Category: nature finance

Amidst calls to massively upscale finance for nature, it is easy for meaning to get lost behind numbers and the mobilisation of finance to be prioritised over on-the-ground impacts. Estimating financial flows for nature is hard, leading to an increasing focus on more easily quantified mechanisms such as markets. However, this can result in important sources of funding for nature to be overlooked.

Our previous work highlighted the water industry national environment programme (WINEP), which sets out the actions the water industry need to take to meet their environmental requirements, and is amongst the largest flows of environmental finance in England, despite the fact most people have never heard of it, at approximately £4bn per year. Understanding how to consider WINEP and other similar programmes is complex, as many of the actions are required in order to prevent, remediate, or compensate for environmental harm done by the water industry and must be considered within this context.

A new policy brief, written by Alice Stuart and Justin Adams and funded through an Agile Initiative Science to Policy grant, aims to begin demystifying WINEP as a source of nature finance, and discuss the questions that need to be answered for it to reach its full potential for nature and communities.

What is being done?

As might be expected, over 90% of WINEP actions relate to monitoring, investigating, preventing declines in, or improving water quality. The majority of this action is driven by the Environment Act (2021). Other actions address water resources (the amount of water available in rivers), driven primarily by the Water Environment Regulations (2017), and the natural environment, driven by a range of habitat and wildlife legislations.

How much of WINEP is for nature?

This is a surprisingly difficult question, as where water quality is a driver of ecological decline in a river, a grey infrastructural solution to improve it may do more than more direct restoration activities, meaning the line where actions become for nature is blurred. We used the Multilateral Development Bank’s nature finance taxonomy and found approximately 62% of actions to fall into one of the below categories:

a) Restoration and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services – approximately 250 actions, many of which are focused on working with communities to restore landscapes and habitats to improve water quality and water retention.

b) Reduction of the direct drivers of biodiversity loss – approximately 3,500 actions focused primarily on water quality where ecology or the environment was listed as a reason for improvement.

c) Integrating Nature-based Solutions (NbS) – approximately 750 actions that use green solutions which aren’t intrinsically good for biodiversity, such as sustainable drainage systems and water treatment wetlands, for non-ecological improvements such as to bathing water quality.

d) Design and implementation of policy, tools, or other sectoral instruments enabling (a) to (c) – approximately 7,000 actions consisting of water quality monitoring, and feasibility and optioneering studies for actions in the next asset management period.

Why does this matter?

Due to its scale, the way WINEP treats nature has substantial potential impact for nature outcomes in England. This is true not only for the economic scale, but also the spatial scale: water companies cover multiple catchments allowing integrated and landscape-scale actions that might not be possible for smaller organisations without support. In this way, it is encouraging to see a push to have nature more deeply integrated within WINEP including through the Mainstreaming Nature-based Solutions programme funded by the Ofwat Innovation Fund. It is becoming more common to look at catchment and community-based actions as a means of driving water quality improvements, thus providing wider benefit whilst meeting regulatory requirements. Whilst we recognise this approach is not always appropriate, with improvements to grey infrastructure remaining highly necessary in many cases, we push for continued integration of biodiversity beyond regulatory requirements.

How can greater integration of nature into WINEP be achieved?

Before answering the question of how better outcomes can be achieved, it is first important to commend the progress that has already been made. Existing and upcoming programmes such as Upstream Thinking, Smarter Water Catchments, and Headstart are taking a more integrated approach to river health, looking at how catchment-based interventions and habitat restoration might allow faster and more effective environmental improvements. Further progress will require work to better enable collaborative working, both between departments of water companies and outside organisations and communities. Further, it is essential that evaluation of solutions takes a long-term view of the potential benefits of landscape-scale approaches whilst still ensuring short-term harms are properly addressed.

Water industry environmental spending has the potential to act as an anchor flow for broader catchment investment, empowering communities and catchment partnerships to restore their local areas. The upcoming overhaul of water industry regulation allows the potential for changes to be made that promote catchment nature-based solutions where they are an effective approach to addressing environmental harms.

