WILLIAMS The toolkit is a wonderful and useful resource for investors to access what is a real bounty of new reports, frameworks and initiatives happening in this space. But in itself it is nothing new. It is a toolkit to enable investors to go to existing resources in a relatively efficient way. It is the next in the series of toolkits RIAA has developed covering a range of issues.

Over last couple of years, we have had more than 800 conversations with investors – in Australia and overseas. The reactions we get from them are now pretty clear and consistent. In other words, what is making some investors lean into this conversation and start to believe there is something in it, versus what is making other investors lean away from nature, is relatively consistent.

The things that are making investors step away are really concerning. It is based on a fundamental disconnection from what nature is – which is everything and all around us – and a sense that nature is ‘new’. This leads to some investors concluding that they are busy on climate and are doing alright on modern slavery so something on nature can be next on the list.

The idea that nature is just coming up on our list of sustainable development priorities is offensive and it’s also fundamentally wrong. But it limits the perspective of a lot of organisations because they view it as an area where they need to build resources and capabilities, and employ experts, to help them on the journey.

Many of these consultants, experts and advisers are also going through the same journey that nature is new or something they are just moving into from a career in something else. There is a real need to dispel this.

There are some useful things that can do this – and this is where the toolkit tries to help. We need to recognise that every organisation is already doing a lot, and they already have a deep dependency on nature and natural resources. It is life-giving, it is fundamental, it is critical to every part of their business.

For investors or companies seeking to move into this space, understanding that they are already deeply dependent on and have a relationship with nature is really important. From this, they are probably already allocating resources to address issues. This could be through compliance in environmental management and impact assessment on new developments, or relationships with communities about what is valuable to them versus what is valuable to the business.

Building on the existing work and knowledge that sits within investor organisations and their communities, and the land they work with, is something we tried to build into the investor toolkit.

The toolkit is structured around the fact that investors have these risks and exposures, which are really important, and that nature is not in a good condition. We can get it better but it needs different ways of working. There is an opportunity to invest and add additional resources into partnerships.

It is also important to reframe what we mean by ‘nature tech’. We have experienced an explosion of new finance and venture capital flowing into this space but the focus seems to be on trying to create a technology solution. Nature, nature-based solutions and nature technology can be so many other things, though.

Organisations are already sitting on a lot of opportunity. For example, there may be an investment in a depressed asset where some additional investment, whether via partnership or collaboration or co-financing, can improve its condition. It is fascinating – it is not a certain type or size of institutional investor that leans into the nature conversation versus those that back away. A whole range of factors is contributing to this – down to whether there is an individual on the board or a senior executive who gets this deeply, who has the connection and wants to drive this.

In some cases, by contrast, investors are getting the wrong advice from the wrong people who are saying this is really complex and they need to be really careful and cautious in what they say or do.

What is also making organisations lean into nature is where they see what Kristy mentioned about collaboration and translation – where they are getting good advice from people who are more connected to what is actually happening and they have the right partnerships in place.

Going back 12 months, we had a cracking year or so when we started to see people having different types of conversations with various organisations: scientists talking to business or investors talking to First Nations enterprises. There was a recognition that we need to be really collaborative, to have a common language and a common framework.

But then something happened to make this slow down in the last year or so. For example, TNFD [Taskforce on Nature related Financial Disclosures] launched and then the consultants jumped in and said this is really complicated. They identified potential risks to directors and advised them to keep quiet. They also said the investments aren’t yet at the right scale or quality or partnership. This led to organisations being reluctant to go public, which led to greenhushing. This has caused a slight drop in some of the collaborations we need.

MAJOR There is a risk that, in trying to do the right thing in this space, we continue the disconnection of people from nature. If the problem is a disconnect from nature, if we try to create a purity of ‘what is nature’ so it can be invested in, often it plays out as protecting nature from people – locking it away. This continues the disconnect.

We have to work out a way where people being in nature is a net benefit that can be built into the investment narrative. It is about health and wellbeing. We talk about the benefit of nature but, when we do the calculations, we take people out. This is a no-brainer from a First Nations perspective. You won’t be able to have these conversations with First Nations landowners – who own 40 per cent of this country – unless you can have people in nature as part of the solution.

LIDDINGTON You’ve mentioned bringing a value to nature, and part of that value is tourism services – getting people back into nature is one way of deriving some economic value from protecting it. In our Biodiversity Finance Factbook this is shown as undervalued or not valued entirely.

WILLIAMS These two points are crucial – at base level, the issue is about a real or perceived disconnection from nature and a need to reconnect, and a perceived or real undervaluing or not valuing nature and a need to revalue it. This could be economic or it could be balance sheet and natural capital accounting. It can also mean trying to cut through the noise that this is all very complex and it will takes us years to work out new accounting frameworks.

Nature used to be in a pretty good state. It is not in great shape right now but we can get it better. Who has the knowledge and the information to say what it was like before, what is it like now and where we want it to go? Obviously, it is the traditional knowledge holders who have been around ecosystems and nature for a long time.