Finance Against Nature: How $7 Trillion in Capital Destroys Biodiversity Each Year

Each year, nearly $7 trillion in public and private capital supports activities that destroy ecosystems, completely overshadowing the sums allocated to nature protection. A report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) quantifies this abyssal imbalance and outlines paths to realign finance with the living world. Between reforming harmful subsidies, green taxation, and deploying new economic instruments, solutions are emerging, led by pioneering countries like Costa Rica and New Zealand.

The Financial Chasm: $7 Trillion in Harmful Capital Against $200 Billion for Conservation

The global economy operates on a destructive paradox: it finances its own ecological ruin. According to UNEP's "State of Finance for Nature 2023" report, financial flows with negative impacts on biodiversity are estimated at nearly $7 trillion per year. This colossal figure includes private investments and public subsidies that encourage practices harmful to the environment. Against this, funding dedicated to nature conservation and restoration, whether public or private, caps at approximately $200 billion annually [3]. The imbalance is crushing: for every dollar invested in nature protection, thirty-five dollars are directed toward activities that degrade it.

Public subsidies constitute a significant portion of these toxic flows. A previous OECD report, "Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action," already highlighted several hundred billion dollars in direct aid that undermines environmental objectives. Support for fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change that devastates ecosystems, amounted to $370 billion alone in 2015. Intensive agriculture, encouraged by $100 billion in potentially harmful subsidies in OECD countries alone, promotes monoculture, excessive pesticide use, and soil and water degradation. The fishing sector, with $35 billion in global aid, is pushed toward overcapacity and depletion of fish stocks [1].

Source: OECD, Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action, 2019. [1]

This financial hemorrhage only worsens the chronic funding deficit for nature. Experts from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) estimate annual needs between $150 and $440 billion just to achieve global conservation objectives [1]. The math doesn't add up, and the cost of inaction – biodiversity erosion, loss of vital ecosystem services like pollination or water purification – amounts to thousands of billions of dollars for the global economy.

Reforming Incentives: Green Taxation as the First Lever of Action

The first step to bridging this chasm is to stop digging. Reforming harmful subsidies is the most powerful lever for redirecting capital. It involves dismantling mechanisms that artificially make destructive activities profitable. Switzerland has shown the way by reforming its agricultural policy to condition public aid on practices beneficial to biodiversity [1]. This reorientation not only reduces pressure on ecosystems but also frees massive budgetary resources that can be reinvested in ecological transition.

Additionally, environmental taxation offers a double advantage: it generates revenue while creating price signals that discourage pollution and resource overexploitation. Taxes on pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, or carbon emissions incentivize economic actors to adopt more virtuous practices. The revenue generated, estimated at $7.4 billion per year for biodiversity-related taxes alone in the OECD, can then be allocated to conservation programs. Similarly, fees for natural resource use, such as national park entrance fees or fishing permits, bring in $2.29 billion annually and are often directly reinvested in sustainable management of the ecosystems concerned [1].

Paying for Nature: The Success of Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica

Beyond fiscal reform, new economic instruments allow direct compensation for conservation. Costa Rica is a global pioneer with its "Pago por Servicios Ambientales" (PSA) program, launched in 1996. The principle is simple: landowners receive financial compensation for the services their forests provide to society, such as carbon sequestration, water flow regulation, biodiversity protection, and landscape beauty.

This program, financed partly by a fuel tax, has created a viable economic model for conservation. In 2012, it mobilized $42.4 million, contributing to increasing the country's forest cover from 21% in 1987 to more than 50% today [1]. Costa Rica's success has inspired many other countries. Similar large-scale programs now exist in China (with the "Grain for Green" program that mobilized $69 billion for reforestation of marginal agricultural land) and the United States (the "Conservation Reserve Program" that compensates farmers for setting aside fragile land, with a budget of $1.8 billion in 2017) [1]. These Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) demonstrate that it is possible to create economic value by protecting nature, rather than only by exploiting it.

Toward a "Nature-Positive" Economy: New Zealand's Example

Faced with the erosion of its unique biodiversity, with more than 4,000 threatened species, New Zealand has embarked on a profound overhaul of its economic approach. The country has launched a comprehensive evaluation of its biodiversity-related financial flows through the UN's BIOFIN initiative, conducted by the University of Otago. The vision is clear: build a "strong and nature-positive economy" as a legacy for future generations [2].

This approach relies on a new indicator, the "Biodiversity Investment Ratio" (BIR), which relates nature investments to GDP. The finding of a declining BIR served as a wake-up call, pushing the government to actively seek levers to reverse the trend. The BIOFIN evaluation doesn't just count expenditures; it analyzes their effectiveness, identifies institutional bottlenecks, and proposes a financing plan to fill the deficit. By integrating natural capital value at the heart of its economic strategy, New Zealand is exploring a promising path to align prosperity and ecological sustainability, offering a model for other developed nations.

