Workshop: Toward Nature-Positive Finance

What does finance need from biodiversity science? Biodiversa+, Banque de France and partners brought together researchers, public authorities, central banks, financial institutions and businesses to discuss how biodiversity knowledge can better inform financial decision-making.

Often described as an environmental crisis, biodiversity loss is now also recognised as a source of economic and financial risk. Healthy ecosystems support food production, water availability, soil fertility, climate regulation, supply chains and long-term value creation. When they degrade, the effects can travel through sectors, markets and financial portfolios.

This was the starting point of the workshop “Toward Nature-Positive Finance: Scientific Foundations for Action”, held on 10 June 2026 at Banque de France in Paris. Co-organised by Biodiversa+, Banque de France, the BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub, CO-OP4CBD, the French Foundation for Biodiversity Research (FRB) and the RESPIN project, the event brought together actors from science, policy, finance, business and civil society around one central question:

What do financial and economic actors need from science to make biodiversity a real decision variable?

Several messages emerged from the day:

• Nature-related risks are already economic and financial questions. They can affect production, credit, insurance, inflation, investment performance and financial stability.
• The issue is not only a lack of knowledge. A substantial evidence base already exists, but it is not always easy to use in financial and business decisions.
• Waiting for perfect data is not an option. Participants stressed the need to work with available evidence, while improving models, indicators and data over time.
• Nature-positive finance is not only about funding nature. It also requires redirecting financial flows away from activities that harm nature.
• Science, policy and finance need stronger interfaces. Biodiversity knowledge has to be translated into tools, methods and frameworks that are useful for decision-makers.

The problem is not (only) knowledge

Methods are still evolving, data are incomplete, models are imperfect, and some risks remain difficult to quantify. But discussions suggested that science has already done enough to justify action and provide many usable starting points. The priority is to test, learn, refine, and improve, while steadily integrating nature-related risks into financial analysis and decision-making.

Recent IPBES assessments, including those on Business and Biodiversity, Nexus, and Transformative Change, provide a strong basis for understanding how businesses and financial systems depend on and affect nature. Biodiversity monitoring, environmental accounting, risk frameworks and footprint tools are also advancing quickly.

Yet this knowledge does not automatically change decisions. Speakers pointed to a translation problem. Financial actors need evidence that is not only scientifically robust, but also relevant to specific decisions: lending, investment, insurance, supervision, disclosure, restoration planning or corporate strategy.

Financial actors need credible, context-specific, and fit-for-purpose approaches that are clear about what they measure, what they miss, and what level of confidence they provide. In some cases, detailed data are essential; in others, directionally sound assessments can already support better decisions.

Risk is an entry point

Central banks and international institutions focused on how nature degradation can become a financial stability issue.

Water risks offered a concrete example. Too little water, too much water, or polluted water can affect agriculture, industry, energy, infrastructure, food prices and insurance. Because sectors and institutions are connected, shocks can cascade through the economy. The discussions also showed why nature and climate risks cannot be treated separately. They interact, compound and often affect the same systems.

Risk assessment gives financial actors a practical entry point. It can help them understand exposure, stress-test assumptions and identify vulnerabilities in portfolios or business models. But risk analysis has limits. It can show how biodiversity loss may affect finance, without necessarily changing the activities that drive that loss. This tension ran through the workshop: finance needs to understand nature-related risks, while also examining its own role in creating them.

Participants noted that one of the biggest opportunities lies in redirecting what already exists: subsidies, public finance, private investment, business models, regulation, disclosure and market incentives.

Tools, governance and trust

The workshop explored several tools and approaches that can support better decisions. Examples ranged from biodiversity assessment methods and nature repair markets in Australia, to EU work on nature credits, portfolio-level approaches used by financial institutions, and biodiversity footprint tools such as the Global Biodiversity Score.

These tools can help financial and economic actors assess dependencies, identify risks, compare options, design safeguards and evaluate whether actions deliver real benefits for nature.

Participants also raised practical concerns: credibility, additionality, standardisation, demand, regulation, local benefits and safeguards. On nature credits, there was interest in their potential, paired with caution about copying carbon credit models too quickly. On environmental accounting, participants discussed how accounting can make nature more visible in economic decisions. They also raised more difficult questions about monetary valuation, aggregation and collective responsibility.

Tools need scientific credibility, transparency and governance. Without trust, they will struggle to shape decisions.

Breakout sessions

The afternoon breakout sessions brought the discussion closer to practice. Groups focused on traditional ecological knowledge, harmful incentives, environmental accounting, nature credits and the EU Nature Restoration Regulation.

Across these themes, similar questions kept returning. Who defines value? Who benefits from the status quo? Who carries the cost of transition? What should be standardised, and what must remain context-specific? How can local knowledge and local benefits be protected? What public policy environment is needed for private finance to move in the right direction?

The group on traditional ecological knowledge emphasised that such knowledge should not be treated simply as another dataset. It is a knowledge system, with its own values, governance and ways of understanding relationships with nature. It needs to be involved from the beginning. The group on the EU Nature Restoration Regulation also highlighted a shift in framing: restoration can be understood as an investment in resilience, territorial quality and long-term economic stability.

Towards COP17 and beyond

The final sessions connected the workshop to the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and preparations for COP17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Participants discussed how scientific evidence, including IPBES assessments, can support negotiators, inform policy guidance and help turn biodiversity commitments into concrete action for businesses and financial institutions.

A joint statement on nature-related financial risks was introduced during the event. It is currently being shared with participants for endorsement and will be communicated separately once finalised. The workshop will also feed into a forthcoming factsheet, drawing on the plenary discussions and breakout sessions.

For Biodiversa+, the event confirmed the importance of connecting biodiversity research with the actors who can use it. Nature-positive finance will require credible and usable science, policy environments that create the right incentives, and sustained dialogue between researchers, policymakers, financial actors, businesses and civil society.