Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document critiques the 'Green Economy' and 'green growth' frameworks, asserting that they redefine nature as a collection of 'ecosystem services' to create new financial markets. It argues that these markets, particularly biodiversity and carbon offsets, serve as cost-cutting tools for corporations to bypass environmental regulations and maintain industrial production. The report highlights the risks to indigenous and traditional communities, including loss of territorial control and the imposition of opaque contracts. It provides examples of failed offsetting programs in the EU, Australia, Brazil, and Namibia, concluding that financialization is a 'false solution' that exacerbates ecological crises.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Financialization of nature involves redefining nature as a series of 'ecosystem services' that can be quantified and broken into individual units to enable the sale of rights to those units for profit.
  • Ecosystem service markets function as a mechanism for corporations to reduce the cost of complying with environmental laws and to obtain a 'social license' to continue destroying nature in one location by paying to protect it elsewhere.
  • The financialization of nature threatens the rights of indigenous and traditional communities by establishing new property titles that can reduce their access to and control over their territories.
  • Analysis of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) contracts reveals that they are often written in English without adequate translation, contain strict confidentiality clauses, and use obscure language to limit community understanding and legal recourse.
  • The report claims that nature offsetting programs have failed to stop biodiversity loss; for instance, in the EU, at least 52% of species and 65% of habitats remain at risk of extinction despite such initiatives.
  • Economic valuation of nature can lead to the devaluation of ecosystems when the specific service being paid for is no longer economically useful, as seen in Costa Rica where forests protecting bees became worthless when coffee farmers switched to pineapples.
  • Specific examples of financialization include Brazil's 2012 Forest Code, which introduced 'forest restoration credits' (CRA) traded on the Bolsa Verde do Rio de Janeiro, and uranium mining in Namibia's central Namib desert using biodiversity offsetting to create a 'green' brand.

Cite the original document

APA
Kill, J. (2015). Financialization of Nature. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FoEI-financialization-of-nature-ENG.pdf
Chicago
Kill, Jutta. Financialization of Nature. Friends of the Earth International, 2015. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FoEI-financialization-of-nature-ENG.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Kill |first1=Jutta |title=Financialization of Nature |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=2015 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FoEI-financialization-of-nature-ENG.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{kill2015financialization, author = {Kill, Jutta}, title = {{Financialization of Nature}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2015}, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FoEI-financialization-of-nature-ENG.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated