nature finance has a timing problem

Three Latin phrases — ex post, ex ante, ex nunc — describe when a financial instrument connects to physical reality. Most people in finance know the first two. The third might matter most.

These aren't just about when money moves. They describe when conditions are assessed, when results are measured, and what kind of evidence counts. In nature finance — where the thing being funded is a living, changing system — the tense your instrument operates in determines whether it matches the reality it claims to fund.

the autopsy model (ex post)

Ex post means "after the event." This is how insurance works. You pay premiums, something goes wrong, the insurer compensates you after the damage.

It's the dominant model for managing nature-related risk. And it has a fundamental design flaw: it requires the bad thing to happen.

In 2024, global insured losses from natural catastrophes hit $137 billion. The uninsured gap was another $181 billion. Swiss Re projects these numbers will keep climbing — $145 billion is the new annual trendline. The Los Angeles wildfires alone cost $40 billion in insured losses at the start of 2025, the largest wildfire loss on record.

But the ex post model doesn't just arrive too late. It creates perverse incentives to stay in harm's way.

The U.S. National Flood Insurance Program has generated $24 billion in debt to the Treasury since 2004. Just 3.8% of policyholders filed repetitive loss claims — yet accounted for 35.5% of all flood loss payments. Roughly 90% of those properties receive subsidized rates. FEMA cannot compel mitigation.

The result: insurance availability increased population growth by 5% in high-flood-risk areas, contributing to an estimated 6.6% increase in Hurricane Katrina damages and up to 14% increase in Hurricane Harvey damages.

Ex post finance compensates destruction. It doesn't prevent it. And when the payments subsidize rebuilding in the same flood zone, the model guarantees its own next claim.

Ex post works for car accidents and house fires — discrete, insurable events with clear attribution. It breaks down when the "event" is the slow degradation of an entire ecosystem your supply chain depends on.

the crystal ball model (ex ante)

Ex ante means "before the event." This is how carbon credits work. You price a future that hasn't happened yet — specifically, the emissions that would have been released without intervention. Then you sell a certificate representing that avoided future.

Elegant in theory. In practice, it's an epistemological trap.

In January 2023, The Guardian published a nine-month investigation into Verra, the world's largest carbon credit certifier. The finding: more than 90% of Verra's rainforest offset credits were likely phantom credits that don't represent genuine carbon reductions. Over a billion credits issued since 2009. Buyers included Disney, Shell, and Gucci.

The problem wasn't fraud. The problem was the counterfactual baseline — the story about what would have happened in an alternate reality where the project didn't exist. Verra's methodology for estimating that alternate reality was structurally flawed.

South Pole's Kariba project in Zimbabwe overstated climate benefits by at least five times. The company claimed to have prevented deforestation across an area nearly the size of Puerto Rico. Of €100 million in proceeds, most flowed to South Pole and its partner — not to communities doing the actual conservation work. Nestlé, Volkswagen, and McKinsey bought the resulting credits.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,346 carbon mitigation projects found that fewer than 16% of credits issued represent real emission reductions. For cookstove projects: 11%. For wind power and improved forest management: no statistically significant reductions detected at all.

This isn't a failure of execution. It's a failure built into the instrument's temporal logic. Ex ante instruments force you to defend an unprovable claim: without this intervention, X would have happened. That baseline is fundamentally unfalsifiable. It's the source of every additionality scandal, every permanence debate, every baseline gaming controversy in the voluntary carbon market.

And the problem isn't limited to carbon. Biodiversity credit markets are wrestling with the same structural questions — a May 2025 World Economic Forum white paper on biodiversity credits echoes the exact concerns that carbon markets have failed to resolve for two decades.

Real estate has its own version. A proforma cap rate projects income after hypothetical improvements — what the property could earn if you renovate, re-tenant, and raise rents. It's a marketing tool. Blue sky and what-ifs. Investors know to discount proforma projections heavily, because the gap between projected and actual performance is where money disappears. Ex ante environmental instruments have the same structural problem, but without the same healthy skepticism.

Ex ante finance prices a counterfactual — a story about an alternate timeline. When the story is wrong, the credits are worthless. And the story is structurally, reliably wrong.

