The recent UN Biodiversity Conference in Montreal, also referred to as COP15, has helped move the issue of biodiversity up the agenda of companies, policy makers, and investors. The phrase increasingly being used is ‘nature positive’, the idea that the true economic value of nature should be accounted for and that the world should go beyond mere damage limitation. By agreeing a set of rules and standards that encourages nature positive capital allocation, there is an ambitious target of reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 and restoring natural ecosystems by 2050.
This is easier said than done. Biodiversity, which refers to the variety and abundance of life on Earth, is an even tougher nut to crack than climate change. The assessment tools available are also less developed than in other areas of sustainability. For example, investors wanting to compare the climate impact of different projects or portfolios can use a now widely adopted metric called CO2-equivalent to assess emissions of different greenhouse gases using the same scale.
A lack of common standards for biodiversity is problematic
There is no similar benchmark metric for biodiversity. While emissions into the atmosphere contribute to climate change regardless of where they occur, the effects of human interactions with nature differ widely from one location to another. What’s devastating in one place might have minimal impact in another. Each ecosystem has its own unique combination of soils, minerals, water, climatic conditions, and other factors that make it hard to devise metrics that can be broadly applied.
A global disclosure standard based on several complementary metrics is possible and it is encouraging that the International Sustainability Standards Board is planning to add biodiversity to the IFRS sustainability disclosure standards. However, at present, one company might report the number of hectares of land it protects, while a peer in the same industry reports how many species of trees it plants. Working out which is doing more good for nature is a tough ask.
Requiring similar firms to share the same information, so that one investment’s impacts and dependencies on nature can be directly compared against another, would be a significant step towards unlocking the financing needed to tackle the biodiversity threat. So too would aligning standards internationally and, where possible, integrating new rules with existing climate standards to reduce costs and friction. This is for the same planet, after all.
The risk of inaction
Ignoring the issue because it’s complex is not an option either. There are huge risks associated with inaction, most obviously for nature itself but also for businesses and investment portfolios. There are physical risks - many businesses depend on natural processes, such as crop pollination for agriculture. There are transition risks - companies failing to prepare could find themselves on the wrong side of new regulation aimed at ending deforestation or protecting nature. And there are reputational and litigation risks for firms found to be causing harm.
On the international stage, the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), modelled on the earlier Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), is due to be finalised in 2023. TCFD reporting is already mandatory for some activities in the UK and Switzerland and is due to be rolled out in jurisdictions around the world. The same ought to happen with TNFD in time.
Around half of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature, according to the World Economic Forum. Either we change our way of life to preserve natural capital, or we deplete it and have to change how we live anyway. Giving investors tools like the right data they need in order to act on biodiversity is an important step.
This information is for investment professionals only and should not be relied upon by private investors. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Investors should note that the views expressed may no longer be current and may have already been acted upon. Changes in currency exchange rates may affect the value of an investment in overseas markets. A focus on securities of companies which maintain strong environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) credentials may result in a return that at times compares unfavourably to similar products without such focus. No representation nor warranty is made with respect to the fairness, accuracy or completeness of such credentials. The status of a security’s ESG credentials can change over time. Issued by FIL Pensions Management, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Financial Administration Services Limited, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Fidelity International, the Fidelity International logo and F symbol are trademarks of FIL Limited.
The information, materials or opinions contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice of any kind.
We make no warranties, representations or undertakings about any of the content of this website; including without limitation any representations as to the quality, accuracy, completeness or fitness of any particular purpose of such content, or in relation to any content of articles provided by third parties and displayed on this website or any website referred to or accessed by hyperlinks through this website.
Although we make reasonable efforts to update the information on this site, we make no representations, warranties or guarantees whether express or implied that the content on our site is accurate complete or up to date.
Sign up to our regular newsletter, for first-rate analysis and opinion on all matters affecting financial advisers. You can unsubscribe at any time.
You can also connect with us on social media by clicking on the icons below. We are on LinkedIn and Twitter.