United Kingdom
  • /
  • Europe
    • FR
    • DE
    • IT
    • ES
    • BE
    • NL
    • LU
    • CH
    • DK
    • PL
  • News
  • UK
  • World
  • Business
  • Technology
  • Science
  • Entertainment
  • Sports
  • Health
  • @
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Arts and design
  • Birmingham
  • Books
  • Boxing
  • Brexit
  • Bristol
  • Britain
  • Business
  • Celebrities
  • Computing
  • Cricket
  • Cycling
  • Economy
  • Edinburgh
  • England
  • Entertainment
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Environment
  • EU
  • F1
  • Fitness
  • Football
  • France
  • Gadgets
  • Genetics
  • Germany
  • Glasgow
  • Golf
  • Health
  • Healthcare
  • Internet
  • Jobs
  • Leeds
  • Liverpool
  • London
  • Manchester
  • Markets
  • Medication
  • Mental health
  • Mobile
  • Movies
  • Music
  • News
  • Northern Ireland
  • Nutrition
  • Personal finance
  • Physics
  • Racing
  • Royals
  • Rugby
  • Russia
  • Science
  • Scotland
  • Sheffield
  • Space
  • Spain
  • Sports
  • Technology
  • Tennis
  • TV
  • UK
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom
  • United States
  • Virtual reality
  • Wales
  • Wildlife
  • World
United Kingdom
  • /
  • Europe
    • FR
    • DE
    • IT
    • ES
    • BE
    • NL
    • LU
    • CH
    • DK
    • PL
  • News
  • UK
  • World
  • Business
  • Technology
  • Science
  • Entertainment
  • Sports
  • Health
  • @
Demystifying biodiversity finance | Nature Reviews Biodiversity
EEnvironment

Demystifying biodiversity finance | Nature Reviews Biodiversity

  • 18 May 2026
  • Langhammer, P. F. et al. The positive impact of conservation action. Science 384, 453–458 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2021).

  • The biodiversity plan for life on Earth, 2030 targets (with guidance notes). Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/ (2023).

  • United Nations Environment Programme. State of finance for nature: the big nature turnaround – repurposing $7 trillion to combat nature loss. UN Environment Programme https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/44278 (2023).

  • zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The current state, opportunities and challenges for upscaling private investment in biodiversity in Europe. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9, 515–524 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Scholtens, B. Why finance should care about ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 500–505 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Medina, C. & Scales, I. R. Finance and biodiversity conservation: insights from rhinoceros conservation and the first wildlife conservation bond. Oryx 58, 90–99 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • WWF. Financing green: unlocking finance for nature and people. WWF https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/finance/green_financial_solutions/ (2023).

  • UK Centre for Greening Finance and Investment. UK Centre for Greening Finance & Investment. UK Centre for Greening Finance and Investment https://eng.ox.ac.uk/media/6971/centre-for-greening-finance-investment-outline-optimized.pdf (2021).

  • Svartzman, R. & Althouse, J. Greening the international monetary system? Not without addressing the political ecology of global imbalances. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 29, 844–869 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Van Raalte, D. & Ranger, N. Financing nature-based solutions for adaptation at scale: learning from specialised investment managers and nature funds. Global Center on Adaptation and Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/Financing_NbS_for_Adaptation-GCAOxford2023-finalv2.pdf (2023).

  • Matias, G., Cagnacci, F. & Rosalino, L. M. FSC forest certification effects on biodiversity: a global review and meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 908, 168296 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Morgans, C. L. et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of palm oil certification in delivering multiple sustainability objectives. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064032 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C. & Dean, T. J. How to pay for saving biodiversity. Science 360, 486–488 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jouffray, J.-B., Crona, B., Wassénius, E., Bebbington, J. & Scholtens, B. Leverage points in the financial sector for seafood sustainability. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax3324 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Karolyi, G. A. & Tobin-de la Puente, J. Biodiversity finance: a call for research into financing nature. Financ. Manag. 52, 231–251 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Meyers, D. et al. Conservation finance: a framework. Conservation Finance Alliance https://landconservationnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy-files/Conservation+Finance+Framework.pdf5 (2020).