Find out more

Read the policy brief: Nature Finance within the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP)

This work was carried out as part of the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellowship for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism

This research was supported by the Agile Initiative at the Oxford Martin School and the Natural Environment Research Council as part of the Changing the Environment Programme (NERC grant reference number NE/W004976/1)

Photo: Nick Fewings/Unsplash

What IPBES is really telling us about finance – and why closing the nature finance gap will not be enough

Reflections from the CBA’s Reimagining Nature Finance Fellow Justin Adams

Over the past few years the conversation around nature finance has gathered remarkable momentum. New funds have been launched, disclosure frameworks developed and we’re seeing a genuine shift in awareness across business and finance as investors are recognising that biodiversity loss presents real economic risk.

This progress matters. Yet the latest data on nature finance, alongside the science emerging from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the UN-backed body assessing the state of global biodiversity, suggests we may still be asking the wrong question.

The deeper question may not simply be how we close the nature finance gap. It is whether we are willing to question the economic systems that continue to drive biodiversity loss in the first place, and whether we have the courage to imagine what might come next.

Earlier this week, speaking at a post-IPBES Business and Finance Summit gathering hosted by NatureAlpha at the Royal Society, I reflected on the evolution of scientific narrative from IPBES in the past few years and what it might mean for the future of nature finance.

We start in 2019 with the landmark IPBES Global Assessment. For many in the business community this was the first time biodiversity loss was framed in terms that resonated beyond conservation circles. Its conclusion was stark and critical: halting biodiversity loss would require transformative change across economic, social, political and technological systems.

At the time that phrase, “transformative change”, was widely cited but what would such transformation actually mean in practice?

To answer that question, IPBES undertook a major follow-up assessment on transformative change. Approved by governments at the end of 2024 at IPBES-11, this work represented more than three years of interdisciplinary research spanning economics, ecology, political science and the social sciences. Remarkably, its conclusions were endorsed by more than 150 governments.

The assessment identifies three underlying drivers of the biodiversity crisis: 

1. Our growing disconnection from nature, 
2. Deep and widening inequality, and
3. The dominance of short-term decision making. 

These are not simply environmental challenges. They point directly to the structure of our economic and political systems themselves.

Unless those underlying drivers are addressed, incremental improvements will fall short.

This brings us to the most recent IPBES report, the Business and Biodiversity Assessment approved at IPBES-12 earlier this year. The report was commissioned in recognition of the critical role that business and finance must play in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It sets out more than 100 concrete actions that companies can take to reduce biodiversity impacts and contribute to nature-positive outcomes.

This is an important step and reflects how far the conversation has moved in a relatively short period of time.

Yet the report itself also contains some striking messages. Its headline is clear:

“Businesses Can Either Lead Transformative Change or Risk Extinction.”

As Professor Stephen Polasky, one of the co-chairs of the assessment, puts it:

“The twisted reality is that it often seems more profitable to degrade biodiversity than to protect it.”

And among its recommendations is a direct call for systemic reform:

“Drive systemic change in financial systems to minimise harm, address drivers of loss, and align returns with positive outcomes for biodiversity and society.” (Action B2.1)

These are powerful statements. But they also reveal the tension at the heart of the current debate.

The progress we are seeing today is real. New tools, new disclosures and new financial commitments are important. Yet the deeper scientific analysis emerging from IPBES suggests that much more profound change will ultimately be required.

A good example is the way the challenge is often framed as a “nature finance gap”. According to the latest State of Finance for Nature report, around $7.3 trillion of financial flows each year continue to drive nature loss, while roughly $220 billion supports nature-positive activities.

Much of the debate therefore focuses on scaling up that $220 billion.

But the real question is why $7.3 trillion still flows in the opposite direction.

Seen in this light, the challenge is not just a finance gap. It is a systemic design flaw.

Our economies are sustained by far more than market transactions alone. Nature regulates water cycles, stabilises climate and sustains food systems. Communities steward landscapes. Public institutions safeguard shared resources. These non-market foundations are rarely captured in economic accounts, yet without them markets would simply not function.

If we take the science of transformative change seriously, the challenge ahead is therefore not only to scale today’s financial tools but to begin exploring what new economic architectures might look like.

Through my role as Reimagining Nature Finance Fellow with the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance, much of my recent work has focused on exactly this question. Last year we published a flagship report exploring how nature finance might be reimagined if the findings emerging from IPBES are taken seriously.

