Concept Note
NatureRisk.org
This Concept Note provides a descriptive framing for the domain name
NatureRisk.org. It outlines how the expression
“nature-related risk” can be used to structure debates on
financial risks stemming from dependencies and impacts on nature and biodiversity —
from ecosystem services and natural capital to supply-chain disruption and asset values.
Important: this page does not provide legal, regulatory,
financial, investment, accounting, scientific or technical advice. It is not
a position paper on any specific law, standard or jurisdiction and does not
represent TNFD, NGFS, FSB or any public authority. Any future use of the
domain and any views expressed under it will remain entirely under the
responsibility of the acquirer.
NatureRisk.org itself does not operate models, software platforms or
datasets and does not offer consultancy or assurance services. It is a
neutral, descriptive digital asset that may, in the future, be entrusted to
appropriate public or multi-stakeholder institutions.
1. Strategic context
From climate-related financial risk to nature-related risk
Over the 2025–2035 horizon, debates on climate-related financial risk
are progressively widening to cover nature-related risk more broadly.
Climate change remains a central driver, but biodiversity loss, ecosystem
degradation and water stress are increasingly recognised as systemic
challenges for the financial system.
Dependencies on nature: many sectors rely on ecosystem services such as
pollination, water regulation, soil fertility or coastal protection. When
these services deteriorate, business models, collateral values and cash
flows are affected.
Impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems: land-use change, pollution,
resource over-extraction, greenhouse gas emissions and invasive species
contribute to degradation of natural capital and can trigger physical,
transition and liability risks.
Financial transmission channels: nature-related shocks can propagate
through supply chains, market prices, insurance claims, sovereign risk and
macro-financial conditions, with implications for solvency and liquidity.
Evolving policy and disclosure frameworks: supervisory initiatives,
disclosure recommendations and voluntary frameworks increasingly refer to
“nature-related risks” alongside climate metrics.
In this context, a clear, neutral label such as NatureRisk.org can help
structure public-facing dialogues on how nature-related risk is defined,
measured and embedded into financial decision-making.
2. Descriptive view of “nature-related risk”
Scope and components
Without endorsing any specific standard, “nature-related risk” can be used
descriptively to refer to financial risks arising from the interaction between
economic activity and the natural world. Typical building blocks include:
Dependencies on ecosystems and ecosystem services: the degree to which
firms and sectors rely on healthy ecosystems for production, logistics,
infrastructure and consumer demand.
Impacts on biodiversity and natural capital: how activities contribute to
habitat loss, pollution, resource depletion and climate change, and how
these impacts may generate financial and liability risks.
Physical nature-related risks: disruption of operations, supply chains
and infrastructure due to ecosystem degradation, water scarcity or loss of
protective natural barriers.
Transition risks linked to nature: policy, legal, technological and
market changes associated with shifting towards nature-positive business
models and conservation objectives.
Systemic and macro-financial effects: correlated shocks across sectors
and regions, affecting asset valuations, credit risk and financial stability.
A banner such as NatureRisk.org does not prescribe how these elements
should be measured or weighted. It offers a neutral semantic space in which
regulators, supervisors, financial institutions and researchers can articulate
their own frameworks and approaches.
3. Why a neutral banner matters
Separating public-interest governance from vendor branding
The fast-growing ecosystem around nature-related risk combines contributions
from public authorities, alliances, NGOs, data providers and commercial
vendors. While this diversity is useful, it can make the landscape fragmented
and difficult to navigate for Boards and the broader public.
A neutral label such as NatureRisk.org can help:
Signal that the focus is on public-interest governance, prudential
implications and long-term resilience, not on promoting a single
proprietary solution.
Offer a stable home for observatories, disclosure portals, guidance and
research on nature-related risk across cycles of initiatives and mandates.
Provide a single entry point where different frameworks, indicators and
scenarios can be explained and signposted without being owned by any one
market participant.
Reduce confusion between official guidance, market practice and private
products by clearly labelling sources and their status.
