AN EXECUTIVE PERSPECTIVE
The verified outcomes of the Kumamoto Summit, translated into crisis-ready management and FY2027 capital allocation.
War, inflation and financial stress tighten supply, price and capital constraints at the same time. Managing water, soil, forests, oceans and raw materials protects operations and margins.
Business, finance, government, science and local authorities treated measurement, procurement, transition plans, finance and place-based delivery as one agenda. Competitive advantage now depends on implementation quality.
Allocate capital to business continuity, strategic options and growth, then integrate it into procurement, capex, R&D, insurance and regional investment with explicit scale and stop conditions.
Decisions about cash, supply, prices, customers and jobs also need to account for dependence on nature.
When war or geopolitical tensions escalate, boards prioritise cash flow, supply, prices, customers and employment. Keeping a business running requires reliable supplies of raw materials, enough water for factories, continued agricultural, forestry and fisheries production, and sites that can operate after a disaster. These needs also depend on the condition of water, soil, forests, oceans and ecosystems.
Companies that do not understand their dependence on nature are more exposed to losses during a crisis through higher procurement costs, lower supply volumes, downtime, insurance costs and financing terms. Management needs figures for daily profit lost if a critical input becomes unavailable, production lost under water restrictions, purchases concentrated in one supplier or region, and the effect of a ten per cent rise in input prices on gross profit.
Trade disruption and ecosystem degradation together make supplies less reliable. Rising costs for raw materials, energy, logistics, labour and insurance put pressure on profits, while stricter selection by banks, investors and insurers makes finance harder to secure. Companies are better placed to respond during a crisis when they can explain their dependence on critical water sources or commodities, the risks involved and progress on measures to address them.
The World Bank modelled a scenario in which the collapse of selected ecosystem services, including wild pollination, marine fisheries and timber from native forests, could reduce global GDP in 2030 by USD 2.7 trillion relative to the baseline. This estimates the potential impact on the economy as a whole; it cannot be used to predict an individual company's losses.
The Global Nature Positive Summit 2026 welcomed 2,725 participants. About two thirds of registrations came from business and finance, including insurance, agriculture, energy, food, health, construction and transport. The current Kumamoto Declaration lists 87 signatory organisations.
Attendance and signatures alone do not show how much nature has recovered. At the Summit, companies, financial institutions, governments, research institutions and local authorities discussed measurement, targets, transition plans, procurement, finance and reporting together. Business discussions began to address how to act on support for nature conservation.
The first four diagrams examine the changes evident at the Kumamoto Summit through its discussions and the composition of its participants.
The organiser reported 2,725 attendees. Separately, about two-thirds of registrations were from business and finance.
The four State of Nature Metrics indicators measure changes in nature, alongside records of the number and scale of activities.
Assess how damage to natural capital affects finances, and use the findings in decisions and disclosure.
The current signatory list contains 87 organisations: 41 private-sector and 46 other signatories.
Management extends from individual company sites to landscapes, watersheds and supply networks, taking their relationships into account.
The overview covers five changes: who leads the work, how nature is measured, how the findings are used in finance, common rules and the geographical scope of action. This introductory diagram shows why organisations need to review decision rules, information systems and responsibilities together when planning projects.
The Summit had 2,725 attendees. In the registration data, about two-thirds of registrants were from business and finance.
Common indicators describe the state of nature, using measurement methods suited to each purpose.
Nature-related information informs balance sheets, lending, investment and business decisions.
The current Declaration has 87 signatories and puts avoidance first in the action hierarchy.
The work covers the wider watershed or landscape as well as company sites.
The diagram groups the work to follow the Summit into five areas: participants, measurement, finance, rules and place. This diagram identifies the areas of work needed to carry out the changes shown in the previous figure.
Attendance figures and the breakdown of registrations show that business and finance accounted for a large share of participants. It explains why nature issues now concern investment, procurement, insurance and management decisions as well as specialist departments.
