Investment sector seeks to put a value on biodiversity

The world is in the throes of one of the biggest extinction episodes in its history. Of the 8.7mn species of animals and plants on the planet, more than 1mn are in danger of being wiped out, according to the UN.

By some scientific estimates, we are losing species at up to 1,000 times the natural rate of between one and five a year. Pummelled by overfishing, deforestation, rising temperatures and extractive agriculture, much of the natural world is on the brink.

Yet the financial services industry has long neglected biodiversity, even as the topic of carbon emissions climbed the agenda and sustainability funds proliferated. That is partly because biodiversity — the range of animals, plants and insects that form an ecosystem — is more difficult to price than a tonne of carbon, or the returns from a solar plant.

A poacher knows how much a dead elephant costs; a logger the price of an acre of felled forest. But what is the value of an elephant that is allowed to thrive in an intact forest? And how can that forest be valued for more than its carbon?

In recent years, however, an increase in engagement and awareness has been driven “both by investors waking up and seeing the fragility of nature, and the realisation that there is an inflation and GDP impact”, says Martin Frandsen, a global equities portfolio manager who invests in biodiversity.

You could tell by the number of discussions . . . how much awareness and understanding of this topic has moved forward since the last COP

More than half the world’s economic output — about $58tn of global GDP — is moderately or highly dependent on nature, according to an analysis from PwC. Investors are also increasingly interested in addressing biodiversity risks in their portfolios, and companies in future-proofing their supply chains.

At this year’s COP16 biodiversity summit in Colombia, a significant financial sector presence turned up to the negotiations. “You could tell by the number of discussions being had, but also the level of discussions, how much awareness and understanding of this topic has moved forward since the last COP,” says Gayaneh Shahbazian, biodiversity engagement manager at Morningstar Sustainalytics, a research and analytics company.

Some of the push came from COP15’s Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, set up to support investment in biodiversity and scale financing before 2030, in order to stem nature loss.

Regulation is a driver, too — notably, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which demands that thousands of companies report on environmental topics such as biodiversity, and The Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures, set up to improve reporting of nature-based risks and dependencies.

In line with shift, a growing number of asset management groups now offer funds that promise to protect the planet’s natural ecosystems. Greensphere Capital launched a £150mn nature-based VC fund at the end of last year to invest in UK spinouts that help mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss. A string of other funds are focusing on ocean biodiversity, including the €50mn Katapult Ocean and €200mn Ocean 14 Capital. 

The sector remains “innovative and experimental”, says Shahbazian. The number of funds on offer has grown rapidly, with global assets held in biodiversity funds and ETFs more than doubling to $3.7bn in the past three years. 

Broadly, the funds fall into three categories: solutions-focused; risk-orientated; or a combination of the two.

Solutions-focused funds direct investments to companies working to stem biodiversity loss: for example, through regenerative agriculture, or alternatives to petroleum-based plastics. Risk-oriented funds invest in companies that aim to reduce their negative impact on biodiversity, by increasing resource efficiency or shifting supply lines. 

“It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to invest in companies that restore biodiversity,” says Fotis Chatzimichalakis, a portfolio manager at Impax Environmental Markets plc. “But we are definitely investing in companies that stop the loss of biodiversity, which is a massive move in the right direction.”

The UK’s 2021 Environment Act illustrates how government policy can drive financial innovation. Peter Bachmann, managing director of sustainable infrastructure at Gresham House, set up the Environment Bank to help developers meet a requirement of the law stipulating that they must improve a new construction site’s biodiversity by at least 10 per cent.

Developers can buy units of “habitat banks” to meet their obligations off-site. A few thousand acres are under development across England; the aim is to scale to tens of thousands.

“We’ve created a new infrastructure asset class where we are taking unproductive, non-food grade land and turning it into woodlands, wetlands and grassland where you can see a demonstrable uplift in biodiversity,” Bachmann explains. “It’s a unique product that taps into the obligations of the act but, ultimately, can still make money. As far as we’re aware, we’re the only ones that have created an investable product around creating habitat banks at scale to date.”

Bachmann, Shahbazian and Chatzimichalakis are unanimous that, for biodiversity funding to grow, government policy is critical — both in reducing negative impacts, such as reforming harmful agricultural subsidies, and in de-risking and encouraging private sector investment.

“Financial sectors are at the stage where they know about it, they want to integrate it, but how to take action is less clear,” says Shahbazian. “The recurring message I heard at COP16 was there isn’t enough clarity from governments in terms of regulatory signals for the financial community to act at scale.”

“There’s a bit of a regulation vacuum at the moment when it comes to biodiversity,” adds Chatzimichalakis. “We need a clear framework in place so we can all understand what we mean when we say biodiversity-related funding. Now it can mean 10 different things to 10 different people.” 

Biodiversity finance has risen to $208bn a year from $166bn three years ago, according to research group BloombergNEF. But this still falls far short of the so-called “biodiversity financing gap”: an annual $700bn shortfall in funding needed to reverse biodiversity decline by 2030. And it is eclipsed by the $7tn a year still invested in “nature-negative” activities that cause biodiversity loss, according to the UN Environment Programme. 

Nevertheless, the opportunity for investors — and for planetary health — is large. As the naturalist and broadcaster David Attenborough argued in a review of the economics of biodiversity: “Bringing economics and ecology together, we can help save the natural world at what may be the last minute.”