McKinsey's own research shows that S&P 500 earnings forecasts overestimate by 13% on average, with error rates climbing to 22% at three-year horizons. Professional analysts, covering companies with quarterly reporting and audited financials, can't predict next year's earnings.

What confidence should we place in 30-year deforestation projections for remote forests?

the present tense (ex nunc)

Ex nunc means "from now on." In law, when a court annuls a contract ex nunc, the decision applies from this moment forward — not retroactively. Present-tense. Observable. No alternate timeline needed.

In finance, ex nunc barely exists as a named category. But the logic behind it already does.

Consider the cap rate — the most fundamental metric in commercial real estate. Net operating income divided by property value. A ratio of current flows to current value. Not what the property might earn after renovations (that's a proforma — ex ante). Not what it earned last year before the tenant left (that's ex post). What it's generating right now, based on actual leases, actual occupancy, actual condition.

Every real estate investor understands the difference between an in-place cap rate and a proforma. The in-place cap rate is the truth. The proforma is the pitch.

Now apply the same logic to nature.

A forest is generating clean water, carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, habitat, and soil stability right now. These aren't projections. They aren't assessments of past damage. They're observable, present-tense flows from a functioning system — what the UN's SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework calls ecosystem service flows, structured into standardized accounts for extent, condition, and services.

The natural cap rate — ecosystem service value ÷ real asset cost — is always in-place. It measures what the ecosystem is delivering today based on its current condition. Not a proforma projection of what it could deliver after restoration. Not a backward-looking assessment of what was lost. Present flows from the present system.

Ecosystem condition can change — it can improve through restoration or decline through degradation. When it does, the natural cap rate shifts accordingly. But it's still ex nunc: a reading of current condition, reassessed as conditions change. Not a locked-in bet on a counterfactual.

Ex nunc finance funds systems that are presently generating value. The system is functioning or it isn't. Observation, not inference.

That last row is worth pausing on. With ex ante instruments, when conditions change you need new credits — a new counterfactual, a new baseline, a new issuance cycle. With ex nunc instruments, the same instrument reflects the new reality. If ecosystem condition improves through restoration or protection, existing instruments become more valuable. If condition degrades, they become less valuable. No new issuance required. The instrument is a continuous claim on present condition — and it can always be reassessed as that condition evolves.

The standardization question remains open — but standards built on "is the system functioning?" are inherently simpler to audit than standards built on "would the system have been destroyed without us?"

why this resolves the permanence and additionality trap

The two biggest structural criticisms in environmental markets are permanence and additionality.

Permanence asks: will this credit's benefit last? For ex ante instruments, that means defending a counterfactual indefinitely — without this project, deforestation would have continued for 100 years. That's not a verifiable claim. It's a bet on an alternate history that can never be observed.

Additionality asks: would this benefit have happened anyway? Ex ante instruments must prove a negative — that the credited outcome wouldn't have occurred without the project. This is inherently difficult to verify, and it's the root of most crediting scandals.

Ex nunc resolves both.

On permanence: The question shifts from "will this forest still be here in 2075?" to "is this forest generating ecosystem services today?" If yes, the instrument reflects that value. If conditions change, the instrument is reassessed — no new credits or issuance needed. Just ongoing observation matched to ongoing value.

On additionality: In a warming world with accelerating habitat loss, biodiversity decline, and ecosystem degradation, the default trajectory for natural systems is deterioration. IPBES found that 75% of land surface and 66% of ocean area have already been significantly altered — and the trend is accelerating. Any intervention that maintains, protects, or restores ecosystem condition is additional — because the baseline without intervention is decline. You don't need a counterfactual model to prove additionality when the secular trend is degradation. You observe that the system is functioning while comparable unprotected systems measurably aren't.

This also resolves the bundling problem. Unbundling ecosystem services into separately tradeable credits — one for carbon, another for water quality, another for biodiversity — forces ex ante counterfactual logic onto each disaggregated service. You need a separate unprovable baseline for each.