The diagram shows the Summit’s participants, with a large business and finance presence alongside governments, local authorities, research institutions and civil society. Organisations need shared rules to work together. The next chapter examines those rules.
Investment reviews and operations should follow the sequence of avoiding impacts, reducing those that remain and restoring affected nature.
The Kumamoto Declaration sets a clear order: avoid negative impacts on nature first, minimise those that cannot be avoided, and restore and regenerate degraded ecosystems. Residual impacts require credible safeguards. Relying on compensation after damage has occurred can leave companies with future liabilities, disruption and reputational risks. Preventing damage when choosing sites, designing products, procuring materials and approving investment helps preserve future business options.
The hierarchy can serve as a checklist for investment approval. Before committing funds, teams should explain which impacts can be avoided, which can be reduced through redesign, what can be restored with local partners, and how any remaining impacts will be managed.
As the market grows, companies face closer scrutiny of their claims. A small planting project elsewhere is insufficient evidence for a company-wide nature-positive claim and may damage trust. The number of drones, satellites, AI tools, environmental DNA systems or sensors in use also says little about results. Companies need to record how the information informed changes to sourcing, equipment, land use, product design and lending terms.
Signatures, participation and disclosure need to be followed by action and an assessment of the results. This also applies to the 87 organisations that signed the Declaration. Reports by companies and participants include their own assessments, and analyses of public posts tend to over-represent people who actively share their views. Explaining these limits and reporting verified results helps maintain the trust of customers, financial institutions, communities and employees.
Nature conservation projects need to account for their effects on local work, income, livelihoods, culture and land use. Farmers, foresters, fishers, community organisations, local authorities and researchers need contracts and fair cost sharing that allow them to stay involved. Keeping this work viable also supports the company’s long-term supply.
Cooperation among different organisations requires shared criteria and an agreed order for addressing impacts on nature.
The diagram sets out the roles and relationships of data providers, rule-setting bodies, funders and users under the Kumamoto Declaration’s principles. The diagram helps organisations consider their role in putting the Kumamoto Declaration into practice.
The diagram shows how eight action principles relate to international standards, data, finance and the work of governments and companies. The eight principles require cooperation across departments, with the results of each team's work informing the others.
The diagram shows the mitigation hierarchy: avoid impacts first, then minimise them, restore or regenerate ecosystems, and finally consider compensation for residual impacts. Avoidance options come first in business planning and site selection, before compensatory measures are considered.
The same four steps become a corporate decision rule, placing avoidance first and offsets last. Investment reviews, procurement and product-development approvals should be checked for whether they apply this order of priority.
Review ecological condition and financial effects together to inform the next investment decision.
Nature measurement increasingly considers changes in nature alongside activity counts. Records of trees planted, training sessions and installed sensors need to be accompanied by evidence on ecosystem extent and condition, species extinction risk and populations, water quantity and quality, and soil condition.
Assess ecological indicators alongside financial and operating measures. Useful measures include water use per unit of product, material yield, procurement-price variation, days of supply disruption, waste disposal costs and the share of inputs that can be replaced with alternatives. Together, they help track how changes in nature affect profits and operations, and whether measures benefit both nature and cash flow.
Useful information starts with priority places and materials, a baseline for current conditions, and a clear account of who will make each decision. A single management view or investment paper should allow them to compare ecosystem condition, business exposure, the cost of measures and the losses they could avoid.
TNFD's 2026 nature transition-plan use cases organise company practice under five themes: foundations, implementation strategy, engagement strategy, metrics and targets, and governance. Companies can use these themes to check whether measurement results inform procurement, capital expenditure, insurance, lending and product development.
Ecological conditions and the value of nature vary by place. Companies and financial institutions need common outcome metrics to compare projects, alongside measurement methods suited to each location. Using the same observations for management, finance and disclosure can reduce costs while retaining the local ecological detail needed to interpret them.
Reviewing the work requires measuring nature’s condition alongside activity levels and using the same data for assessment and disclosure.