Encouragingly, early signals of change are beginning to emerge. Experiments in place-based finance, regenerative economic models and the growing momentum behind movements such as Rights of Nature all point toward ways in which economic systems may begin to recognise the value of living ecosystems more explicitly.

These initiatives remain small relative to the scale of the challenge. But they point to something important: the need to create more space to imagine, explore and test what genuinely transformative change might look like.

This is not about dismissing the progress that has been made. It is about recognising that the journey has only just begun.

The science emerging from IPBES is increasingly clear. Transformative change will require more than improving the system we have. It will require the courage to begin exploring what might come next.

Photo of Justin: Ines Stuart-Davidson for Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Read more about the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellowship for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism

Alice Stuart, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery explores some of the work being carried out within the CBA Reimagining Nature Finance fellowship to understand financial flows to nature.

How much finance is flowing in service of life? This feels like it should be a relatively straightforward question, and an important one, particularly in light of the growing calls to upscale nature finance. Countries worldwide have committed to dramatic increases in financial flows to nature, both through Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and individual national policies, but what does this actually mean and how will we know when it’s happened?

Understanding financial flows to nature is essential, not only to track our progress towards commitments and targets, but also to know if what we are doing is working and where change is needed. Current estimates of nature finance (such as the UN’s State of Finance for Nature 2026) reveal global trends, including the extent to which financial flows in service of nature continue to be dwarfed by flows that are directly harmful. Whilst this lets us know how far we have to go, the assumptions and generalisations required to create a global estimate mean they are unable to show what is happening on the ground, preventing them from being used to set or direct local and for national policy. To address this gap, we asked the question:

What happens if you try to map an entire country’s nature finance flows?

Our new preprint presents much of my last eight months working with Sophus zu Ermgassen to track nature finance flows in the UK using publicly available data. The headline is that we found just over £1bn in total trackable financial flows to nature, with most of this coming from public sources (mainly agri-environment schemes). Perhaps surprisingly, these schemes are funded year-on-year by the sale of green bonds and gilts, so could be argued to be of private origin (more on this later). More interesting to me than the overall numbers, however, was the difficulty in coming to them, even for a country with strong nature finance commitments and relatively good financial transparency.

First, you need to work out what counts. Nature finance definitions tend to be either circular, fuzzy, or both, generally along the lines of “finance that contributes to the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”. Although this works in theory, in practice it makes it very difficult to classify flows that might indirectly benefit nature at some unknown time in the future. To address this, we took a very narrow definition, focusing on funds disbursed through schemes or transactions that were specifically focused on investment in ecosystems and/or species. This has the disadvantage of excluding some financial flows but allows us to be more confident in our estimate.

Next, you need to find the information. This often requires navigating many individual websites and reports, often to find no numbers at all (particularly for private finance). Or, and perhaps more alarmingly, numbers that on the surface look relevant but upon digging include no direct investment in nature, for example mainstream banks’ sustainable finance figures, which largely consisted of sustainable mortgages and loans for electric vehicles. In other cases, such as agri-environment schemes, only some of the headline figure reported was directly invested in nature, requiring analysis of the individual actions funded to estimate the relevant proportion. This is not always possible; many flows will report the amounts, but without transparency around what has been funded it is impossible to know the contribution to conservation goals.

Then, once you have the numbers, you need to work out how to combine them. Inconsistencies in reporting mean the figures given cover different time periods (both in terms of the years reported for and the period reported, whether financial or calendar year), or represent different aspects of a flow (budget, all costs, disbursements, awards, etc.), all making it complicated coming to a final figure.

Finally, you need to consider the actors involved and the interactions between them. Otherwise, if finance is flowing between multiple actors included in the analysis, it is likely to result in double counting. Only by considering the interactions can you assess the interlinkages between funding sources and understand the bigger picture.

So, given these difficulties, what can we learn from this analysis?

The first learning is the difficulties. This work gives us empirical evidence that more transparency of reporting is desperately required to understand the likely conservation impacts of nature finance flows and build a more cohesive and effective nature finance ecosystem. Secondly, even with gaps, this analysis gives us a better understanding of financial flows for nature:

Public finance remains the dominant source of investment in ecosystems and species in the UK, largely through agri-environment schemes and carbon-storing habitat creation grants, showing a focus on investments with multiple benefits for people and nature. This means what the government pays landowners for will be one of the largest drivers of conservation in the UK.

