
Impact investing in biodiversity conservation with bonds: An analysis of financial and environmental risk
This report examines the financial and environmental risks associated with impact investing in biodiversity conservation through bonds. It evaluates five case studies, analysing the projects’ theories of change, potential risks, and mitigation strategies. The findings highlight complexities in achieving both financial returns and conservation impact, with concerns about vague metrics and project uncertainties.
Please login or join for free to read more.

OVERVIEW
This report provides a detailed examination of the financial and environmental risks associated with using bonds for biodiversity conservation impact investing. The analysis focuses on five bonds, each designed to generate both financial returns and positive environmental outcomes. Below is a summary structured according to the same headings as the report.
Introduction
Impact investing, particularly through bonds, is an emerging method for financing biodiversity conservation. This approach combines profit generation and measurable environmental impact. The global market for impact investments has grown significantly, estimated at around USD 500 billion. Despite its potential, impact investing in biodiversity remains a new and relatively underexplored area.
Impact investing with bonds
The report distinguishes between conventional and impact bonds used for biodiversity conservation. Conventional bonds are issued to fund revenue-generating conservation projects like sustainable forestry, while impact bonds target non-commodifiable conservation impacts, such as protecting endangered species. The growing interest in impact investing in biodiversity stems from the substantial shortfall in conservation finance, which is mainly reliant on insufficient philanthropic donations.
Theoretical framework
The report identifies four primary risks associated with these bonds: environmental impact risk, measurement risk, enterprise risk, and market risk. Environmental impact risk involves the uncertainty of whether the projects will achieve the desired environmental outcomes. Measurement risk concerns the reliability of the metrics used to assess impact, with simpler metrics often being chosen for cost-effectiveness. Enterprise risk revolves around the uncertainty of cash flow from projects, and market risk relates to broader capital market fluctuations.
Methods
A framework based on enterprise risk management principles was used to evaluate the five bonds. The risk categories allowed a consistent comparison across projects by examining their theory of change—how financial returns and environmental impacts are expected to be delivered.
Results and discussion
The analysis revealed that environmental impact risk is influenced by additionality and time horizons. For instance, projects need to demonstrate that their conservation efforts provide benefits beyond what would have occurred without the project. Timeframes also play a role; conservation impacts like forest growth may take decades, yet many bonds have much shorter maturities. Measurement risk is shaped by the simplicity of metrics and the choice of project sites. Projects often use land area as a proxy for success, but this oversimplification can lead to misleading assessments of actual environmental benefits.
Enterprise risk is tied to whether projects generate sufficient revenue. For example, one project involving REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) relies on carbon credits, which are subject to market volatility and long-term sustainability challenges. Market risk is linked to the broader marketisation of natural assets, which can lead to fluctuations in value that affect the project’s financial performance.
Conclusion
The report concludes that while impact investing in biodiversity conservation holds promise, significant risks remain. The environmental impact of these projects is often uncertain and may take longer than the bond tenure to materialise. Furthermore, the financial viability of many projects is dependent on volatile revenue streams like carbon credits. Investors are advised to critically assess both the financial and environmental risks before committing to such investments.
By identifying these key risks, the report offers important insights for investors looking to engage with impact bonds for biodiversity conservation. Clearer metrics, longer time horizons, and robust financial guarantees are recommended to mitigate risks and improve the likelihood of success.