  • Thompson, B. S. Impact investing in biodiversity conservation with bonds: an analysis of financial and environmental risk. Bus. Strategy Environ. 32, 353–368 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Flammer, C., Giroux, T. & Heal, G. M. Biodiversity finance. J. Financ. Econ. 164, 103987 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cooper, G., & Trémolet, S. Investing in nature: private finance for nature-based resilience. The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Finance https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC-INVESTING-IN-NATURE_Report_01.pdf (2019).

  • Gresham House. Gresham House launches strategy to accelerate restoration of UK biodiversity and enhance natural capital. Gresham House https://greshamhouse.com/news-media/gresham-house-launches-strategy-to-accelerate-restoration-of-uk-biodiversity-and-enhance-natural-capital/ (2024).

  • Flammer, C. Financing biodiversity through private capital investments. Principles for Responsible Investment https://www.unpri.org/academic-blogs/financing-biodiversity-through-private-capital-investments/11577.article (2023).

  • Cao, S. S., Karolyi, G. A., Xiong, W. W. & Xu, H. Biodiversity entrepreneurship. Rev. Finance 30, 43–86 (2026).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Li, K., Ortiz-Molina, H. & Zhao, X. Do voting rights affect institutional investment decisions? Evidence from dual-class firms. Financ. Manag. 37, 713–745 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baines, J. & Hager, S. B. From passive owners to planet savers? Asset managers, carbon majors and the limits of sustainable finance. Compet. Change 27, 449–471 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Blackrock. The importance of income to total return. Blackrock https://www.blackrock.com/uk/solutions/investment-trusts/our-range/insights/the-importance-of-income-to-total-return (2026).

  • Kay, K. A hostile takeover of nature? Placing value in conservation finance. Antipode 50, 164–183 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Trotta, A. Environmental impact bonds: review, challenges, and perspectives. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 66, 101396 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Madeira, L. & Gartner, T. Forest resilience bond sparks innovative collaborations between water utilities and wide-ranging stakeholders. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 110, 42–49 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brand, M. W. et al. Environmental impact bonds: a common framework and looking ahead. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 1, 023001 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Benmelech, E., Kumar, N. & Rajan, R. The decline of secured debt. J. Finance 79, 35–93 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lyandres, E. & Zhdanov, A. Convertible debt and investment timing. J. Corp. Finance 24, 21–37 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Anh, L. N. Q. in Partial Identification in Econometrics and Related Topics (eds Ngoc Thach, N. et al.) 417–435 (Springer, 2024).

  • International Capital Market Association. Sustainability bond guidelines. International Capital Market Association https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Sustainable-finance/2021-updates/Sustainability-Bond-Guidelines-June-2021-140621.pdf (2021).

  • The World Bank. Green, social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked (GSSS) bonds, market update — July 2024. The World Bank https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/dacb969cc71f53abde2d2758f1cc13ed-0340012024/original/GSSS-Quarterly-Newsletter-Issue-No-8.pdf (2024).

  • Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas. Uruguay’s Sovereign Sustainability-Linked Bond (SSLB) annual report 2025. Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas https://sslburuguay.mef.gub.uy/innovaportal/file/30672/16/sslb-3rd-annual-report-may-2025_compressed.pdf (2025).

  • World Bank Group. Wildlife conservation bond boosts South Africa’s efforts to protect black rhinos and support local communities. World Bank Group https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/03/23/wildlife-conservation-bond-boosts-south-africa-s-efforts-to-protect-black-rhinos-and-support-local-communities (2022).

  • World Bank Group. Investors support Amazon reforestation through record breaking USD 225 million World Bank outcome bond. World Bank Group https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/08/13/investors-support-amazon-reforestation-through-record-breaking-usd-225-million-world-bank-outcome-bond (2024).

  • The World Bank. Wildlife Conservation Bond mobilizes private capital to protect critically endangered rhinos. Case study. The World Bank https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/7039bd837e60e484fb3a93ea63951306-0340022022/original/CaseStudy-WildlifeConservationBond.pdf (2022).

  • Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Environmental Impact Bond (EIB) for green infrastructure in Proctor Creek watershed. Atlanta Department of Watershed Management https://www.atlantawatershed.org/environmental-impact-bond/ (2019).