Private financial flows for nature (or at least those in the public domain) are much smaller, particularly when you only consider returns-seeking finance.

However, there are widespread transparency issues around private finance so that it is impossible to properly quantify current private investment in ecosystems and species. Transparency is particularly poor when considering operational expenditure, which may be massive (particularly where industries are subject to environmental regulations), resulting in a potentially incredibly valuable source of finance for nature being overlooked during policy and priority setting.

Finally, the lines between public and private finance become blurred when you look hard enough. Government reporting suggests public spending on nature through agri-environment schemes and grant programs is funded year-on-year through the sale of green bonds and gilts (fixed income investment instruments issued by the Government). Previously, it has often been assumed public finance for nature is raised through general taxation, but the use of green bonds and gilts means it could be argued to be of private origin, with investors paid through general government taxation rather than profit from the biodiversity actions.

Whilst the results are limited to the UK in geographic scope, their relevance isn’t. Given the UK’s increasing focus on harnessing private finance, the lack of transparent private financial flows indicates a systemic difficulty in aligning private financial interests with those of nature. Further, the results speak to the need for a radical increase in transparency of financial reporting, both to know what is currently being done and to know how it must change to better align with life.

Find out more about the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellowship for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism

Image: HeyKun/Adobe Stock

Justin Adams, CBA Reimagining Nature Finance Fellow

Two years ago I stepped away from a high-profile role at the frontier of nature finance. For nearly two decades I worked to make nature investable and build coalitions for action, believing these efforts could tip the balance. Yet for all this effort, nature loss was still accelerating. I began to see how much of what we called progress was simply greening the system rather than transforming it. That was when I realised the deeper challenge: the question is not only how we mobilise more nature finance, but how we confront the nature of finance itself.

Our financial system is extraordinarily resilient. It speaks the language of change, yet its core logics remain intact: the pursuit of risk-adjusted returns, the primacy of financial capital, and the illusion of endless growth. As long as we stay in that orbit, most innovations are absorbed back into the dominant system. We cannot simply optimise, we must also reimagine.

Today we launch an essay that is the first fruit of the Fellowship I am shaping with the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance. Together with the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery at Oxford and my colleagues at Ostara, the essay diagnoses design flaws in today’s system, explores how finance might be redesigned for life, and offers glimpses of alternatives already taking root. Its core message is simple. We must walk a twin trail. One foot inside the system, pushing it to its limits. One foot outside, imagining and nurturing what cannot yet fit. Both paths are essential if we are to shift from breakdown toward renewal.

The essay also served as a pre-read for an imaginal gathering we held earlier in September in Wytham Woods outside Oxford, co-hosted with the Leverhulme Centre. Designed by Ostara and Kate Raworth of Doughnut Economics Action Lab, it brought forty leaders together under canvas and in the forest. We asked not only what must change in finance, but what it might mean to imagine it working differently.

Around fire circles and walking dialogues we asked three simple questions. What must we let go of in the current system. Where can we push harder from within. What might it mean to step outside altogether. As we stress-tested the essay’s provocations, a set of seeds began to take shape.

Among them were ideas for a future generations fund that puts tomorrow’s citizens and nature in the room for investment decisions. A bioregional treasury in Gabon to sustain intact landscapes and shared livelihoods. A networked forest of community-led organisations, using digital tools to make hidden ecological and social value visible and exchangeable. And a Wytham Woods Invitation to gather these insights into clear principles for the road ahead.

None of these is a finished blueprint. They are living experiments, fragile and full of potential. What matters is not whether every seed grows, but that they stretch our imagination of what finance might become if we unshackle it from what we assume is fixed. They complement the essay’s core argument and invite us to glimpse a future that is not yet visible, but possible. We can add to them. And we need more spaces for reimagining, with more support for bold experiments that push the boundaries of what finance can be. Wytham showed what becomes possible when we create room to dream together.

The path ahead will be shaped by the choices we make about finance. It can continue to accelerate collapse, or it can be redesigned in service to life.

This essay serves as a provocation. I invite you to read it, sit with its questions, and join us in asking: what kind of finance would truly serve life?

