A Hostile Takeover of Nature? Placing Value in Conservation Finance

Abstract

Conservation finance is a nascent field that claims to “deliver maximum conservation impacts, while, at the same time, generating returns for investors” (Credit Suisse/WWF). While geographers have questioned the ability of conservation finance to play a significant role in international biodiversity conservation, an emerging cohort of boutique private equity firms are actively generating returns on North American conservation projects. This raises the question: how are these firms generating profits, and in turn, returns for their shareholders? Drawing from a Marxian understanding of finance as redistributive, I argue that these firms are generating profits through a process similar to a corporate hostile takeover. Using the examples of ranchland and timberland investment in the United States, I show that (1) the materialities and historical geographies of these landscapes play a crucial role their monetization, and (2) shareholder returns are generated through a combination of traditional real estate sales and revaluations, public monies, and commodity production.

The Internet of Landlords: Digital Platforms and New Mechanisms of Rentier Capitalism

“…This literature has shown how the old story of treating land as a financial asset is being updated through the application of new systems of rent extraction and property management in order to maximise both profit from and power over the entire value chain (Dempsey and Bigger ). Kay () likens this to a “hostile takeover of nature” along the lines of Wall Street corporate raiders. This provocative analogy aptly illustrates the attitude that these firms have toward accumulating wealth by any means necessary.…”

“…This provocative analogy aptly illustrates the attitude that these firms have toward accumulating wealth by any means necessary. Importantly, the firms at the vanguard of financialisation are focused on creating and implementing methods for “rent‐seeking”, as Kay (:178) explains, “no new wealth is being created in this process”. The logic is to turn everything and every place into a financial asset.…”

Conservation, development and the blue frontier: the Republic of Seychelles’ Debt Restructuring for Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Program

“…Nonetheless, opaqueness points to a complicated balancing act between investor privacy and the kind of organisational accountability normally expected of NGOs, raises questions about who should be eligible to disburse and pocket returns on conservation loans (in this case, a projected US$2.5 million), and suggests the need for audited or third-party reporting. Second, similar to findings by Kay (2017Kay ( , 2018, it is not clear what role biodiversity will play in generating returns for SeyCCAT, whether there are guidelines that inform how SeyCCAT will invest endowment funds, or how social and environmental improvements attributed to the Swap will be documented. While reports make clear that SeyCCAT will shoulder the obligation to pay back the loan according to agreed-upon schedules/interest rates and make good on promises to generate social and environmental impact, it is not publicly evident if loan repayments will come solely from interest paid by the Government of Seychelles, or whether environmental commodities (e.g., biodiversity credits, ecotourism fees) and/or returns on trust monies invested by SeyCCAT in more traditional markets may also be used.…”

“…Of this, 15 per cent (∼200,000 km 2 ) will be designated as a “no‐take” Large Marine Protected Area (IISD ; NatureVest ). The Swap sits at the intersection of two global environmental governance trends: “for‐profit” biodiversity conservation (Dempsey and Suarez ; Kay , ; Sullivan ) and large‐scale ocean governance initiatives (Campbell et al . ; Fairbanks et al .…”

“…Of this, 15 per cent (ß200,000 km 2 ) will be designated as a "no-take" Large Marine Protected Area (IISD 2015;NatureVest 2018). The Swap sits at the intersection of two global environmental governance trends: "for-profit" biodiversity conservation (Dempsey and Suarez 2016;Kay 2017Kay , 2018Sullivan 2013) and large-scale ocean governance initiatives Fairbanks et al 2018;Gray et al 2017;Gruby et al 2016). As we will discuss, this intersection also characterises the SIDS EEZ frontier more broadly: state-controlled ocean territories are being visualised and publicised in terms of ecosystem services, ordered and rationed through marine spatial planning processes, and underwritten by private and philanthropic funding and investment schemes that prioritise select conservation tools and development activities.…”