  • Quantified Ventures. Atlanta: first publicly offered Environmental Impact Bond. Quantified Ventures https://www.quantifiedventures.com/atlanta-eib (2022).

  • Christiansen, J. et al. Off the charts? Reasons to be skeptical of the growth in biodiversity finance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 75, 101544 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Flammer, C. Corporate green bonds. J. Financ. Econ. 142, 499–516 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baldi, F. & Pandimiglio, A. The role of ESG scoring and greenwashing risk in explaining the yields of green bonds: a conceptual framework and an econometric analysis. Glob. Finance J. 52, 100711 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Garvey, J. et al. Designing financial instruments for land-based ecological restoration: a review and future research agenda. Clean. Prod. Lett. 8, 100089 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • International Capital Market Association. Green bond principles: voluntary process guidelines for issuing green bonds. International Capital Market Association https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Sustainable-finance/2022-updates/Green-Bond-Principles-June-2022-060623.pdf (2021).

  • International Capital Market Association. Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles. Voluntary process guidelines. International Capital Market Association https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Sustainable-finance/2024-updates/Sustainability-Linked-Bond-Principles-June-2024.pdf (2024).

  • Jones, J. P. & Shreedhar, G. The causal revolution in biodiversity conservation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1236–1239 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Five rules for scientifically credible nature markets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 10, 181–192 (2026).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Carter, H. et al. Hopes and fears for incentivising coexistence with big cats through innovative market-based financial mechanisms. Wildl. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/wll2.70002 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Biodiversity Credit Alliance. Definition of a biodiversity credit. Issue Paper No. 3. Biodiversity Credit Alliance https://www.biodiversitycreditalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Definition-of-a-Biodiversity-Credit-Rev-220524.pdf (2024).

  • Damiens, F. L. P., Porter, L. & Gordon, A. The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales. Nat. Sustain. 4, 170–179 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dempsey, J. & Suarez, D. C. Arrested development? The promises and paradoxes of “selling nature to save it”. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 106, 653–671 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Marshall, E., Wintle, B. A., Southwell, D. & Kujala, H. What are we measuring? A review of metrics used to describe biodiversity in offsets exchanges. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108250 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Borges-Matos, C., Maron, M. & Metzger, J. P. A review of condition metrics used in biodiversity offsetting. Environ. Manag. 72, 727–740 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wauchope, H. et al. What is a unit of nature? Measurement challenges in the emerging biodiversity credit market. Proc. R. Soc. B 291, 20242353 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kim, E. H., Dellecker, A., Field, R., Stephenson, P. & Schrodt, F. Towards high-integrity biodiversity credits: balancing commensurability, ecological complexity and governance. Proc. R. Soc. B 292, 20250990 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wunder, S. et al. Biodiversity credits: an overview of the current state, future opportunities, and potential pitfalls. Bus. Strategy Environ. 34, 8470–8499 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Maron, M. et al. ‘Nature positive’ must incorporate, not undermine, the mitigation hierarchy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 14–17 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • World Economic Forum. Biodiversity credits: demand analysis and market outlook. World Economic Forum https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2023_Biodiversity_Credits_Demand_Analysis_and_Market_Outlook.pdf (2023).

  • Vaissière, A.-C. & Levrel, H. Biodiversity offset markets: what are they really? An empirical approach to wetland mitigation banking. Ecol. Econ. 110, 81–88 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gordon, A. et al. Five years of offsetting native vegetation: the challenge of achieving no-net-loss. Ecol. Indic. 179, 114180 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 4397–4411 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gibbons, P., Macintosh, A., Constable, A. L. & Hayashi, K. Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e643–e654 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Duffus, N. E. et al. A globally influential area-condition metric is a poor proxy for invertebrate biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 62, 2529–2540 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Purvis, A. & Hector, A. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405, 212–219 (2000).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodiversity provides ecosystem goods and services essential to human health and well-being. Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/health/ (2024).

  • Gonon, M., Svartzman, R. & Althouse, J. Bridging the gap in biodiversity financing: a review of assessments of existing and needed financial flows for biodiversity, and some considerations regarding their limitations and potential ways forward. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series 2024-14. UCL Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publications/2024/oct/bridging-gap-biodiversity-financing (2024).

  • Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Nature Markets Framework progress update March 2024. Policy paper. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-markets-framework-progress-update-march-2024 (2024).

  • Jones, J. P. & Lewis, S. L. Forest carbon offsets are failing. Science 381, 830–831 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baral, S., Lamichhane, S. & Koirala, A. Current status of improved forest management carbon offset projects in the US voluntary market. For. Policy Econ. 178, 103567 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J., Stevens, N. & Berenguer, E. Valuing the functionality of tropical ecosystems beyond carbon. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 1109–1111 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zhou, Z. Y. & Almond, D. Biodiversity co-benefits in carbon markets? Evidence from voluntary offset projects. Rev. Finance 30, 537–570 (2026).


    Google Scholar
     

  • van der Gaast, W., Sikkema, R. & Vohrer, M. The contribution of forest carbon credit projects to addressing the climate change challenge. Clim. Policy 18, 42–48 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bennett, G. NEW! State Voluntary Carbon Market 2023 finds VCM demand concentrating around pricier, high-integrity credits. Ecosystem Marketplace https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/new-state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-markets-2023-finds-vcm-demand-concentrating-around-pricier-high-integrity-credits/ (2024).

  • Stapp, J. et al. Little evidence of management change in California’s forest offset program. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 331 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Engert, J. E. & van Oosterzee, P. Limits to the ability of carbon farming projects to deliver benefits for threatened species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9, 134–141 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • New Zealand Forest Service Te Uru Rākau, Ministry for Primary Industries Manatū Ahu Matua. How the ETS applies to forestry. New Zealand Government https://www.mpi.govt.nz/forestry/forestry-in-the-emissions-trading-scheme/about-forestry-in-the-emissions-trading-scheme-ets/how-the-ets-applies-to-forestry/ (2023).

  • West, T. A., Monge, J. J., Dowling, L. J., Wakelin, S. J. & Gibbs, H. K. Promotion of afforestation in New Zealand’s marginal agricultural lands through payments for environmental services. Ecosyst. Serv. 46, 101212 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hong, M. et al. Application of integrated Korean forest growth dynamics model to meet NDC target by considering forest management scenarios and budget. Carbon Balance Manag. 17, 5 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sylvera. The state carbon credits. Report. Sylvera https://info.sylvera.com/hubfs/The%20State%20of%20%20Carbon%20Credits%202025%20Report%20-%20Sylvera.pdf?hsLang=en (2026).

  • Ecosystem Marketplace. State of the voluntary carbon market. Meeting the moment. Renewing trust in carbon finance. Ecosystem Marketplace https://3298623.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/3298623/SOVCM%202025/Ecosystem%20Marketplace%20State%20of%20the%20Voluntary%20Carbon%20Market%202025.pdf (2025).

  • Jones, J. P. G. Scandal in the voluntary carbon market must not impede tropical forest conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1203–1204 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • West, T. A. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Utamiputri, P., Bennun, L., Edwards, S. & Bull, J. W. The role of “no net loss” policies in conserving biodiversity threatened by the global infrastructure boom. One Earth 1, 305–315 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wunder, S. et al. Modest forest and welfare gains from initiatives for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 394 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Josefsson, J. et al. Compensating for lost nature values through biodiversity offsetting — where is the evidence? Biol. Conserv. 257, 109117 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Maron, M. et al. Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1, 183–196 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Evans, M. C. et al. Trends in biodiversity finance terminology, actors and networks over two decades. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/awqzp_v1 (2025).

  • Carton, W., Hougaard, I. M., Markusson, N. & Lund, J. F. Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 14, e826 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kedward, K., Zu Ermgassen, S., Ryan-Collins, J. & Wunder, S. Heavy reliance on private finance alone will not deliver conservation goals. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1339–1342 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Löfqvist, S., Garrett, R. D. & Ghazoul, J. Incentives and barriers to private finance for forest and landscape restoration. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 707–715 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Löfqvist, S. & Ghazoul, J. Private funding is essential to leverage forest and landscape restoration at global scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1612–1615 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Maron, M. et al. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol. Conserv. 155, 141–148 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dempsey, J. & Bigger, P. Intimate mediations of for-profit conservation finance: waste, improvement, and accumulation. Antipode 51, 517–538 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Myers, R. et al. Messiness of forest governance: how technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 314–324 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hahn, N. R., Bombaci, S. P. & Wittemyer, G. Identifying conservation technology needs, barriers, and opportunities. Sci. Rep. 12, 4802 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brondízio, E. S. et al. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481–509 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Davis, A. & Goldman, M. J. Beyond payments for ecosystem services: considerations of trust, livelihoods and tenure security in community-based conservation projects. Oryx 53, 491–496 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zabel, A., Nanhthavong, V. & Epprecht, M. Gaps between demand and supply of biodiversity impact finance in the Global South. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 76, 101568 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Milner-Gulland, E. Now is the time for conservationists to stand up for social justice. PLoS Biol. 22, e3002657 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • McDermott, M., Mahanty, S. & Schreckenberg, K. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 33, 416–427 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Keith, H., Vardon, M., Stein, J. A., Stein, J. L. & Lindenmayer, D. Ecosystem accounts define explicit and spatial trade-offs for managing natural resources. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1683–1692 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Swinfield, T., Shrikanth, S., Bull, J. W., Madhavapeddy, A. & zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. Nature-based credit markets at a crossroads. Nat. Sustain. 7, 1217–1220 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Rampling, E. E., zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Hawkins, I. & Bull, J. W. Achieving biodiversity net gain by addressing governance gaps underpinning ecological compensation policies. Conserv. Biol. 38, e14198 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Polzin, F., Egli, F., Steffen, B. & Schmidt, T. S. How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective. Appl. Energy 236, 1249–1268 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • re.green. What we do. re.green https://re.green/en/what-we-do/ (2025).

  • Segal, M. Microsoft signs forest restoration deal to remove 3.5 million tons of CO2. ESG today https://www.esgtoday.com/microsoft-signs-forest-restoration-deal-to-remove-3-5-million-tons-of-co2/ (2025).

  • The Conservation Fund. Taxable green bonds (Working Forest Conservation Program), series 2019. The Conservation Fund https://www.conservationfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2019-9-19_TCF_Final_Offering_Memorandum-1.pdf (2019).

  • The Conservation Fund. Green bond impact report. The Conservation Fund https://www.conservationfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TCF24-Green-Bond-Report-Rebrand-052024-1.pdf (2022).

  • Flammer, C., Giroux, T. & Heal, G. Blended finance. National Bureau of Economic Research https://www.nber.org/papers/w32287 (2024).

  • Woodland Carbon Code. What you can buy. Woodland Carbon Code https://woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/buy-carbon/what-are-woodland-carbon-units (2025).

  • Golub, A. A. et al. Escaping the climate policy uncertainty trap: options contracts for REDD+. Clim. Policy 18, 1227–1234 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • COP 30. Tropical Forests Forever Fund boosts international support and positions itself as a new global model for climate finance. COP 30 https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/tropical-forests-forever-fund-boosts-international-support-and-positions-itself-as-a-new-global-model-for-climate-finance (2025).

  • Tropical Forest Forever Facility. An innovative financing mechanism to incentivize long-term forest conservation at scale. Concept note 3.0. Tropical Forest Forever Facility https://tfff.earth/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/TFFF-Concept-Note-3.0-202508-FINAL.pdf (2024).

  • Ceccon, M. Less stage, more handshakes: Climate Week NYC shifts focus from pledges to partnerships. Nature4Climate https://nature4climate.org/less-stage-more-handshakes-climate-week-nyc-shifts-focus-from-pledges-to-partnerships/ (2025).

  • Macintosh, A. et al. Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 149 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sonter, L. J., Barnes, M., Matthews, J. W. & Maron, M. Quantifying habitat losses and gains made by US Species Conservation Banks to improve compensation policies and avoid perverse outcomes. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12629 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Otten, F., Hein, J., Bondy, H. & Faust, H. Deconstructing sustainable rubber production: contesting narratives in rural Sumatra. J. Land Use Sci. 15, 306–326 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • WWF. WWF & Michelin partnership progress report 2014/2018. WWF https://www.wwf.fr/sites/default/files/doc-2019-07/20190726_Partnership_Pogress_Report_Michelin_WWF-min.pdf (2019).

  • Ferraro, P. J. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009, 75–84 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wauchope, H. S. et al. Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 196–205 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ferraro, P. J. & Hanauer, M. M. Advances in measuring the environmental and social impacts of environmental programs. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 495–517 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jeffries, G., Withers, O., Barichievy, C. & Gordon, C. The rhino impact investment project—a new, outcomes-based finance mechanism for selected AfRSG-rated ‘key’ black rhino populations. Pachyderm 60, 88–95 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Convergence Finance. TLFF inaugural transaction: corporate sustainability bond for natural rubber production. Convergence Finance https://www.convergence.finance/api/file/5781b6c042d88e7bf518d56945b13b7f:27a34eafd585375a2bd2b910c6bb10b6634617b731653c3b1565216d0421227139f8064021afaffd1470b014b70a0f0bf345a81393c6e59e937230be090278684cbdaf26b22f8e915ae8bf76a10d7a1ff60966953e382f9758c302b21d6dd3d3530b2b83391a3dae6117076518e597d77957d32e056dd56d01f6fe0cc6ac06dd664a3396996623b364a4f8ecd3a542db78828d5c37cff4943e556b945d95a893 (2019).

  • ADM Capital. Long-term financing for green growth. ADM Capital https://www.admcapital.com/tropical-landscapes-finance-facility/ (2024).

  • Balmford, A. et al. PACT tropical moist forest accreditation methodology v2. Preprint at Cambridge Open Engage https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2023-g584d-v5 (2023).

  • Balmford, A. et al. Time to fix the biodiversity leak. Science 387, 720–722 (2025).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Coldrey, J. J. & Thompson, B. S. Evaluating stakeholder perceptions on drone use in forest restoration using a social–ecological systems framework. People Nat. 6, 1624–1639 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ford, H. V. et al. A technological biodiversity monitoring toolkit for biocredits. J. Appl. Ecol. 61, 2007–2019 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Grace, M. K. et al. Building robust, practicable counterfactuals and scenarios to evaluate the impact of species conservation interventions using inferential approaches. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109259 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bull, J. W., Strange, N., Smith, R. J. & Gordon, A. Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social-ecological systems. Conserv. Biol. 35, 510–521 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sharkey, W. et al. The value of qualitative approaches to impact evaluation in biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 7, e70102 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  • Newing, H. et al. Conservation and Human Rights: An Introduction (Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science and Forest Peoples Programme, 2024).

  • Kigonya, R. Aspirations and Realities of Biodiversity Offsetting: Social and Ecological Transformations of the Gangu Central Forest Reserve in Uganda. PhD thesis, Norwegian Univ. Science and Technology (2024).

  • Löfqvist, S. et al. How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience 73, 134–148 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits, World Economic Forum. High-level principles to guide the biodiversity credit market. Biodiversity Credit Alliance https://www.biodiversitycreditalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BCA_High-level-Principles-to-Guide-the-Biodiversity-Market-working-paper-EN_ES_FR.pdf (2024).

  • Bidaud, C., Schreckenberg, K. & Jones, J. P. The local costs of biodiversity offsets: comparing standards, policy and practice. Land Use Policy 77, 43–50 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tupala, A.-K., Huttunen, S. & Halme, P. Social impacts of biodiversity offsetting: a review. Biol. Conserv. 267, 109431 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dickman, A. J. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Shackleton, R. T. et al. Navigating power in conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e12877 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Blake, H. The great cash-for-carbon hustle. The New Yorker (16 October 2023).

  • Redpath, S. M. et al. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 100–109 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Saif, O., Keane, A. & Staddon, S. Making a case for the consideration of trust, justice, and power in conservation relationships. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13903 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dawson, N., Martin, A. & Danielsen, F. Assessing equity in protected area governance: approaches to promote just and effective conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12388 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ben, E., Alastair, M. & Max, D. H. Faulty credits tarnish billion-dollar carbon offset seller. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-03-24/carbon-offset-seller-s-forest-protection-projects-questioned?embedded-checkout=true&leadSource=uverify%20wall (2023).

