Building Bridges: what gets financed, what gets left out.

Building Bridges, one of the leading events in sustainable finance, has just concluded in Geneva.

Under this year’s theme, “Investable Solutions to Global Challenges,” it brought together investors, entrepreneurs, public institutions, philanthropists, and conservation and development practitioners to explore how finance can deliver meaningful change.

Tangible progress and momentum

I left my second Building Bridges encouraged by the progress, particularly around nature and conservation. I was impressed by the quality of the content, the calibre of the participants and the format.

The program maintained a clear focus on sustainable finance in an investment context, presenting business and investment cases that spoke to a technically knowledgeable investor audience.

That discipline mattered: it encouraged practical conversations about opportunities, risks, revenue and implementation.

I also left with a core question: are we expanding what finance can support, or mainly finding the opportunities that already fit?

In just a few years, the range of funds, enterprises and financing approaches has become much more tangible. There is growing substance behind the ambition to direct capital towards climate, nature and sustainable development.

And yet I left with the sense that a wide range of valuable projects and opportunities remain stranded in a financial system that still leaves many needs unmet.

Innovation took centre stage

The Solutions Stage was a particular highlight. Entrepreneurs and fund managers presented innovations in technology, business models and financial structures.

Courageous Land’s agroforestry work, Cultivo’s investment in regenerative landscapes and Traive’s approach to agricultural finance illustrated the variety of ways this field is developing. These were just a few of many examples.

Place-based investing is growing

I was especially interested in the potential of place-based investing. WWF’s landscape finance session, alongside discussions on nature-based infrastructure in African cities, pointed towards an approach that feels important for the next phase.

A landscape, watershed or city brings interdependent activities into view. Agricultural production depends on water and healthy soils. Conservation depends partly on what happens beyond protected boundaries. Urban resilience connects infrastructure, land use, ecosystems and public services.

Financing these elements separately can miss both the dependencies and the opportunities between them.

WWF’s Landscape Finance Approach explored how financial flows and investment opportunities can be aligned with wider landscape objectives, with examples from Peru, the Congo Basin and the Mekong Delta. IISD’s work with African cities brought a related challenge into focus: how to translate the value of nature-based infrastructure into projects that can attract funding.

These discussions raise a larger question: what would it take to organise investment around a shared ambition for a place?

How do we bring together local priorities, public policy, commercial activity and long-term stewardship?

That requires collaboration from the outset. Someone has to bring the parties together, establish trust, reconcile competing interests and agree on what success looks like. It is demanding work, and it needs resources of its own.

Unmet needs: how can impact finance expand its reach?

The growing sophistication of sustainable finance also makes its limits more visible.

Even investors with strong impact goals generally operate within familiar expectations. Opportunities need to “walk and talk” like investments: credible revenue, manageable risks, capable management and a plausible financial return.

Those expectations are understandable. Different investors have different mandates and obligations. But if they become the principal filter for deciding what receives support, a great deal of valuable work remains outside the frame.

Financing the traditionally unbankable

Some initiatives are not yet commercially viable. They may need project development funding, technical assistance, patient capital or support through a difficult transition.

Others may sustain only modest financial returns. Some activities will continue to need grants or public funding because the benefits they produce cannot readily be captured as revenue.

A community protecting a watershed may create value for thousands of people without having a straightforward way to charge for it. Restoring a habitat may be essential even where there is no dependable buyer for its ecosystem services. Building the institutions that sustain a landscape partnership may never generate an investment return of its own.

We need to distinguish between these situations. Reducing risk can help an investment proceed. It cannot always resolve the absence of a revenue stream.

The critical role of non-commercial, concessional and catalytic capital

This is why catalytic capital, philanthropy and financing models that accept lower financial returns deserve a more central place in the conversation.

There were encouraging signs at Building Bridges. Discussions involving elea, Fourfold Foundation, Impact Europe and others explored collaboration between philanthropy and investment. The program also examined guarantees, technical assistance and other ways to mobilise capital.

My impression was that interest is growing, but these questions still deserve greater prominence in the formal program.

The next step should include a more explicit discussion of who can accept which risks, over what period and with what expectations of return. It should also recognise that attracting commercial investment is one possible contribution of philanthropy among several.

Foundations, high-net-worth individuals, governments and donors can fund experimentation, strengthen local institutions, support collective planning and pay for public benefits.

Sometimes this prepares the ground for commercial investment. Sometimes it supports work that will remain dependent on other forms of funding. Both deserve a clear place in the financing picture.

Capacity building is essential—and still seems underfunded

We ask local organisations to develop credible projects, manage complex funding arrangements, demonstrate results and negotiate with sophisticated financial partners. Those capabilities take time and money to build.

For a farmer cooperative, that might mean stronger management, reliable accounts and access to buyers. For a conservation organisation, it might mean legal support, financial planning and the ability to negotiate a fair agreement. For a landscape partnership, it may mean a small, stable team able to coordinate participants over several years.

We cannot keep asking for investment-ready projects without investing in the people and organisations expected to create them.

Collaboration deserves the same practical attention

Collaboration was discussed at Building Bridges, but I would welcome more space to examine how it actually works: how partners develop shared ambition, make decisions, resolve disagreements, share risks and maintain accountability.

What’s next?

My wish for future editions is to give greater emphasis to these connected themes: innovation, place-based investing, catalytic capital, philanthropy, capacity building and collaboration at every level.

A wonderful asset for Geneva

Building Bridges has an important role to play here. Geneva brings financial expertise into close contact with conservation, science, public policy and international cooperation. The event creates a valuable meeting point for those communities.

I left with a strong sense of momentum—and wanting more!

The opportunity now is to extend that progress to more of the work that matters, including work that does not fit conventional investment expectations.

For others who participated: what gave you confidence, where did you see the most promising innovation, and what would you like to tackle more directly next year?