Key Takeaways

The experts emphasized the importance of rethinking how we codify and incentivize behaviour within the financial sector, particularly in relation to ecological systems. While recognition of nature’s economic relevance has increased, formal financial and accounting structures still fail to integrate these frameworks effectively. Such disconnected systems limit institutional capacity to manage environmental risks and support climate resilience.

A central distinction raised by the panellists was between the concepts of value and price — two notions that are often mistakenly used interchangeably. While price enables transactions and capital allocation, it cannot sufficiently represent non-market contributions such as environmental stability, cultural significance, or social and physical well-being.

Moreover, placing nature on the balance sheet should not be interpreted as an act of commodification. While the economy has long been driven by commodified goods since the Industrial Revolution, there are opportunities for emerging markets where nature holds value in being alive. Nature functions as essential infrastructure and must be valued beyond its commodified state. If it is not recognized within institutional systems, it remains vulnerable to degradation without consequence.

Gaps and Opportunities

A key challenge remains: how to measure the value of nature. Frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) provide early methodologies for assessing dependencies and impacts. However, the complex and unpredictable nature of ecosystems challenges today’s accounting tools. Carbon metrics can quantify emissions in standard units, but ecosystem functions — such as biodiversity, pollination, and regeneration — do not lend themselves to uniform measurement. A comprehensive approach must combine qualitative and quantitative data to capture both tangible and intangible dimensions.

Another idea that gained traction was the creation of ecosystems of financial “bundles.” For example, a forest could be valued through its combined functions — carbon sequestration, water regulation, and habitat provision — rather than through extractive output alone. Preliminary analysis suggests that recognizing these broader functions could significantly increase assessed asset value. However, no established market currently exists to support such bundles.

Financing mechanisms also represent a promising area of opportunity. While approximately $200 billion is currently directed toward nature-related finance, much of it is distributed through grants. To scale up environmental initiatives, investors must also be able to achieve returns. Therefore, investment instruments that combine financial and ecological outcomes — such as green bonds, environmental mini-bonds, or blended finance structures that align public and private capital — are needed.

While fintech offers opportunities, integrating nature into financial frameworks risks being misinterpreted as privatization or ownership of natural goods, which could pose significant risks. Safeguarding mechanisms must be implemented to ensure stewardship and accountability. Furthermore, supervisory and regulatory institutions are largely oriented toward risk evaluation rather than value evaluation, a legacy of traditional financial assessment. Climate integration entered finance primarily through risk disclosure — emphasizing the dangers of climate change rather than its potential opportunities. The discussion suggested that nature may follow a similar trajectory unless frameworks evolve to include value-based perspectives.

Recommendations

To address these challenges, financial institutions and regulators should begin integrating the value of the natural world into assessment frameworks and metrics, treating nature as a foundational asset class, rather than another concern in the world of climate change.

Firstly, Capital mobilisation frameworks must evolve from reliance on grants toward blended finance models, enabling scaled investment in ecological restoration. Early-stage initiatives require patient and transitional capital to bridge the period before returns materialise.

Furthermore, a formal coalition on nature accounting should be established, incorporating expertise from accounting, ecology, policy and local knowledge systems. Without a shared language and standard methodology, coordinated action remains limited.