The diagram compares activity records with measures of change in nature: ecosystem extent and condition, species extinction risk and populations. The starting point is to record separately what was done and how nature changed.
The diagram distinguishes the result—a change in nature—from the measurement procedure that defines the scope, indicators and data quality. Common outcome metrics, used with methods suited to each purpose, allow comparisons between places while accounting for local conditions.
The diagram sets out the relationship between basic data, measurement procedures, state-of-nature indicators, and disclosure and reporting. Several frameworks can use the same data and measurement arrangements. Using the same observations for management and reporting reduces the work of preparing a separate dataset for each framework.
The diagram explains how information can be shared and used across three distinct areas: common data, measurement and assessment, and disclosure and reporting. Reliable information exchange between the three levels matters even when they use different frameworks. A single universal system is not required.
Projects need to show how they support operations, margins and access to capital so their funding can be justified during a crisis.
When transport is disrupted and supplies of energy, fertiliser, food, timber and minerals become less reliable, domestic resources, recycled materials, reuse and sourcing from several regions become more important. Water reuse and catchment management reduce the impact of water restrictions. Soil recovery and supplier support help maintain agricultural production. Managing forests, wetlands and coasts can also reduce vulnerability to floods, landslides and storm surges.
A severe crisis calls for a review of project priorities. Water, materials, land and logistics sites needed for operations come first. Next are data, supplier relationships, local agreements and permits that would be difficult to recover if lost. Funding for new products and services follows from that assessment.
When material, energy, logistics, labour and insurance costs rise together, margin protection becomes central. Water efficiency, recycled inputs, resource recovery, lower material intensity, soil productivity, local sourcing and long-term contracts can reduce exposure to resource-price shocks.
Investment results need to be assessed for both finances and nature. Cost savings that shift pressure to other places can create new liabilities; actual improvements in ecosystem condition also need to be checked. Projects that protect profits and improve ecosystems have a stronger basis for continued funding during inflation.
During financial instability, banks, investors and insurers become more selective. Collecting nature-related data does not automatically improve loan terms or insurance premiums. It can help in discussions with funders when the company can explain its dependence on nature, risks, measures, responsible people and progress for each critical site or commodity.
A clear account of how nature-related risks affect cash flow, what this year’s investment has improved and which losses further funding could reduce helps discussions with banks, investors and insurers. It can also help a company retain options when funds are limited.
Measured nature data can explain risks and inform asset valuation, investment, lending, insurance and management decisions.
The diagram explains how the degradation and recovery of natural capital relate to assets, liabilities, equity and value creation. The diagram identifies the financial decisions affected by changes in nature. It does not value nature solely in monetary terms.
The diagram compares four changes in approach: from counting activities to measuring changes in nature, from individual sites to the value chain, from compensation to avoidance first, and from CSR costs to assets and investment. The diagram supports a review of the company from four perspectives and a discussion of where management practices need to change.
The diagram sets out the conditions for using nature information in financial decisions through four stages: information, assets, relationships with funders and results. For use in finance, data needs context: the location, the relationships involved and evidence of how reliable the results are.
The diagram examines how nature's role as infrastructure relates to risk reduction, insurance pricing and access to loans and investment. Losses avoided and benefits provided by ecosystems offer a common basis for assessing public investment, private capital and insurance.
Protecting the nature that supports a business requires work beyond its own sites, with people managing production regions, catchments and coasts.
Japan’s Ministry of the Environment warns that loss of natural capital can raise procurement prices and make materials harder to secure. Companies may also struggle to trace materials to their origin or understand the level of action expected. A starting point is to identify the commodities and regions that matter most to the business and discuss them with suppliers. Long-term contracts, joint measurement and technical support can follow.
Placing all costs on suppliers makes the work harder to sustain. Multi-year contracts, pricing terms, technical assistance and outcome-linked payments can support local people and organisations in continuing the work, as well as meeting a company's own targets.
