Biodiversity and Infrastructure Investing

The report finds that while infrastructure investors have integrated climate change considerations, they lag in measuring other nature impacts like habitat change and pollution. It identifies physical and transition risks associated with biodiversity loss and highlights a shift toward 'nature-positive' investments driven by evolving regulations such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The document provides case studies of leading practices, including the use of eDNA soil testing and sustainability-linked loans, while noting that a lack of usable data remains a primary barrier to widespread adoption of quantitative biodiversity metrics.

• Infrastructure contributes to biodiversity loss through five primary nature impacts: climate change, habitat change, pollution, resource use, and invasive species spread.
• There is a significant gap in how investors assess different nature impacts; while 82% of surveyed investors assess climate change, only 12% assess the spread of invasive species.
• Infrastructure investors face physical risks from the degradation of ecosystem services and transition risks stemming from regulatory changes, investor sentiment, and consumer preferences.
• Investors in high-impact asset classes, such as energy, utilities, and transport, have integrated nature impacts more extensively than those in moderate-impact classes like digital or social infrastructure.
• The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) is the most used biodiversity framework among surveyed investors, though it has been adopted by only 31% of respondents.
• A perceived lack of usable data is the highest priority barrier preventing investors from further incorporating biodiversity considerations into decision-making.
• New regulatory mandates are emerging globally, such as the UK's Biodiversity Net Gain requirement, which mandates a 10% net gain in natural ecosystem coverage for certain projects from late 2025.
• Private investment in nature-based solutions remains limited, with only 3% of such projects globally sourcing 50% or more of their funding from private investors.
• Leading investors are adopting advanced techniques to quantify biodiversity, such as using DNA-based soil testing (eDNA) to detect species at commercial forestry sites.
• Financial institutions are beginning to link loan terms to sustainability performance, such as providing variable interest rates based on a borrower's ability to meet targets for GHG emissions or water use.

APA

Name, A. (2024). Biodiversity and Infrastructure Investing. WWF International. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/113/8o7lq2k7x_Biodiversity_and_infrastructure_investing_V5.pdf

Chicago

Name, Author. Biodiversity and Infrastructure Investing. WWF International, 2024. https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/113/8o7lq2k7x_Biodiversity_and_infrastructure_investing_V5.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Name |first1=Author |title=Biodiversity and Infrastructure Investing |publisher=WWF International |date=August 2024 |url=https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/113/8o7lq2k7x_Biodiversity_and_infrastructure_investing_V5.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{name2024biodiversity, author = {Name, Author}, title = {{Biodiversity and Infrastructure Investing}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2024}, month = aug, url = {https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/113/8o7lq2k7x_Biodiversity_and_infrastructure_investing_V5.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }