Professor Jan Bebbington, The Rubin Chair in Sustainability in Business at Lancaster University moderated a lively panel discussion on mobilising finance for nature. The session highlighted the importance of integrating nature-related risks and opportunities into financial institutions strategies and decision-making processes
John Willis Director of Research, Planet Tracker explored how financial institutions must identify the corporates that are able to assess and disclose their impact and dependencies on natural ecosystems. He shed light on the inadequate resources deployed by corporates in assessing nature and biodiversity risks.
Helen Avery Director of GFI Hive and Nature Programmes, Green Finance Institute added that many corporations view nature-related reporting as voluntary and struggle to see the business case. She shared the findings from the recently produced report by The Green Finance Institute assessing the materiality of nature-related financial risks for the UK. “Domestic nature degradation could lead to a 3% decline in GDP by 2030, and a further 3% decline if a shock event like drought or wildfire occurs. International nature degradation and an antimicrobial resistance pandemic could result in a 6% and 12% GDP decline, respectively,” Helen noted.
Dr. Theresa Bodner, PhD Head of Nature-Based Solutions, MSCI Inc. highlighted the improving availability of data on nature and biodiversity, citing over 150 data points but cautioned on the on-going challenges of data quality, coverage, and standardisation. Financial institutions need to collaborate and agree on a set of well-defined, comparable metrics that capture the full range of nature-related risks, impacts, and opportunities was a key message from Dr Bodner. Additionally, she mentioned the need for more localised and sector-specific data to support decision-making at the corporate level.
Rhona Turnbull Head of Nature, NatWest Group Group added that there is no net zero without nature and the financial system is embedded within and dependent upon nature. Whilst the term ‘nature positive’ is analogous to net zero in the context of climate change, Rhona explained that there is no agreed-upon definition or metric for measuring it.
The panelists acknowledged the complexity of defining and measuring ‘nature positive’ due to the trade-offs and interdependencies involved.
The session concluded with a discussion around the need to integrate nature considerations into corporate decision-making processes. Financial institutions should be mindful of the potential legal and reputational risks associated with projects that may impact these communities and ensure that benefits and compensation are distributed equitably.