Mobilizing the Private Sector: The New Front of Biodiversity Finance

The transition to an economy that regenerates nature cannot happen without massive mobilization of private capital. Investors and financial institutions have a crucial role to play in orienting the $55 trillion in assets they manage in the OECD zone alone [1]. Several green financial instruments are beginning to emerge, though they remain marginal.

Impact investing, which aims for financial returns while generating measurable environmental benefits, saw $6.84 billion in assets allocated to conservation in 2017. Green bonds, though primarily focused on climate, are beginning to integrate biodiversity criteria, as France did with its sovereign green bond that channeled €1.55 billion toward conservation [1].

However, the greatest challenge remains greening entire investment portfolios. This requires systematic integration of biodiversity-related risks and opportunities in financial decisions, better corporate transparency on their dependencies and impacts on nature, and development of robust methodologies to measure the "biodiversity" performance of investments. The financial sector is at a tipping point: it can continue financing the destruction of ecosystems it depends on, or become the engine of an economy that finally recognizes that nature's wealth is the foundation of all other forms of wealth.

Ten Priorities for Large-Scale Action

The OECD report identifies ten priority action areas for governments to amplify their efforts. These recommendations aim to create a coherent political and economic framework capable of mobilizing all societal actors.

1. A robust global framework for post-2020: Adopting global biodiversity targets that are specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) is fundamental to galvanizing national action.

2. Mobilizing non-state actors: The Sharm El-Sheikh to Kunming Action Agenda for nature and people aims to gather commitments from businesses, cities, and civil society.

3. Ensuring public policy coherence: Biodiversity objectives must be integrated into all national strategies (economic growth, agriculture, energy, etc.) to identify and manage synergies and trade-offs.

4. Integrating biodiversity into economic incentives: This means going beyond simply reforming harmful subsidies to create an incentive system that systematically rewards nature-positive practices.

5. Establishing transparent financial monitoring: Setting up comparable national and international monitoring systems for biodiversity-related financing is essential to measure progress and ensure accountability.

6. Reforming harmful subsidies: Determined action to identify, assess, and reform subsidies harmful to biodiversity is an absolute priority.

7. Facilitating financial sector engagement: Governments must create an environment conducive to private investment in biodiversity, particularly by clarifying regulatory frameworks and developing risk measurement tools.

8. Evaluating and communicating socio-economic impacts: Better communication about our economies' dependence on nature and the costs of inaction is necessary to strengthen public support for action.

9. Ensuring a just and equitable transition: The transformation toward a nature-positive economy must consider social impacts and ensure costs and benefits are shared equitably.

10. Improving data and indicators: Investing in data collection and developing robust indicators is indispensable for effectively steering biodiversity policies and measuring their results [1].

All these actions form a comprehensive roadmap to escape the current schizophrenia, where public policies finance both the problem and, to a much lesser extent, the solution. The biodiversity crisis is not inevitable but the result of economic and political choices. By massively redirecting financial flows, it is still possible to build an economy that prospers in harmony with nature, not at its expense.

References

[1] OECD (2019), Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity-finance-and-the-economic-and-business-case-for-action.htm

[2] BIOFIN (2025), A shift in New Zealand's economic policy today restores our children's future, https://www.biofin.org/news-and-media/shift-new-zealands-economic-policy-today-restores-our-childrens-future

[3] United Nations Environment Programme (2023), State of Finance for Nature 2023, https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature-2023

Receive the Journal's analyses directly in your inbox.

Also Read

China's CO2 Emissions Stagnate for 21 Months: Structural Peak or Economic Accident?

China's CO2 emissions fell by 0.3% in 2025. It's a modest figure. But it extends a trend that has lasted for 21 consecutive months: since March 2024, emissions from the world's largest polluter have been "stable or declining."

AI and Employment: Two March 2026 Studies Reveal -13% Automatable Job Postings and +20% Augmented Roles

Does AI destroy jobs? Two studies published in March 2026 — one by Harvard Business School, the other by Anthropic — provide the first solid empirical data. And the answer is more nuanced than public debate suggests.

The Malaria Vaccine in Nigeria: 200,000 Children Vaccinated and a 50% Drop in Cases in Kebbi State

Malaria killed 608,000 people in 2022, including 95% in sub-Saharan Africa and 78% children under five. And for the first time, a vaccine deployed at large scale shows measurable results in the field.