  • Rakotonarivo, O. S. et al. Resolving land tenure security is essential to deliver forest restoration. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 179 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Robinson, B. E. et al. Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12383 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cavanagh, C. & Benjaminsen, T. A. Virtual nature, violent accumulation: the ‘spectacular failure’ of carbon offsetting at a Ugandan National Park. Geoforum 56, 55–65 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lyons, K. & Westoby, P. Carbon colonialism and the new land grab: plantation forestry in Uganda and its livelihood impacts. J. Rural Stud. 36, 13–21 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mukpo, A. Report clears Kenyan conservancy of community abuse, but advocates cry foul. Mongabay https://news.mongabay.com/2022/06/report-clears-kenyan-conservancy-of-community-abuse-but-advocates-cry-foul/ (2022).

  • Gallent, N., Purves, A. & Gabrieli, T. Reflections on ‘land value recovery’ for UK rural areas, and its implications for housing affordability, wealth-building, rural land use, and community wellbeing. Habitat Int. 153, 103204 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • West, P., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251–277 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Greenfield, P. The new ‘scramble for Africa’: how a UAE sheikh quietly made carbon deals for forests bigger than UK. The Guardian (30 November 2023).

  • Chausson, A. et al. Balancing bankability and integrity: fostering investment-ready nature-based solutions. WWF https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/Balancing-Bankability-and-Integrity-report.pdf (2025).

  • Poudyal, M. et al. Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the ‘right’ people? Lessons from Madagascar. Glob. Environ. Change 37, 31–42 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bond, J. & Mkutu, K. Exploring the hidden costs of human–wildlife conflict in northern Kenya. Afr. Stud. Rev. 61, 33–54 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Naughton-Treves, L. & Sanderson, S. Property, politics and wildlife conservation. World Dev. 23, 1265–1275 (1995).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Denninger Snyder, K. & Rentsch, D. Rethinking assessment of success of mitigation strategies for elephant-induced crop damage. Conserv. Biol. 34, 829–842 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bowie, M. J., Dietrich, T., Cassey, P. & Veríssimo, D. Co-designing behavior change interventions to conserve biodiversity. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e278 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fleischman, F. et al. Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. BioScience 70, 947–950 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., Wolff, H., López-Sandoval, M. F. & Salazar, J. Effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services after loss and uncertainty of compensation. Nat. Sustain. 5, 81–88 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dawson, N. M. et al. Reviewing the science on 50 years of conservation: knowledge production biases and lessons for practice. Ambio 53, 1395–1413 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sinacore, K. et al. Mixed success for carbon payments and subsidies in support of forest restoration in the neotropics. Nat. Commun. 14, 8359 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Safeguard Mechanism. Australian Government https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reporting/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting-scheme/safeguard-mechanism (2025).

  • International Carbon Action Partnership UK. UK emissions trading scheme. International Carbon Action Partnership UK https://icapcarbonaction.com/system/files/ets_pdfs/icap-etsmap-factsheet-99.pdf (2022).

  • Bleuel, S. & Müller, C. Unlocking the potential: expert insights on the long-term compatibility of forest carbon credits with the EU ETS. For. Policy Econ. 162, 103185 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fankhauser, S. What next on net zero? One Earth 4, 1520–1522 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Trencher, G., Blondeel, M. & Asuka, J. Do all roads lead to Paris? Comparing pathways to net-zero by BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil. Clim. Change 176, 83 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ecosystem Marketplace. New report: the voluntary carbon market contracted in 2023, driven by drop-off in transactions for REDD+ and renewable energy. Ecosystem Marketplace https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/report-the-voluntary-carbon-market-contracted-in-2023-driven-by-drop-off-in-transactions-for-redd-and-renewable-energy/ (2024).

  • Greenfield, P. Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe (18 January 2023).

  • The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. About the Integrity Council: setting the global standard for high integrity in international carbon markets. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market https://icvcm.org/about-us/ (2025).

  • Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. J. & Lund, J. F. Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, e671 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dooley, K. et al. The Land Gap report 2002. The Land Gap Report https://landgap.org/downloads/2022/2022_Land-Gap-Report_FINAL.pdf (2022).

    • Tags:
    • biodiversity
    • Ecology
    • Ecosystems
    • Environment
    • Environmental social sciences
    • general
    • Life Sciences
    • Nature Conservation
    • Science
    • scientific community
    • Social sciences
    • UK
    • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
    www.europesays.com