Executive briefing

Nature finance is currently fragmented, small-scale, and poorly matched to the systemic challenge of maintaining nature’s resilience. This report proposes a paradigm shift: treating nature as critical infrastructure through Public-Private Partnerships for Nature (PPPNs) to structure investment at scale. The Nature as Infrastructure (NAI) framework positions high-integrity ecosystems as governable, investable assets that deliver essential services. To accelerate this shift, the report spotlights three underused financial tools: guarantees, insurance, and biodiversity credits. Governments and financial institutions must act now to mainstream nature into economic systems, data architecture, and sovereign development planning.

Chapter 1. Introduction – the economic case for nature as infrastructure

Environmental and economic challenges, including biodiversity loss and climate change, are deeply interconnected. Addressing these in isolation is ineffective and increases costs. The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) aims to mobilise US$200 billion per year by 2030, but nature-negative finance currently outpaces nature-positive finance by a factor of more than 35 to 1. The NAI reframing moves beyond project-level Nature-based Solutions (NbS) to landscape-scale interventions managed with the same discipline as built assets like roads or airports. This approach secures the ecological foundations needed for climate mitigation and adaptation, recognising that nature resilience underpins the business cash flows and portfolio returns upon which the financial system depends.

Chapter 2. Financial shifts to unlock finance for nature: engaging commercial banks and FIs

Commercial banks and financial institutions are unique accelerators of nature finance. Private capital flows into nature-related activities grew from US$9.4 billion in 2020 to US$102.1 billion in 2024, yet this remains minimal compared to the US$24 trillion invested in global private markets. Systemic shifts are required, including mainstreaming natural capital valuation and integrating it into national accounting. China’s implementation of Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) serves as an example, where the Bank of Jiangsu issued a US$70 million credit line for wetland restoration using projected GEP increases as partial collateral. Additionally, reforming the estimated US$2 trillion per year in environmentally harmful subsidies is essential to improve the competitiveness of nature-positive investments.

Chapter 3. Public–private partnerships – models for financing nature

PPPs are proven mechanisms for delivering public assets by sharing risks and responsibilities between sectors. A PPPN adapts this logic to nature restoration, using long-term contracts and measurable results at a landscape scale. For governments, the investment case is compelling; for instance, every EUR 1 invested in nature by the European Commission yields a return of between EUR 8 and EUR 38. The private sector case relies on revenue streams such as government service payments, carbon credits, biodiversity credits, and commercial use rights. Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) play a catalytic role in de-risking these structures and developing bankable pipelines.

Chapter 4. Insurance and guarantees: de-risking nature finance

Guarantees and insurance are critical for private capital mobilisation. Guarantees mitigate ex-ante risks and have been shown to leverage 19% of private finance, compared to 16% for syndicated loans. However, they remain underused, with only 5-10% of global instruments targeting emerging markets. Insurance addresses ex-post risks, protecting assets from shocks like floods or fires. Currently, a 90% protection gap exists for climate and nature-related hazards. Innovative solutions like sustainability-linked insurance (SLI) can incentivise restoration by linking premiums to predefined targets. For example, a wildfire resilience pilot in California demonstrated a 41% reduction in premiums for communities implementing ecological forest management.

Chapter 5. Designing investment vehicles for nature

PPPNs offer a flexible framework to attract diverse capital. These models, such as “Design-Restore-Finance-Operate” (DRFO), mirror traditional infrastructure contracts but replace construction with restoration. Case studies illustrate this adaptability: the LEAF Coalition has mobilised over US$1 billion for forest conservation, while the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) targets US$125 billion for large-scale protection. In Colombia, Terrasos operates habitat banks that generate biodiversity credits for developers required by law to offset environmental damage. These examples demonstrate how PPPNs can function at jurisdictional, fund, and project scales to mainstream private investment.

Chapter 6. Conclusion and recommendations

The report provides eight overarching recommendations to scale nature finance. The primary action is to establish PPPNs as a core delivery model. Governments should build systems that make nature count in financial decision-making by integrating natural capital into sovereign accounts and fiscal planning. MDB roles must be redefined to systematically screen infrastructure projects for nature opportunities and set binding institutional targets for nature-positive investment. Furthermore, all nature finance must be grounded in legal protections for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), ensuring meaningful participation and equitable benefit-sharing. By aligning public policy with private capital, nature finance can deliver resilient growth and meet global biodiversity goals.