Designing for Life: Reimagining Nature Finance
Circular Bioeconomy Alliance, Ostara, Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford

Download the pdf

Justin Adams is the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellow for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism. Read more

Photo: Samuel Sutherland

Later this week a remarkable group will gather in Wytham Woods, the ancient woodland on the edge of Oxford. The gathering forms part of the CBA Fellowship on Reimagining Nature Finance, and is hosted in partnership with the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery at the University of Oxford.

The studio has been co-designed by Ostara and Kate Raworth, whose thinking on Doughnut Economics continues to inspire new ways of shaping finance in service to life. The CBA is proud to support this experimental convening, recognising the urgent need to reimagine financial systems so they can help restore balance with the living world.

For three days participants will camp together in the woods, stepping away from the pace of daily work to create the conditions for deeper imagination. The aim is to explore the edges of the current system: how far can we push existing finance to serve life, and what models and tools can be trialled within it to unlock transformation. At the same time, we will look for emergent approaches that sit outside today’s system but may hold the potential to scale and shift the field of nature finance altogether.

The design of the studio is intentionally immersive. Time in nature, shared meals, and space for reflection will balance structured sessions on key themes. The hope is to create an environment where new ideas can be tested, trusted relationships can form, and bold possibilities can surface.

This work builds on the CBA Fellowship’s commitment to finding new pathways and partnerships for aligning finance with the living world. At the end of September, we will be publishing a long-form essay, Designing for Life: Reimagining Nature Finance, offering a wider audience the chance to engage with the ideas discussed at this unique gathering.

We look forward to sharing reflections as the seeds planted in the woods begin to grow.

Photo: Wolfgang Hasselmann, Unsplash

Justin Adams is the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellow for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism. Read more

Reflections from the Circle

By Mere Takoko, CBA Ambassador, and Justin Adams, CBA Reimagining Nature Finance Fellow

As part of the first Harmony Summit at Highgrove House in early July, the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance facilitated two of the four intimate dialogue circles. One of these focused on Reimagining Nature Finance. Twenty people gathered in the gardens, bringing together Indigenous leaders, finance practitioners, scientists and policy thinkers to sit with one powerful question:

What if finance were truly in service of life?

The meeting started with the Pacific Whale Fund as an example to open the conversation. CBA Ambassador Mere Takoko, who co-founded the Fund with economist Ralph Chami, described how it brings together Indigenous governance, science and finance in service of the ocean. She spoke of whales not as biodiversity or carbon assets, but as ancestors, and of the need for finance to honour that sacredness.

Ralph shared how science can make nature’s value visible to markets, not to commodify it, but to redirect private capital at the scale needed for protection. His decades in global finance have shown him that shifting market flows can be a powerful lever, but only if the work remains grounded in ecological truth.

From there, the conversation widened. Indigenous leaders from the Caribbean, Aotearoa, the Amazon, Hawai‘i and Colombia, alongside finance experts, conservationists and system innovators, shared experiences of protecting land and water. Principles voiced again and again included reducing intermediaries between funders and communities, recognising cultural and spiritual value alongside ecological and financial measures, ensuring local governance of funds, and supporting livelihoods with dignity.

As the discussion deepened, a central tension came into view. Should we work to reform the current financial system, adjusting incentives and redirecting flows? Or should we reimagine finance entirely, drawing on values and cosmologies that have sustained life for millennia? Some argued that after decades of incremental change, transformation will only come through new models. Others saw urgent opportunities to work within existing systems while building the bridges to what comes next.

Rather than seeking a resolution, the group recognised the need to walk both paths, improving what exists while also prototyping finance that truly reflects relational values and ecological rhythms.

The session closed with a shared sense of possibility and responsibility. In the words of one participant, the Earth already knows how to heal. Our task is to listen more deeply and learn how to get out of her way.

More information

The Harmony Summit was organised by The King’s Foundation in partnership with the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance and the Earth Elders. It brought together indigenous leaders, practitioners and policy makers with the aim of listening and learning from each other, and to explore how Harmony in practice can be embedded across a range of sectors, landscapes and geographies. Read more

Justin Adams is the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellow for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism. Read more

Photo: Courtney Louise Photography / The King’s Foundation

A fantastic opportunity for a Postdoctoral Researcher to be a part of the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellowship for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism, embedded within the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery at the University of Oxford.