Kumamoto City supplies all drinking water for about 730,000 residents from groundwater. Lake Ezu is home to around 600 plant and animal species. Through its Water Capital City Kumamoto declaration, the city has made groundwater protection a central part of urban management, recognising its importance to industry, agriculture, tourism and the city's appeal.
Suntory has begun restoring roughly 3,000 square metres of abandoned paddy land as wetland in Mashiki. A local organisation manages vegetation and water, the company provides infrastructure and prepares the fields, and specialists support monitoring. The results still need to be measured. Defining responsibilities and verification methods at the outset offers a useful example for other projects.
NYK uses the group's existing vessels and routes to survey marine-plastic distribution and environmental DNA with academic partners. Cities have water-management systems, beverage companies have relationships in catchment areas, and shipping companies have vessels and routes. These existing assets, data, staff and commercial relationships can support nature monitoring and restoration as part of everyday operations.
The scope of action includes raw materials and production regions beyond the company, as well as catchments, coasts and seas.
The process starts with identifying dependencies and impacts in sourcing regions. The findings then inform discussions and design changes with participants throughout the value chain. The diagram considers a review of material choices, product design and sales, alongside checks on procurement standards.
Traceability and dialogue with suppliers are two ways to identify raw-material sourcing regions beyond tier-one suppliers. Begin by identifying the materials and places with the greatest dependencies and impacts on nature. Supplier lists support that investigation.
The diagram shows how the scope of action expands from a company's sites to its supply chain, then to wider landscapes and seascapes. The diagram shows how considering surrounding ecosystems and economic activity can help projects sustain their results and expand.
The diagram shows how factories and other sites, upstream forests, farmland, cities, groundwater and rivers interact within one catchment. The approach combines water-use management with cooperation among government, agriculture, finance and local organisations to conserve and restore nature.
The diagram shows how nature from catchments to coasts and the activities of ports, fisheries and shipping are related within a seascape. A shared spatial model helps people working upstream, on the coast and at sea understand how pressures on land affect marine natural capital.
Cooperation across measurement, procurement, finance, technology and local management can help establish a market that funds nature restoration over the long term.
Demand in this field reflects problems companies already face: maintaining supply, managing price changes, meeting regulations, securing finance and reaching agreement with local communities. It covers traceability, water efficiency and reuse, regenerative agriculture, forest and marine resource management, environmental DNA and satellite monitoring, nature-based disaster protection, circular materials, restoration, insurance, lending and verification of results.
In 2026, the World Economic Forum identified more than 50 investment opportunities across 13 sectors, including precision agriculture, industrial water management, sustainable cement and battery recycling. It estimated that, together, these opportunities could generate up to USD 10.1 trillion in annual revenue and savings by 2030. Actual results will depend on each project's economics, demand, policy and execution. The opportunities span food, construction, manufacturing, water, finance, cities and logistics.
A session held in Kumamoto by the University of Tokyo Center for Global Commons identified several requirements for market development: clear disclosure, quality on the supply side, government demand creation and market infrastructure developed jointly by public and private organisations. As tools and projects become available, a central challenge is finding buyers willing to pay for high-quality outcomes.
Large companies can support a market through sustained purchasing. They can set procurement requirements that protect nature, sign multi-year supplier contracts and commit to buying set volumes of recycled or sustainably sourced materials. Users who benefit from local restoration through water, disaster protection, tourism or agriculture can share the costs, with financial institutions providing guarantees or outcome-linked finance. Repeated purchasing by several companies can help a market grow beyond a single pilot.
Japanese companies have experience in improving production, managing quality, maintaining long-term supplier relationships and working with local communities. Local financial networks and technologies for measuring nature are further strengths. These capabilities can help restore nature while keeping businesses productive. Offering support that covers technology, contracts, finance and local management can also be an advantage in international markets.
Drawing on the preceding sections, this chapter considers how observation, prediction, accurate communication, local cooperation and continuing finance can work together to sustain restoration.