An ex nunc approach measures the system's condition as an integrated whole. Because that's how ecosystems actually function. A healthy forest doesn't produce carbon sequestration in isolation from water filtration, habitat, and soil stability. It produces all of them simultaneously, as a functioning system. Ecosystem stocks produce ecosystem service flows — and the natural cap rate captures both in a single present-tense ratio.

what this means for your capital

If you're an insurer: This is the upstream complement to your ex post book. Fund the natural infrastructure that reduces your claims before they happen — wetlands that absorb floods, forests that slow wildfire, reefs that buffer coastlines. The natural cap rate tells you what the ecosystem is delivering now relative to the cost of protecting it. Every dollar upstream can reduce multiples downstream.

If you're an investor: Natural cap rates for certain ecosystems run 131–766% annually — ratios of ecosystem service flows to acquisition cost. These aren't proforma projections. They're in-place measurements of current flows from functioning systems. The instruments to capture that value — ensurance coins for broad exposure and certificates for specific natural assets — already exist onchain.

If you're a corporation: TNFD disclosure requires you to report nature-related dependencies — what does your business depend on today? That's an ex nunc exercise. But "from now on" is the operative phrase. The point isn't just to document current exposure. It's to ensure future resilience by bolstering and restoring the natural systems your operations rely on — turning disclosure into protection, and protection into competitive advantage.

If you're a capital provider: Blended-finance structures can use the natural cap rate as a shared reference point — the same ratio, legible to conservation biologists and investment committees alike. Present flows ÷ present cost. No specialized environmental methodology required. Value flows transparently through proceeds to the people and places doing the work.

the convergence

Four things are making ex nunc finance practical right now:

Observation infrastructure. Satellite remote sensing, drone surveys, IoT sensors, and ecological modeling provide near-real-time ecosystem condition data at scale. SEEA standardizes how to structure it. TNFD provides the corporate reporting framework. The observation layer that makes present-condition assessment possible already exists — it just hasn't been connected to financial instruments that match its temporality.

Instrument design. Onchain infrastructure enables instruments that reflect present-tense ecological condition — where value correlates with observable ecosystem health, not counterfactual projections or post-loss triggers. Ensurance coins fund ongoing protection through perpetual trading activity. Ensurance certificates verify specific conditions of specific natural assets. Both are ex nunc by design — and both can be revalued as conditions change without issuing new instruments or credits.

Parametric precedent. Even insurance is moving toward condition-based triggers. Parametric insurance pays based on measured parameters — wind speed, rainfall, sea surface temperature — rather than subjective damage assessment. It's faster, more transparent, and closer to present-condition logic than traditional claims. Hawaii's parametric coral reef insurance triggers payouts automatically when storm thresholds are crossed, funding reef restoration within days rather than months. Parametric is still ex post (it pays after the event), but the shift from narrative-based claims toward objective, measurable triggers points toward the same destination: finance that connects to observable physical conditions.

Institutional demand. The $1 trillion annual biodiversity funding gap will not be closed by instruments where independent meta-analyses show fewer than one in six credits represent real outcomes. Institutional capital needs instruments backed by verifiable present-condition evidence — the same evidentiary standard required for any other asset class. "The forest is functioning and here's the data" is a fundamentally stronger basis for capital allocation than "the forest might have been cut down without us."

the bottom line

Finance has operated in two tenses for centuries. Past tense — compensate what was lost. Future tense — bet on what might happen. Both serve their purposes. Neither is built for the problem of funding living systems that generate value continuously, in the present.

Net present value usually means discounting projected future cash flows back to today — an inherently ex ante calculation, stacked on assumptions about discount rates and future performance. But there's a more fundamental question: what is the present value of a system that is currently functioning? And what is the present value of actions that protect the present while securing the future?

That's what ensurance does. It moves natural assets through three states:

At each stage, the instruments reflect present condition. If condition improves, value increases. If it degrades, value declines. No counterfactual. No damage prerequisite. Just a continuous reading of what exists now and a commitment to what continues from now on.

Ex nunc finance isn't a new theory. It's a precise label for what functioning ecosystems already do, matched to instruments that reflect the same temporality. The forest is working right now. Your capital can be too.

explore ensurance coins → | see ensurance certificates → | talk to someone →