Biodiversity is one of several global sustainability issues shifting into focus amongst civil society, savers and policy makers. The demand for infrastructure development is increasing, with US$90 trillion needed to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. However, poorly managed infrastructure projects pose a serious threat to the Earth’s biodiversity. Apes are used in case studies throughout the report as indicator species of the health of Africa and Asia.

Conservation and development of emerging economies through infrastructure projects enable investors to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although infrastructure positively affects social and economic development, infrastructure types differ in their benefits and impacts.

To make a positive impact on biodiversity, investors in infrastructure projects should use their leverage during the early stages. Assessment of projects is required to ensure maximum social and economic benefit, as well as consider the potential environmental impacts that are often overlooked. Projects that severely threaten biodiversity should be abandoned. A balanced approach that takes into consideration the interests of investors and developers is suggested.

Investors should not finance or invest in infrastructure projects that threaten biodiversity. These projects would impact endangered or critically endangered species as listed on the IUCN Red List, or critical habitats as defined by UNESCO and the IUCN. Indirect or secondary impacts, from humans encroaching on ape habitats, often exceed direct impacts.

The report describes methods of mitigating the risks associated with poorly managed infrastructure projects. Due to the growing focus on responsible investment, there is greater risk in failing to recognise the potential impacts of investments on biodiversity. By engaging with large companies, investors can improve the standards of entire industries.

The following international standards and frameworks should be utilised:

• Mitigation hierarchy: orders the most preferable action in mitigating biodiversity loss to the least preferable; avoid ape habitats, minimise impacts, restore impacted habitat, offset impacts. Not every project can be offset.
• International Finance Corporation Performance Principles: eight standards that define the responsibilities of banks to manage environmental and social risks. One of these standards states that the client should avoid damage to biodiversity.
• The Equator Principles: provides a structured approach for managing environmental and social risks in infrastructure projects.

Recommendations for mitigating investment risks are presented. The report also lists questions to ask businesses involved in infrastructure projects in areas of high biodiversity value. The questions are relevant through planning, design, monitoring, and operation phases of the project.

It is recommended that investors and banks adopt a biodiversity policy which:

• Covers multiple industrial sectors, including mining and energy
• Refers to international standards: the Equator Principles, the IPC Performance Standards, the IUCN Red List of threatened species, the mitigation hierarchy and the key biodiversity areas
• Introduces co-investor assessment processes
• Is formed through consultation with civil society groups

Global sustainability concerns, including the importance of biodiversity and species protection, are growing. As the world looks to fill the gap in global infrastructure investment, responsible investors and banks committed to the SDGs urgently need to review biodiversity policies and practices in relation to these types of projects.

1. Biodiversity loss threatens the world's ecosystems and the economic and social wellbeing of society. The world is currently in the midst of a mass extinction event.
2. Biodiversity conservation has become a focus for investors committed to responsible investment and the Sustainable Development Goals. It is likely to become even more prominent with the approach of Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2020, where a global biodiversity framework will be adopted. For this reason, the reputational and financial risks of failing to consider the impacts of investment are biodiversity are increased.
3. During project financing and planning stages, stakeholders in infrastructure projects can make the greatest positive impact to biodiversity. Engaging with large companies can lead to systemic changes in which the standards of entire industries and countries are improved.
4. Biodiversity protection is often aligned with indigenous rights. Due to this, it should be ensured that the potentially impacted indigenous community have granted their free, prior and informed consent to the infrastructure project.
5. To simultaneously meet the growing demands of society and avoid damage to biodiversity, a sustainable approach to infrastructure is needed. Projects that pose a large threat to endangered species (IUCN Red List) or critical habitats (as defined by UNESCO and the IUCN) should not be invested in.
6. Harm avoidance should be prioritised, with offsets as a final resort. Impacts on biodiversity can be reduced with landscape level environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs). These should present ways of minimising habitat destruction.
7. Poorly managed infrastructure projects present material, reputational and financial risks. These risks can be mitigated through prioritising conservation and during initial planning stages, and implementing standards such as the mitigation hierarchy and the Equator Principles.
8. It is recommended that investors and banks adopt a biodiversity policy which covers multiple industry sectors, refers to international standards, introduces co-investor assessment processes, and is formed through consultation with civil society groups.
9. Responsible investment is particularly compatible with infrastructure investing because of the long-term nature of this asset class and its focus on essential services. Infrastructure developments also have the potential to cause significant negative impacts on biodiversity and need careful consideration.