---
title: a public account for the public wealth
canonical_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/a-public-account-for-the-public-wealth
markdown_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/a-public-account-for-the-public-wealth.md
subtitle: sovereign wealth fund transparency reports on claims. the living ground under them has no statement.
category: nature-finance
---

# a public account for the public wealth

*sovereign wealth fund transparency reports on claims. the living ground under them has no statement.*

A sovereign wealth fund holds a nation's savings for people who are not born yet. The catchment above the capital, the mangrove coast that breaks the storm surge, the aquifer under the wheat belt hold up the same nation's economy. The fund publishes an annual report. None of those places has a statement at all.

**Sovereign wealth fund transparency** is how much a state investment fund tells the public about its mandate, its holdings, its returns, its governance and who decides. It is measured against the Santiago Principles and against outside scoreboards, and it is uneven. This post covers what the standard asks for, where it stalls, and what changes when each living place a fund depends on gets its own account.

:::johnson
**every flow addressed to the place it serves, signed by people who can be named.** — a public account does not make a decision good. it makes the decision legible.

[see a natural asset's account →](/natural-assets?from=guide)
:::

## what sovereign wealth fund transparency means

The reference standard is the **Santiago Principles**: 24 voluntary Generally Accepted Principles and Practices (GAPP), agreed in 2008 by the funds that went on to form the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF). They ask for a clear legal basis and mandate, a governance structure that separates the owner from the manager, published policies on funding and withdrawals, an investment policy, risk management, and regular public reporting. They are voluntary. A fund signs up, reports on itself, and the forum publishes its self-assessment.

Outside scorers fill the gap. Global SWF's GSR scoreboard rates funds on governance, sustainability and resilience. Its 2025 edition covered 200 funds and public pensions. Average scores were flat. Governance scores fell for the first time since 2020. (We read that from a second-hand summary of the scoreboard; the full table is on Global SWF's site.)

At the top of the range is a fund like Norway's Government Pension Fund Global. It publishes its holdings, its votes, its expectations of companies and the reasons behind its exclusions. Many funds publish far less. Some publish almost nothing. Both kinds are legitimate state choices. Transparency is a policy, not a law of nature.

## where the standard stalls

Three things keep disclosure from doing the job the public expects of it.

**It is voluntary and self-reported.** The Santiago Principles have no court and no auditor of their own. A fund that stops publishing faces reputational cost, not a penalty. That is why the scoreboards matter, and why a falling governance score is worth noticing.

**New state money arrives outside any fund.** In the United States, an executive order of 3 February 2025 asked for a plan for a sovereign wealth fund. Congress has not legislated one. Federal equity stakes have instead been taken deal by deal; 9.9% of Intel is the best-known. No legislated fund gathers them into one book with one report. The money is public. The book is scattered.

**Disclosure does not protect a decision from politics.** Norway's fund has been the high-water mark for public reasoning on exclusions. On 4 November 2025 the Storting voted to pause ethics-based divestment while a commission reviewed the rules. The Council on Ethics was told to flag companies to Norges Bank for engagement rather than recommend exclusions. The government denied that pressure from the United States, where roughly half the fund is invested, drove the decision. The review was due in mid-October 2026; we have not confirmed what it found. Either way, a fund at the top of the transparency range showed that a published rule can be paused by the people who wrote it. That is democracy working. It is also a reminder that transparency describes decisions; it does not make them.

## when no one can follow the money

The case every sovereign fund board knows is 1MDB. 1MDB was a Malaysian state development fund. On 26 December 2025 Malaysia's High Court convicted former prime minister Najib Razak on all 25 charges involving RM2.3bn. He is appealing, so the case is not final.

The lesson most boards draw is about governance: separate the owner from the manager, publish the flows, let auditors see the accounts. The other lesson is about objects, and it is ours to draw, not the court's. A development fund's purpose (the development it was set up to deliver) usually has no account of its own. It is a line in someone else's ledger, so there is no statement to ask a project for.

## the part no fund report covers

Even the best sovereign report is a report on claims: equities, bonds, real estate, private deals. It tells the public what the fund owns. It does not tell anyone the condition of the living ground those claims depend on. Read [a disclosure is not a transaction](/guide/a-disclosure-is-not-a-transaction?from=guide) for the corporate version of the same gap: you can disclose a dependency on a river for years without a single dollar reaching the river.

For a sovereign fund the gap is wider, because the fund's beneficiaries live on that ground. A citizen can read that the fund returned 15.1% in 2025 (Norway's figure). The same citizen cannot read whether the catchment that fills the reservoir is in better or worse condition than last year, who is paid to keep it, or where the money for it went.

## an account for every place

[Ensurance](/guide/what-is-ensurance?from=guide) gives each natural asset its own account. A parcel, a watershed or a species' range has an **agent**, and that agent has an account on a public ledger. Money addressed to the place goes into that account. Money leaving it goes to named recipients: first the place itself (acquisition, debt retirement, restoration, the stage we call ensured), then the people who keep it once it is debt-free and claim-free (the stage we call entrust). A **certificate** is a record of a hold on one named agent, priced on the cost of protecting it. It is not a claim on the land.

Three things follow for transparency.

**The object has a statement.** Anyone can open the account and see what came in, from where, and what went out, to whom. The place is no longer a line in someone else's books.

**The signers have names.** Each agent's account is set up with signers, the people or bodies who answer for it: a land trust, a tribe, a utility, a ranch family, a fund's own staff. That is how an agent is configured, not a guarantee that every signer is a publicly identified person. Where signers are set, who can move money is on the record, and so are changes.

