Nature is not a nice-to-have. It is bankable climate infrastructure.

Can we still meaningfully talk about Nature at a time when the broader context appears unfavourable?

When geopolitical tensions are rising, energy security has returned to the top of policy agendas, and in many markets the language of sustainability has become more cautious or less visible altogether.

At first glance, the answer would seem to be no, especially for private actors. Only NGOs, in fact, can legitimately claim to act for the common good and demonstrate a concern for keeping us within the least pessimistic scenarios presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). From a corporate perspective, the IPCC curve rarely convinces shareholders and no longer shows itself in times of crisis. Meanwhile, environmental obligations appear to be softening in the face of mounting economic uncertainty: last November, the European Parliament voted to scale back ambitions around corporate due diligence and sustainability reporting requirements. At the same time, the European carbon market, despite having proven effective in reducing emissions, is subject to increased scrutiny. Just months before a major review, several states heavily reliant on fossil fuels believe it imposes excessive costs on European businesses.

And yet, even if discussed with less fervour, Nature remains as relevant as ever. The data speaks for itself: demand for high-integrity removal carbon credits, which are almost entirely generated today by highly rated nature-based projects, has increased by almost 40% in two years. At the same time, on a 12-month basis, prices are up 15%, continuing the broader upward trend from early 2025 (MSCI data), since the offer remains constraints and the demand is high. In early April, The Symbiosis Coalition, published a new Request for Proposals. And rumours that Microsoft had halted purchases of high-integrity carbon removal credits were swiftly denied by the company.

No, these companies haven't turned into NGOs. Far from it. But their demand for high-integrity removal carbon credits is based on realities that go beyond political cycles and fuel prices.

The first is resilience

Companies must ensure the long-term stability of their operations and reassure investors accordingly. For businesses directly dependent on natural resources - agricultural commodities, water and beyond - planting native forests around farmland can significantly improve local water cycles and enhance functional biodiversity, including pollinators and natural pest predators.

The second is “license to operate”

For others, those not directly tied to agricultural commodities, financing large-scale nature-based projects that contribute to local economic development and contribute to the host governments’ climate and economic objectives. This represents a powerful way to reinforce their broader operational footprint in key markets. In other words, a modern expression of the “license to operate.” The icing on the cake is that if a large company deploys this strategy, it will draw both its suppliers and its competitors into it, who risk losing markets if they do not follow.

The third is access to capital

An increasing number of financial instruments are directly linked to environmental performance. Under Sustainability-Linked Loans (SLLs), borrowing costs are tied to ESG metrics. Similarly, the pricing of green revolving credit facilities depends on environmental indicators monitored annually. These mechanisms incentivise companies to embed environmental performance into ongoing operations, regardless of political headwinds. While green banking instruments, representing roughly 10% of the global credit market, experienced a slowdown in 2025, the long-term trajectory remains upward.

The fourth is talent attraction

This, too, operates independently of political cycles, and remains a key driver of long-term resilience. Younger generations place environmental and social responsibility at the core of their employment decisions: in 2025, nearly 77% of millennials reported preferring to work for purpose-driven organisations, according to Deloitte.

However, to meet these requirements, and within the framework of a climate strategy that naturally prioritises emissions reduction, high-integrity removal carbon credits are more than ever an effective tool. This explains the forthcoming update to the Net Zero Standard by the Science Based Targets initiative is expected to encourage their use from the early stages of decarbonisation and promoting targets related to carbon removal contributions.

Beyond businesses, the carbon credit tool is even gaining recognition among states: across the Global South governments are accelerating the development of robust carbon market regulations to finance their environmental transitions under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Carbon credits also provide much-needed flexibility to regulated markets and climate policies, particularly when compliance costs become burdensome in times of economic stress—as is arguably the case today. For instance, companies in Singapore can offset up to 5% of their carbon tax liability using international carbon credits. Similarly, European climate legislation is to allow for a comparable degree of flexibility starting in 2035.

From narrative to risk management

Are discussions around Nature and carbon credits less frequent, less passionate? Perhaps. But that may not be a bad thing. The conversation is shifting - from aspiration to economic reality, from narrative to risk management.

To be sure, not all carbon credits are created equal and what constitutes “high integrity” remains a work in progress. As a result, companies and investors must conduct thorough and often lengthy due diligence before engaging, particularly given the ever-present risk of greenwashing accusations. This calls for a fundamental evolution in the development model of nature-based projects: most reforestation efforts still cover less than 1,000 hectares, and at that scale it becomes difficult to provide the permanence, governance and financial visibility that serious capital demands. This is not a temporary constraint but a structural one, rooted in how projects are currently developed and financed.

A changing market

A new generation of developers, including aDryada, is beginning to view Nature as a bankable infrastructure asset, rather than as a fragmented collection of small-scale initiatives. Under this approach, projects are designed answer buyers' needs in terms of the effective delivery of very large quantities of carbon credits (the Karidja project in Côte d'Ivoire will generate nearly 40 million tons over 50 years), price stability and protection of their brand image.

They also answer investors’ request for an attractive return on investment, with secured offtake and insurance. How? They are designed over multi-decade horizons, extending well beyond typical 40 to 50- year crediting periods. They operate at scale (for example, 104,000 hectares in Côte d’Ivoire) and rely on multiple structural pillars to ensure long-term integrity. These include formal agreements with host governments, ideally public-private partnerships, to align stakeholder interests and define benefit-sharing mechanisms. It also includes a significant portion of the investment and revenues being allocated to local economic and social development, recognising that community engagement is the cornerstone of long-term project permanence. The exclusive use of native species in reforestation efforts further reinforces ecological stability.

All of this is implemented in accordance with the highest international standards, including the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards on social sustainability, and carbon methodologies endorsed by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM). The result is a fundamentally different proposition: projects become truly financeable assets, capital can be deployed at scale, and risk is mitigated through robust financial and contractual structuring.

The shift is straightforward: stop developing small projects and start building assets; stop talking about the need for Nature and start deploying the nature-based assets that forward-looking investors and corporations are actively seeking.

Less poetic than sustainability rhetoric but likely far more effective for Nature itself.

 

Fabio Ferrari, Founder & CEO, aDryada

Follow Fabio on LinkedIn      Follow aDryada on LinkedIn