The researcher will lead interdisciplinary research focused on reimagining nature finance to support people and nature, with an emphasis on transitioning from extractive systems to regenerative, nature-positive economies. The role involves exploring innovative finance mechanisms, non-market approaches, and cultural, financial, and power dynamics that hinder transformation, contributing to high-impact academic outputs and practical solutions.

Working closely with the Fellow and other partners from the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance as well as across the Centre, the post holder will synthesise insights from research and dialogue processes, contributing to systemic change in nature finance. The post holder will be part of a dynamic, collaborative research environment, engaging with global stakeholders, including financial institutions, Indigenous leaders, and local communities.

Key research areas include:

• Investigate innovative financing models for circular bioeconomy businesses and value chains, such as food, fashion, and health.
• Explore non-market mechanisms for nature recovery, including payments for stewardship and cooperative models prioritising ecosystem health and community well-being.
• Analyse cultural, financial, and power barriers to transformative finance, incorporating insights from diverse communities and stakeholders.
• Collaborate on dialogue platforms and multidisciplinary gatherings to share research insights and co-create actionable frameworks for nature-positive systems.

The closing date for applications is midday on 30 April 2025

More information, job specification and application details

The Circular Bioeconomy Alliance is delighted to announce the appointment of Justin Adams OBE as the first CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellow for Reimagining Nature Finance and Inclusive Capitalism.

The Fellowship aims to pioneer a new understanding of how nature finance can catalyse transformative economic change and address the pressing social, economic and environmental challenges of our time. It also emphasises inclusivity, to help ensure that the voices of local communities, including Indigenous Peoples, are central to shaping new financial mechanisms.

Endowed by the Eranda Rothschild Foundation, the CBA’s Fellowship explores innovative financial and policy frameworks to support the transition towards a circular bioeconomy, delivering both cutting-edge insights and practical, actionable solutions.

The Fellowship will go beyond voluntary markets for carbon and biodiversity credits, focusing on a broader vision for a nature-positive economy that recognises nature as a critical engine of long-term prosperity. This includes, for example, exploring hybrid models and non-market mechanisms that drive ecological restoration and equitable economic development, as well as developing an understanding of financial, cultural and power barriers.

Justin Adams brings a unique blend of experience from institutional finance, government advisory and the environmental sector. As co-founder of Ostara, Justin is leading work to reimagine systems and inspire transformative change through nature connection and collective imagination. This aligns directly with the ambition of the Fellowship: to catalyse bold, systemic change by addressing the root causes of ecological and societal challenges. With over 30 years of experience, Justin has held senior roles with Generation Investment Management, The Nature Conservancy, and the World Economic Forum, providing him with a well-rounded perspective on the intersections of finance, nature recovery, and sustainable development.  Justin also serves as an Advisory Board member and is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery (LCNR) at the University of Oxford. This will ground the Fellowship in cutting-edge research on ecosystem restoration and Nature-based Solutions. Ostara through Justin will complement this by bringing expertise in fostering transformative dialogue processes, ensuring the Fellowship not only generates new insights but also drives meaningful, systemic change.

Justin Adams said: “We are at a pivotal moment and urgently need to reverse ecological decline. To do this, we must go beyond incremental change and embrace bold, imaginative solutions that address the root causes of our crises. This Fellowship, created by the visionary leadership of the CBA and the Eranda Rothschild Foundation, offers a unique opportunity to combine rigorous research with inclusive, community-driven dialogue. Together, we can reimagine how we value and finance nature, unlocking a future where people and the planet can thrive in harmony. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this transformative work.”

Marc Palahí, CBA CEO said: “Justin’s leadership and experience in the finance, private and public sectors will ensure that the Fellowship makes a transformative contribution to reimagining finance around nature and people to catalyse the circular bioeconomy transition that our world needs.”

Michael Clyne, Executive Director of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism which has collaborated with the CBA for the Fellowship, said: “Throughout his distinguished career and study, Justin has built diverse coalitions and incubated unique solutions at the heart of inclusive capitalism.  As the CBA Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fellow, he will help drive the next generation of nature-based solutions, ensuring that our financial ecosystem also supports the resilience of our natural ecosystem.”

Read more about the launch of the Fellowship at St James’s Palace in November 2024, including comment from Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Trustee of the Eranda Rothschild Foundation.