This document summarizes key challenges around mobilizing private finance for conservation. It notes that while large sums are claimed to be available for "green" investment, evidence of effective projects and actual investment is lacking. Barriers include the undervaluation of natural capital and lack of enabling policies/regulations. Information gaps also exist around reporting, monitoring and assessing impact. The document recommends government reforms to incentivize green investment, development of a body to connect projects and investors, and addressing information gaps through improved monitoring and assessment.

1. Problems and impediments in
conservation finance
International Research Roundtable:
Conservation Finance: Engaging Private Capital in Sustainability
Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Sudies
UBC, Vancouver
Terry Sunderland
Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia
23rd March 2018

2. Background
• Green finance is very attractive but there is weak
evidence of effectiveness of projects aligned with
climate action and sustainable development—both in
terms of measurable performance and value for money
• Apparent disconnect between the purported available,
or required, finance and the actual finance currently
invested in sustainable development
• What are the barriers to mobilizing private finance and
how can they be overcome?
• Numerous claims of the potential to ‘unlock’ trillions of
dollars of private finance for investment

3. “The future is sustainable development, and
sustainable landscapes. And frankly, that’s going to
be a five to seven trillion-dollar investment space
within 10 to 15 years. Every bank, every institutional
investor, is now turning its attention to this space”.
Mark Burrows, Credit Suisse, speaking at Global
Landscapes Forum, London, July 2016

4. And there’s more…
• To meet the investment needs of the Sustainable
Development Goals, the global community needs
to move the discussion from “billions” in ODA to
“trillions” in investments of all kinds: public and
private, national and global, in both capital and
capacity (ADB, 2015)
• Without a more rapid, scaled redeployment of
financing, we will lock in development
trajectories that hinder the realization of the
global goals and take us beyond the tipping
points for life-supporting climate and wider
ecosystems (Robins & Zadek, UNEP, 2016)

5. There are examples out there

6. However….
• Natural capital remains chronically under-valued
• Enabling political, regulatory and economic
conditions that would stimulate private sector
support to sustainable development are largely
missing
• While it’s often touted that trillions of dollars are
available for investment, literature providing
empirical evidence or actual figures are scarce

7. • Based on series existing systematic reviews on “landscape
approaches” and conservation finance
• Used snowballing methods to access additional literature
• First author had previous experience of the global financial
sector

8. Key findings (1)

9. Key findings (2)

10. Key findings (3)
• “……….over the next 25 years the costs of
investment is nearly identical for a low carbon
future of BAU and the low-carbon scenario is
actually less expensive. Even without factoring
in the cost savings from avoided climate-
related damages, the ‘action’ scenario implies
a total spend on energy of $190.2 trillion while
the ‘inaction’ scenario is actually marginally
larger at $192 trillion”

11. Summary of findings
• Policy reform needed to value natural capital
and incentivise green investments
• Centralised system that connects projects to
investors would build capacity and financial
literacy
• Information gaps persist in reporting,
monitoring and impact assessment

12. Recommendations
• Government and policy reform to create an
enabling investment environment and move
beyond voluntary financial commitments
• Develop an international convening informational
body to synthesize evidence and connect project
and investors to resources (c.f. Global Landscapes
Forum?)
• Bridging finance gaps and enhancing cost
effectiveness of projects through – monitoring,
reporting, impact assessment (addressing
information gaps)

13. Thank you!
terry.sunderland@ubc.ca
@TCHSunderland