---
title: both
canonical_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/both
markdown_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/both.md
subtitle: why making money and keeping nature alive belong in the same business
category: nature-finance
---

# both

*why making money and keeping nature alive belong in the same business*

I'm in nature finance to make money and make a difference. Depending on the room, one half of that sentence is the wrong thing to say.

Among conservationists, the money half sounds like a confession. Among investors, the difference half sounds like a discount on returns. At basin, we have both nonprofit and for-profit entities, so I spend time in both rooms. I've stopped apologizing in either.

**Can you make money protecting nature?** Yes, when someone pays to keep a living system alive and the enterprise that keeps it alive earns enough to do the work, pay its people very well, and reward the capital it uses. I test every deal in this field against one sentence. It comes after the numbers that convinced me it has to work.

## the wetland doesn't send invoices

Picture a headwater wetland above a town. It is an illustration, and you probably know a place like it. It holds snowmelt in spring and lets it go through August. It catches sediment before the treatment plant has to. The water utility, the brewery, the insurers and every house on the floodplain depend on it. None of them has ever paid it a dollar.

Now picture the crew that keeps it working: four people who know where the beaver dams are, which culvert plugs first, and where the invasive grass is getting in. Their pay arrives as a two-year grant. In month twenty they stop walking the wetland and start writing the next application.

The wetland needs no buyer to matter. Forests, wetlands, soils and watersheds exist and sustain life whether or not anyone buys an instrument; [*ensurance*](/?from=guide) is a way to fund their protection and care. The value is already there. The payment is what's missing.

## the math doesn't close

UNEP's *State of Finance for Nature 2026* counted the money, using 2023 data.

| annual flow | amount |
|---|---|
| finance that harms nature | $7.3 trillion: $4.9 trillion private, $2.4 trillion harmful public subsidies |
| finance for nature-based solutions | $220 billion, close to 90% public |
| private finance for nature-based solutions | $23.4 billion |
| needed for nature-based solutions by 2030 | $571 billion a year |

For every dollar that goes to nature-based solutions, about thirty finance something that wears nature down. The one dollar has to become roughly two and a half within a few years. Private capital supplies about a tenth of it.

You might be thinking that governments will close the gap. I hope they close a lot of it. But public budgets already carry close to 90% of this ledger, while $2.4 trillion a year in public subsidies works against it. Philanthropy alone cannot carry the rest. My working horizon is 2050, and I won't plan a watershed's decades to 2050 around budget votes and gift cycles arriving at that scale and speed. That is a strategic conviction, and it is why public and philanthropic money gets specific jobs below.

## capital already has a reason

Look again at the $4.9 trillion of private money in that first row. I doubt much of it set out to harm a wetland. It went where the financial reason was, and it stays while the reason holds.

Nature needs money with that kind of staying power, so here is the sentence I test deals against.

:::johnson
**the financial reason to participate should help fund the ecological reason the system exists.** When the return and the living system pull the same way, capital can stay for decades. When they pull apart, the place loses.
:::

## blended finance, with jobs assigned

Go back to the wetland. **Blended finance** means several kinds of money, with different motives and time horizons, funding the same living system. In ensurance's model each has a job.

| who | why they pay | what it funds |
|---|---|---|
| real-asset and income capital | a real asset, and income over time | upfront: acquiring and protecting the wetland |
| the utility, the brewery, the insurer | service continuity and lower risk | recurring: its care, year after year |
| public money and philanthropy | public benefit and mission | enabling work, early costs, benefits no customer will buy |

The two commercial roles need each other. Recurring payments from the organizations that depend on the wetland are what make the upfront capital financeable: money arrives at the start, and returns are paid over time. The wetland is secured, its care is funded, and the crew has a payroll that outlasts a grant.

Some places will never have a commercial payor. Public and philanthropic money stays in the blend there for the long run, and that is a good use of it.

## the crew should get rich

The people protecting ecosystems and stewarding nature should be among the highest-paid and wealthiest people in the economy. That is one of my main reasons for building commercial enterprises in nature finance, and [the stewardship essay](/guide/the-people-keeping-nature-alive-should-make-a-lot-of-money?from=guide) makes the full case.

## one room

I want to work in one room, where the investor asks about the beaver dams and the crew lead asks about the cap table. The last essay in this series tests [how a deal holds both](/guide/both-has-to-survive-the-transaction?from=guide) after the documents are signed.

If you allocate capital, start with [capital doesn't invest for nature. it invests.](/guide/capital-doesnt-invest-for-nature?from=guide), then see the [capital-provider solutions](/solutions/capital-providers?from=guide&topic=both).

## frequently asked questions

### is investing in nature profitable?

It can be, when someone who depends on a living system pays for its care under an actual contract. It carries risk like any investment, and nothing in this essay promises a return or a payout. Ask where the revenue comes from, who has agreed to pay it, and what happens to the place in a bad year.

### what is blended finance for nature?

Blended finance for nature combines upfront capital that secures a natural asset with recurring payments from those who depend on it, alongside public and philanthropic money for work no customer will buy. Each source has a defined job and carries a defined risk.

### does profit prove a nature business is working?

No. Profit is not proof of impact, and a record of payments says nothing about whether the wetland is still wet. Ecological evidence comes from the place itself and is kept separately from the payment records.

## sources

[UNEP, State of Finance for Nature 2026](https://www.unep.org/en/publications/report/state-finance-nature-2026) — 2023 finance flows: $7.3 trillion harmful to nature ($4.9 trillion private, $2.4 trillion harmful public subsidies); $220 billion for nature-based solutions, close to 90% public; $23.4 billion private; $571 billion a year needed by 2030

[UNEP, harmful investments outpace nature protection by 30 to 1](https://www.unep.org/en/news-and-stories/press-release/harmful-investments-outpace-nature-protection-30-1-new-unep-report) — summary of the report and its comparison of harmful finance with nature-based solutions finance

## the series

Both: making money by keeping nature alive. A seven-part reading sequence, bringing new essays together with existing Guide posts.

1. **both** — the case for holding both ambitions *(you are here)*
2. [the private ten percent](/guide/the-private-ten-percent?from=guide) — the private share of nature finance
3. [the 30:1 gap: why nature finance is failing (and how to fix it)](/guide/the-30-to-1-gap-why-nature-finance-is-failing?from=guide) — the direction of finance
4. [capital doesn't invest for nature. it invests.](/guide/capital-doesnt-invest-for-nature?from=guide) — the financial reason to participate
5. [the people keeping nature alive should make a lot of money](/guide/the-people-keeping-nature-alive-should-make-a-lot-of-money?from=guide) — prosperity for the people doing the work
6. [how to make money with ensurance](/guide/how-to-make-money-with-ensurance?from=guide) — the ways the work can pay
7. [both has to survive the transaction](/guide/both-has-to-survive-the-transaction?from=guide) — a practical test for the business model