Ideas from the speakers
Speakers described progress through a series of steps:
First, we must understand nature’s role Then, we must obtain methods to measure it Using these methods, we must incorporate it into accounting systems And ultimately, through these, we must influence financial flows and policy Yet achieving this will be far from easy. There is a huge gap between valuation and action. Although methods for assessing and reporting nature-related impacts are advancing, there is still a gap in translating these into investment decisions, pricing mechanisms, or regulatory change. This is currently one of the most critical obstacles to aligning finance with biodiversity.
The speakers framed this not simply as a technical issue, but a systemic one. Although there is data, metrics and frameworks in place, they are not being meaningfully implemented. To achieve meaningful change, alignment across institutions—financial, governance, scientific and regulatory—is necessary. Nature-positive finance requires coordination across the system as a whole.
Another key idea raised was the difference between recognising nature’s importance and designing systems that enable finance to take it into account. Nature is already materially valuable. It supports supply chains, stabilises climates and sustains human systems. However, the problem is that its value is rarely recognised; most importantly, the risks of not recognising this value are not discussed enough. The future of finance may depend on integrating concepts such as resilience, scarcity and long-term ecological function into how value itself is understood.
Speakers also emphasised how biodiversity finance must be adapted based on the ecosystem in question. Different ecosystems (e.g. agricultural landscapes, shared working areas, large natural areas) require different approaches (e.g. governance structures, financing approaches). Nature cannot be treated as one uniform category. Instead, aligning finance with biodiversity will require context-specific approaches that consider each location’s ecological, social and economic differences.
Accountability was another challenge raised. While there has been an increase in nature-centred proposals, action has not followed at the same pace. For real results to happen, solutions need to be tied to incentives, capital allocation and regulatory expectations. This requires creating stronger links between corporate actions within value chains and public and financial accounting systems.
The discussion also broadened the definition of what counts as “nature finance.” Speakers highlighted opportunities within existing sectors and supply chains that can be adapted more widely, such as mitigation banking, which already exists in the US but is not yet widely adopted. Through this perspective, several priorities emerged for financial institutions: building an internal understanding of nature-related risks and opportunities, using transition planning to uncover overlooked investments, leveraging existing data more effectively, promoting innovation in financial products, and forming coalitions across sectors. The underlying message was that progress is not only achieved by generating new tools, but also by using existing ones in more strategic ways.
Overall, the speakers outlined the need for a shift in perspective. Nature must begin to be understood as a foundational component of value, risk and resilience. Finance, in turn, must shift from fragmented efforts to a more unified system.
Insights from the audience
The moderator asked each table to identify three actionable ideas to take forward in aligning finance with biodiversity and climate. Later, each group was asked to share these ideas. One recurring theme was the need for clearer, more transferable models. Participants pointed to examples where ecological value has been translated into financial mechanisms and questioned why such approaches remain limited in scope or geography. One example discussed was policy frameworks that assign monetary value to natural assets, such as trees, so that when they are cut down, compensation payments are directed into designated funds for restoration or conservation, as seen in Switzerland.
Another tension identified by the audience concerned the types of opportunities that attract capital. Participants noted that current approaches may favour solutions that are easily monetisable, often through technology. However, these approaches also tend to undervalue the importance of governance, stewardship and social systems, despite ecological resilience often depending on them. This raises questions about whether financial systems are well suited to support all required actions, or whether broader systemic change is required.
An important contribution from the audience was the reframing of value through risk, and the lack of risk currently being taken. One participant explained how biodiversity can also be understood in terms of avoided loss. Ecosystem degradation generates material risks in many ways (e.g. supply chain disruption, climate impacts, asset damage), while restoration can build resilience and reduce liabilities. Through this perspective, nature gains value through protection.
One group raised an important ethical consideration. If ecosystems begin to be viewed as financial assets, this consequently poses significant risks. The financialisation of nature risks exploitation and the marginalisation of local and Indigenous communities, while also potentially reinforcing inequalities. Therefore, ownership, governance and distribution must be carefully considered when designing and implementing nature-positive finance. Local perspectives and stakeholder engagement should remain a priority in managing these risks.
Although several ideas were discussed, the following emerged as areas where there was clear commitment for action, while recognising that many others require further exploration:
Recognising nature as an asset class on public and private balance sheets Catalysing more Natural Asset Companies (NACs) Systems framing of nature, economy and society to help identify the many roles of finance in achieving balance and sustainability Writing a letter to the Norges Investment Fund encouraging it to place pressure on other pension funds Villars Fellow engagement to highlight companies performing well on nature metrics Investigating why mitigation banking is primarily taking place in the US The session ultimately highlighted one of the biggest challenges of the coming decade. The knowledge, tools and frameworks needed to value nature are advancing rapidly. The next step is ensuring that this knowledge is translated into systems capable of acting on it. Bridging this gap is critical. It may determine whether finance continues to remain in tension with nature or finally begins to align with the conditions that sustain it.
