between ecological science, risk controls, reporting standards, and accountability mechanisms, biodiversity governance risks remaining discursive rather than effective, and compliance runs the risk of being symbolic rather than meaningful.
This paper engages in a review and analysis of existing biodiversity governance frameworks to identify emerging coherence as well as potential gaps and challenges. The analysis is conducted under a proposed a four-tier conceptual model designed to clarify linkages and provide a common reference point for stakeholders across jurisdictions. The tiers consist of: (1) biophysical impacts and dependencies; (2) risks and opportunities; (3) transparency through reporting and other disclosure mechanisms; and (4) accountability arrangements. While sequential, this proposed model also highlights the cross-cutting role of accountability as a condition for effective governance.
The model and analysis offer a shared blueprint that strengthens coordinated policy design, enhances comparability and accountability, and supports alignment between biodiversity goals, actions, and outcomes.
How to cite: Kashyap, S. and Koh, N. S.: Coherence in Biodiversity Governance Frameworks: Building an Effective Roadmap towards Accountability , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-563, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-563, 2026.
Forests are a crucial pillar of household economies in the Global South, with uncultivated natural resources contributing an average of 22% of household income in impoverished regions. Yet, this resource base is increasingly jeopardized by tree cover loss, frequently coinciding with high poverty, forcing communities to expend greater effort to collect resources and thereby increasing livelihood vulnerability. At the same time, poverty acts as a driver of deforestation, creating a destructive feedback loop between socio-economic hardship and environmental loss. While poverty alleviation can be a key conservation strategy, the specific ecological contexts and forest management approaches that may most effectively support local economies remain poorly understood. Here, we empirically investigate if and how distinct forest types (primary , naturally regenerating, or planted forest), deforestation rates, and deforestation drivers are associated with the wealth patterns of local communities. To do so, we combine global remote-sensing derived datasets on key forest characteristics and land use with granular settlement-level wealth data, specifically the Relative Wealth Index (RWI). First, we extracted for Madagascar, Brazil and Indonesia, forest type and deforestation driver data within a 2.5 km buffer around rural settlements, trying to model where people might travel to collect natural resources, and then averaged the data at the second administrative level. The relationship between these characteristics and the RWI was then investigated using Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) to capture complex, non-linear associations of forest characteristics and RWI for each country. Preliminary results from this proof-of-concept analysis reveal context-specific patterns. High coverage of primary forest or naturally regenerating forest is consistently associated with lower RWI across all three countries, confirming that potential conservation target areas are often poverty hotspots. Furthermore, while a higher deforestation rate correlates with lower RWI , the drivers of this loss vary significantly by regional wealth : in the three investigated countries, deforestation due to infrastructure building is more prevalent in higher RWI areas, whereas shifting cultivation is a primary driver in lower RWI areas. Analysis of these patterns aims to generate policy insights for targeted forest strategies, promoting a dual-benefit approach for conservation and well-being.
How to cite: Adam, E.: Exploring the relationship between forest type, deforestation drivers and socio-economic wellbeing in the Global South., World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-400, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-400, 2026.
Ongoing biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem functions call for transformative approaches that extend beyond existing governmental policies. Despite targeted interventions such as the EU Common Agricultural Policy, critiques persist regarding insufficient effectiveness and limited political ambition. Meanwhile, public interest in biodiversity conservation continues to increase, signalling opportunities for broader societal engagement. Against this backdrop, non-governmental actors are gaining attention as potential contributors to conservation efforts; however, evidence on their role remains fragmented and often focused on isolated mechanisms, such as finance-led instruments or specific market-based approaches. A comprehensive understanding of the broader range of non-governmental instruments and their potential is still lacking. “Non-governmental instruments” are understood as interventions initiated, executed, or financed by civil-society or private-sector actors, involving a resource flow or exchange that supports biodiversity outcomes.
This study therefore addresses two research questions: (1) What is the ecological, economic, and social potential of non-governmental instruments for biodiversity conservation in Germany? (2) How is this potential assessed by local stakeholders and reflected in the scientific and grey literature?
We developed a conceptual framework that categorises eight types of non-governmental instruments by resource flow (financial, material, immaterial) and mechanism of action: i) Market-based mechanisms, ii) Green finance, iii) Voluntary transfers, iv) Provision of material, v) Provision of information material, vi) Knowledge transfer / publicity, vii) Civil society-led actions, viii) Voluntary corporate commitment.
The study applies a mixed-method design, combining i) a literature-based assessment of expected effects and impacts, and enabling conditions, and ii) stakeholder workshops in three German regions, involving participants from agriculture, nature conservation, local business, and public administration. A structured questionnaire provides quantitative insights into perceived potential across ecological, economic, and social dimensions, while group discussions yield complementary qualitative perspectives on feasibility and contextual factors. To support evaluation, each instrument type is represented by an ideal-typical practical example.
Results (quantitative and qualitative), available by the time of the forum, will provide a first integrated overview of the potential of non-governmental biodiversity instruments in Germany. The findings aim to support more effective alignment of civil-society and private-sector contributions with public strategies, strengthening collaborative biodiversity governance.
How to cite: Bücheler, H., Gerlach, J., Bieling, C., and Feuerbacher, A.: Exploring civil-society and private-sector engagement in biodiversity conservation: assessing the potential of non-governmental instruments, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-691, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-691, 2026.
Turning biodiversity research into investable, market-ready solutions remains one of the greatest challenges in today’s sustainability landscape. Scientific discoveries often fail to reach scale because of fragmented collaboration among researchers, entrepreneurs, financiers, and policymakers. This interactive workshop bridges nature, humans, and capital by linking science, circular design, and finance to build biodiversity-positive ventures that are both environmentally responsible and economically viable.
Participants will explore how entrepreneurial thinking, inclusive design, and blended finance can accelerate conservation impact while empowering communities and generating shared value. Through short framing talks and hands-on breakout sessions, the workshop will guide participants to co-design actionable “blended pathways” that unite ecological knowledge with business innovation. The discussion centers on three integrated dimensions: (1) environment-safe and circular production systems that minimize waste and restore ecosystems, (2) scalable business models supported by blended financing and phased adoption strategies, and (3) inclusive collaboration across scientific, entrepreneurial, and policy domains to ensure long-term resilience.
Working in cross-disciplinary teams, attendees will map value propositions, identify financial and policy levers, and co-create a “Scale Map” for selected venture archetypes such as biomaterials, restoration supply chains, sustainable textiles, or low-carbon logistics. The emphasis is on co-creation over presentation, fostering a participatory environment that encourages experimentation, dialogue, and network-building among future biodiversity champions.
Expected results include:
• A cross-sector framework for translating biodiversity science into viable enterprises.
• A menu of blended-finance instruments adapted to small and mid-scale innovation.
• A 90-day roadmap template to launch partnerships and track ecological and commercial metrics.
Aligned with the FIN track and the WBF 2026 theme “Leading Transformation Together,” this workshop moves the conversation from risk assessment toward actionable resilience. It demonstrates how bridging nature, human ingenuity, and capital investment can unlock a new generation of biodiversity-positive entrepreneurship and circular growth worldwide.
How to cite: Akij, S. M.: Entrepreneurship for Biodiversity: Bridging Nature, Humans, and Capital through Circular and Inclusive Innovation, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-11, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-11, 2026.
