With its 256 pages, Financing Nature resembles a tome more than a report, but it comprehensively summarises the various channels we have for increasing investments in nature. I say comprehensive because it ranges from what governments can do (e.g. eliminate harmful subsidies), to the finance sector (‘greening finance’ as well as ‘financing green’), private sector investors (from philanthropy to capital markets) and corporations (supply chain commitments, offsets and green accounting).

The scope of the research is biodiversity – a natural extension of previous efforts to analyse investments in climate change. There are many areas of overlap between the two types of investments, and one often has the other as a ‘co-benefit’ – say, when an effort to restore forests as a climate mitigation tool brings with it the restoration of flora and fauna.

Some numbers: the authors identify a ‘biodiversity financing gap’ – the difference between what we spend today and what we need to spend to safeguard nature - of $711 billion per year. This necessarily is an estimate and one which is based on a range, and numerous assumptions. But numbers are important because they catch decision makers’ attention and give us a starting point for the discussion of alternatives.

One of the ‘central insights’ of the report is the importance of government actions. For example, hidden in the conclusion on supply chains, but in full view (or is that because of confirmation bias on my part?), is this: National regulation on biodiversity protection is one of the strongest incentives for supply chain actors to avoid and reduce harm to biodiversity. We need the private sector to change course, but the private sector needs governments to put in place incentives and laws which make it logical to do so.

At the report’s launch, Kristalina Georgieva of the IMF wholeheartedly endorsed the report’s findings and underlined her institution’s commitment to biodiversity. That would not have been the case five years ago: not that the IMF was against discussions on nature – it just did not think it had much to do with macroeconomics. That mindset, fortunately, has changed as it has become increasingly clear just how much economic growth, sovereign debt and financial sector stability depend on the risks (and opportunities) the natural environment presents us with.