**Value sits beside the cash.** RealValue, our natural capital accounting engine, reads the living work of each place (ecosystem service value per acre per year times condition, over 15 stocks and 19 flows) with its method stated. So the account shows money and condition side by side, not money alone. The number is a bridge so capital can protect the place, not a claim that the catchment is worth its price.

Is this crypto? It is a public ledger and a service. That is the whole answer. The point is that the record is shared and cannot be quietly rewritten after the fact.

## what a public account adds to the santiago principles

| What the principles ask | What a fund report shows | What a place account adds |
|---|---|---|
| Clear mandate and purpose | The mandate in words | The purpose as an object: one named place with its own account |
| Separation of owner and manager | An organisation chart | Signers set on each account, changes recorded |
| Published funding and withdrawal rules | Aggregate inflows and draws | Every flow into and out of the place, addressed |
| Regular public reporting | Annual and half-year reports | A statement anyone can open at any time |
| Accountability for outcomes | Returns against a benchmark | Condition of the place, by a stated method, beside the cash |

The account does not replace the report. It covers the part the report cannot reach.

## visible, not virtuous

A sharp reader will ask what this does about capture. Honestly: it does not stop it.

A ledger does not stop a bad decision. A government that wants to send money to the wrong place can still send it there; the ledger will show it arriving. Signers can be the wrong people, and a ledger address is not an identity. A condition reading is only as good as the measurement behind it, and measurement needs verification on the ground. Some flows (a community's payroll, a sacred site's location) should not be public at all, and the people who keep a place decide that, not us.

What a public account changes is the cost of hiding. The 1MDB case shows what happens when money moves through entities with little duty to show anything. When the place has its own account, money meant for the place either reaches that account or visibly does not. The question "where did the money for the catchment go?" has an address to check. That is a smaller claim than "this prevents fraud." It is also one we can keep.

## frequently asked questions

### what are the santiago principles?

The Santiago Principles are 24 voluntary Generally Accepted Principles and Practices for sovereign wealth funds, agreed in 2008. They cover legal basis, governance, investment policy, risk management and public reporting, and the IFSWF publishes members' self-assessments.

### how transparent are sovereign wealth funds?

It varies widely. Some, such as Norway's fund, publish every holding and vote. Others publish little. Outside scoreboards such as Global SWF's GSR found average scores flat in 2025 and governance scores down for the first time since 2020.

### does a public ledger prevent corruption in a state fund?

No. It makes flows visible and harder to hide. Decisions are still made by people and governments, and a ledger records a bad decision as faithfully as a good one.

### can a sovereign fund use ensurance accounts without owning land?

Yes. A certificate is a record of a hold on a named place's agent, priced on the cost of protecting it. It carries no title and no claim on the land. Title can stay with whoever holds it now.

## next steps

If you work in a fund, a finance ministry or an oversight body, pick one place your country depends on and ask a plain question: where would a citizen read its condition and the money spent on it? Then look at how a place reads when it has its own account.

- [browse natural assets and their accounts](/natural-assets?from=guide)
- [see certificates on named places](/specific?from=guide)
- [ensurance for governments](/solutions/governments?from=guide&topic=sovereign-wealth)
- [ensurance for investors](/solutions/investors?from=guide&topic=sovereign-wealth)
- [talk to us about a place](/contact?from=guide&topic=sovereign-wealth)

For an earlier take on why the largest funds look at natural capital at all, read [why the world's largest funds are quietly betting on natural capital](/guide/why-sovereign-wealth-funds-betting-natural-capital?from=guide).

## sources

[Santiago Principles — overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Principles) — the 24 GAPP, 2008
[Opalesque — GSR scoreboard 2025](https://www.opalesque.com/703928/Five_SWFs_achieved_a_perfect_score_around_GSR392.html) — 200 funds; governance scores fell (second-hand summary)
[Akin Gump — US sovereign wealth fund executive order tracker](https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/trump-executive-order-tracker/a-plan-for-establishing-a-united-states-sovereign-wealth-fund) — order of 3 February 2025
[OMFIF — how chips factor into a de facto US sovereign wealth fund](https://www.omfif.org/2025/08/how-chips-factor-into-a-de-facto-us-sovereign-wealth-fund/) — deal-by-deal stakes, August 2025
[FDD — Norway pauses ethical divestment](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/norway-pauses-ethical-divestment-by-sovereign-wealth-fund-amid-u-s-scrutiny/) — Storting vote, 4 November 2025
[ai-CIO — Norway ethical investment policy placed on hold](https://www.ai-cio.com/news/norway-pension-giants-ethical-investment-policy-placed-on-hold-by-parliament/) — council told to flag for engagement
[Bernama — Najib 1MDB verdict](https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2440072) — conviction on 25 charges, 26 December 2025
[European Pensions — NBIM 2025 return](https://europeanpensions.net/ep/NBIM-posts-15-1-return-in-2025.php) — 15.1% return in 2025

## the series

- [the risks a sovereign wealth fund cannot sell](/guide/sovereign-wealth-fund-risks?from=guide)
- [the universal owner cannot sell the ground](/guide/the-universal-owner-cannot-sell-the-ground?from=guide)
- [the heritage fund that grows back](/guide/the-heritage-fund-that-grows-back?from=guide)
- [food security without the land grab](/guide/food-security-without-the-land-grab?from=guide)
- [why a sovereign fund cannot buy nature at scale](/guide/why-a-sovereign-fund-cannot-buy-nature-at-scale?from=guide)
- [a public account for the public wealth](/guide/a-public-account-for-the-public-wealth?from=guide)
- [what a national wealth fund could hold at home](/guide/what-a-national-wealth-fund-could-hold-at-home?from=guide)