Nature tech supports large-area assessment and prediction, with ongoing monitoring used to adjust management. Technology can make reporting more efficient and help revise plans before they cause harm to nature.
Tools such as AI and environmental DNA are paired with communication that makes evidence and limitations explicit. Even with faster measurement, claims must stay within the evidence. Data quality and the conclusions it supports need to be checked together.
The diagram shows how different organisations can work across a region's forests, farms, groundwater, cities, rivers and coasts. This model involves companies and organisations working together in the area whose natural resources and social infrastructure they share.
The diagram traces data and funding across three levels: corporate finance, supply chains and procurement, and landscapes and ecosystems. Internal systems, supplier relationships and local collaboration affect one another and need to be considered together.
This overview shows how business, finance and disclosure, places and communities, and data and technology contribute to nature recovery and business resilience. This final diagram brings the preceding ideas together as a recurring work cycle. It can help identify where information sharing or cooperation between departments is falling short.
A single nature-positive investment portfolio can cover business continuity, future strategic options and growth.
Grouping all nature-related projects into a single budget can make priorities harder to see. For FY2027, investment can be assessed in three categories: business continuity, future strategic options and growth. Each project can then be included in existing procurement, capital expenditure, R&D, insurance or regional investment budgets. Projects need a responsible executive, a defined location, a baseline, business and ecological outcome metrics, and clear conditions for increasing funding or stopping work.
Approve projects that can answer the following questions.
In the first quarter, select three to five water sources, materials, land assets or logistics sites that matter most to revenue, profit and operations. In the second quarter, test equipment efficiency, supplier support, recycled materials, wetland or forest management, environmental DNA, satellite data or local agreements. Use the results in the third quarter to review procurement terms, long-term contracts, lending, insurance and capital expenditure. In the fourth quarter, business and finance teams, natural scientists and local stakeholders review the results and decide how much to increase funding for FY2028.
Reasons to increase investment can include lower disruption risk, more stable procurement prices and reduced water or material use. Other evidence includes better information for lenders, insurers and permitting authorities, new revenue or gross profit, signs of ecological improvement and a lasting local management arrangement. Where results are weak, review the measurement method, timescale, location and relevance to the business. If the underlying hypothesis lacks support, stop the project and redirect funds to more promising work.
Water and raw materials remain essential during war, inflation and financial turmoil. Factories, farming, the use of forests and oceans, and life in cities all depend on functioning natural systems, regardless of economic or political conditions.
A company's ability to respond to a crisis depends on preparations made in advance. These include identifying critical dependencies, working with suppliers over the long term and measuring ecological conditions. Investment decisions need to consider both financial and ecological results, as well as how benefits are shared with local stewards. The ability to stop poorly supported projects and redirect funding to those with stronger evidence also preserves the company's options.
The FY2027 budget can cover practical measures, measurement, contracts and business development alongside research and learning. Work can begin with one critical site, commodity, catchment or business line, with results ready for review after twelve months. Expanding work that protects supply and margins can also help develop new markets in Japan. Each company can use the Kumamoto discussions to decide where and how much to invest.
Protect critical water sources, inputs, suppliers, disaster resilience, soils, forests and coasts that support current revenue and operations.
Track: disruption days, input price, available volume and avoided lossBuild traceability, alternative inputs, diversified sources, local agreements and nature data that preserve freedom to act.
Track: switchable share, alternative sources and data coverageDevelop regenerative products, circular materials, water and nature technology, restoration, finance, insurance and data services.
Track: revenue, margin, customers and verified improvement in natureThe final timeline covers the work after Kumamoto: developing metrics, CBD COP17 and the next Summit.
The timeline focuses on difficulties in carrying out the work and sets out the main milestones after Kumamoto. Each organisation needs to specify what its goals require it to decide next, and by when.
Metrics work later in 2026, CBD COP17 and the 2027 Summit appear as post-Kumamoto milestones. These milestones provide dates to work back from when planning your organisation's preparation.