Can Money Alone Protect Nature? The Importance of Intelligence in Biodiversity Finance

Nguyen Minh Hoang

ISR, Phenikaa University

18-05-2026

© Wix

Global biodiversity targets have repeatedly fallen short of expectations, and one explanation has become increasingly common: the world simply does not invest enough money in nature. Current investments in biodiversity protection are estimated to be five to seven times lower than what is needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss (Deutz et al., 2020). As a result, governments, financial institutions, and international organizations have increasingly sought ways to attract private capital into conservation efforts (OECD, 2020).

This strategy has given rise to a new generation of nature-related financial instruments, including biodiversity credits, green bonds, offset schemes, and blended finance models (CBD, 2022). The central idea is appealing. If protecting ecosystems can become financially attractive, large institutional investors—such as pension funds, insurers, and asset managers—might redirect massive financial flows toward conservation. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework reflects this shift. While public financing commitments amount to roughly USD 30 billion annually by 2030, the framework aims to mobilize at least USD 200 billion per year largely through private financial mechanisms.

At first glance, this appears to offer a practical solution. However, a recent analysis by Kedward and colleagues argues that a major problem lies beneath this narrative: biodiversity and financial markets do not always operate according to the same logic.

Financial markets seek features such as standardization, scalability, liquidity, and predictable returns. Nature, however, rarely behaves in standardized ways. Ecosystems are highly diverse, dynamic, and context-dependent (Dempsey, 2016; Dempsey & Suarez, 2016). The benefits of restoring forests, wetlands, or wildlife habitats may emerge only after decades, while investors often prioritize shorter-term returns. Conservation outcomes are also difficult and expensive to monitor. Consequently, many biodiversity projects remain confined to small “impact-investor” niches rather than attracting mainstream financial institutions.

Attempts to make conservation more market-friendly have frequently produced disappointing outcomes. Some biodiversity offset programs have shown weak ecological benefits or no meaningful additional conservation impact at all. Investigations into sustainability-linked financial products have also found that many environmental targets were weak, irrelevant, or already achieved before investment began (Gibbons et al., 2017; Badgley et al., 2022; Coffield et al., 2022). In such cases, financial performance can gradually overshadow ecological performance.

Kedward and colleagues suggest that the challenge is not a choice between private markets and public funding. Framing biodiversity conservation as a competition between the two risks creating a false dichotomy. Instead, achieving the ambitions of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will likely require a carefully balanced system that integrates public investment, private finance, and active participation from civil society (Kedward et al., 2023).

Such a balance requires recognizing that different ecological systems possess distinct ecological and informational characteristics. Some conservation actions involve substantial immediate costs but generate uncertain, long-term, and difficult-to-monetize benefits—such as protecting primary forests or maintaining ecosystem integrity. These initiatives may be inherently better suited to public support because their value extends well beyond short-term financial returns. Governments and public financial institutions can play particularly important roles here, as they often prioritize broader social and ecological benefits rather than immediate profitability. Moreover, redirecting environmentally harmful subsidies—estimated at approximately USD 500 billion annually worldwide—could provide a substantial source of conservation funding without necessarily increasing public debt burdens.

Other interventions may align more naturally with private investment. Restoration projects and habitat creation efforts, for example, often generate more measurable outcomes and carry lower risks of ecological non-additionality, making them potentially stronger candidates for carefully regulated market-based financing. Nevertheless, even these systems require robust oversight, transparency, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that ecological outcomes are not subordinated to pressures for financial efficiency.

The challenge becomes even more complex at the global scale. Many biodiversity-rich countries in the Global South face increasing debt burdens and climate vulnerability, limiting their capacity to finance conservation despite safeguarding ecosystems that generate benefits extending far beyond national borders. If ecological interdependence is recognized as a global reality, financing mechanisms should also reflect this interconnectedness. More redistributive approaches—such as debt relief and fairer international tax systems—may therefore be necessary to counterbalance the disproportionate ecological footprint of wealthier economies (Kedward et al., 2023).

Saving nature may require more than simply finding new sources of funding. It may require a deeper understanding of how financial resources should be generated, allocated, and coordinated so that different forms of investment can function synergistically within the broader ecology of human and natural systems. This is where humanity may require a deeper intelligence about nature itself (Nguyen & Ho, 2026). Without sufficient Nature Quotient, there is a risk that we will continue attempting to fit nature into the logic of markets, rather than redesigning markets to better align with the realities and complexities of nature (Vuong, 2025; Khuc & Nguyen, 2026).

References

Badgley, G. et al. (2022). Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Global Change Biology, 28(4), 1433–1445. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16008

CBD. (2022). COP15: Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets for 2030 In Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement. Official CBD Press Release, Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbdpress-release-final-19dec2022  

Coffield, S. R. et al. (2022). Using remote sensing to quantify the additional climate benefits of California forest carbon offset projects. Global Change Biology, 28(22), 6789-6806. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16380 

Dempsey, J. (2016). Enterprising nature: economics, markets, and finance in global biodiversity politics. Wiley Blackwell.

Dempsey, J. & Suarez, D. C. (2016). Arrested development? The promises and paradoxes of “selling nature to save it”. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106, 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1140018

Deutz, A., et al. (2020). Financing Nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap. https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FINANCING-NATURE_Full-Report_Final-with-endorsements_101420.pdf

Gibbons, P., et al. (2017). Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Global Change Biology, 24(2), e643-e654. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13977 

Kedward, K., et al. (2023). Heavy reliance on private finance alone will not deliver conservation goals. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7, 1339–1342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02098-6

Khuc, V. Q. & Nguyen, M. H. (2026). Cultural Additivity Theory. https://books.google.com/books?id=Y4XZEQAAQBAJ

Nguyen, M. H., & Ho, M. T. (2026). The absurdist approach to unveiling possible paradoxical thinking for innovative socio-psychological research. MethodsX, 16, 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2026.103910

OECD. (2020). A Comprehensive Overview of Global Biodiversity Finance. https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/report-a-comprehensive-overview-ofglobal-biodiversity-finance.pdf

Vuong, Q. H. (2025). Wild Wise Weird. AISDL. https://books.google.com/books?id=C5dDEQAAQBAJ