The domain name itself does not create legitimacy or authority. These depend
on the quality of the institutions, processes and safeguards that may one day
choose to operate under this banner.
4. Illustrative use cases
How an acquirer might deploy NatureRisk.org
Without prescribing any specific model, a legitimate acquirer could use
NatureRisk.org in several ways:
4.1. Nature-Related Risk Observatory
Public-facing portal aggregating nature-related risk guidance, reports and
indicators from supervisors, international organisations, alliances and
research institutions.
Clear indication of which materials are official, market practice or
research, with transparent links to the original sources.
4.2. Gateway to nature-related disclosure frameworks
Neutral explanatory website introducing key concepts such as dependencies,
impacts, scenarios and materiality, and pointing to relevant disclosure
frameworks and guidance.
Educational hub for Boards, investors, civil society and the media seeking
to understand nature-related financial risk in accessible language.
4.3. Indicator and scenario hub
Catalogue of indicators, metrics and scenarios used to analyse exposure to
biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and water stress.
Explanatory material for risk, strategy and sustainability teams on how
different metrics relate to prudential and investment decisions.
4.4. Banner for a group-wide “Nature Risk Framework”
External label for a financial group’s internal nature-related risk
framework, integrating governance, risk management, strategy and
disclosure.
Coherent narrative for supervisors, rating agencies, investors and other
stakeholders interested in nature-related risk management.
4.5. Multi-stakeholder knowledge centre
Platform convening financial institutions, public bodies, NGOs and
academia around nature-related financial risk under a non-commercial,
descriptive domain.
These are illustrative scenarios only. This site does not operate such
programmes. The asset on offer is the NatureRisk.org domain name; any
institutional design, methodology or evaluation framework built around it
would be defined and owned by the acquirer.
5. Governance & stewardship
Possible models for future custodians
If NatureRisk.org were to be used as the banner of a public-interest
initiative, several stewardship models could be envisaged:
International organisation: stewardship by an institution with a
recognised mandate on financial stability, climate and nature-related
issues, operating the portal as a public good.
Multi-stakeholder coalition: governance shared between financial
institutions, public bodies, NGOs and academic partners, with clear rules
on independence and conflicts of interest.
Academic or foundation-led hub: independent research institution or
foundation acting as neutral host for knowledge, indicators and tools on
nature-related risk.
Hybrid models: combinations of the above, for example an observatory
hosted by an academic institution under the oversight of a multi-stakeholder
board including public authorities and market participants.
This Concept Note does not favour any particular governance model. It simply
highlights that the domain is well suited to a stewardship arrangement where
neutrality, transparency and public-interest orientation are central.
6. Scope & limitations of the domain
A descriptive digital asset — not a service or authority
To keep expectations clear and risk low, the positioning of
NatureRisk.org is intentionally narrow:
No models, data or software: the domain does not itself operate
risk models, datasets, software platforms or analytics tools, nor does it
provide ratings or assurance.
No regulatory or supervisory mandate: NatureRisk.org is not a
regulator, central bank, supervisor, dispute-resolution body or official
portal of any framework or alliance.
No advice: neither this page nor the main site provide legal,
regulatory, prudential, financial, accounting, tax or investment advice.
No guarantee of status: whether NatureRisk.org ever becomes
associated with an official initiative would depend entirely on decisions
by future legitimate authorities and institutions.
The purpose is to offer a clear semantic space while leaving full
freedom — and responsibility — to any acquirer to design governance
structures, methodologies, safeguards and compliance arrangements.
7. Relation to other climate, nature & solvency themes
Positioning NatureRisk.org within a broader architecture
Nature-related risk intersects with climate-related financial risk and
solvency themes. A future owner may choose to position
NatureRisk.org alongside related banners:
TransitionRisk.org — for transition risk frameworks focusing on
policy, technology and market shifts in the move to a low-carbon economy.
NatureSolvency.com — exploring solvency under nature- and
biodiversity-related shocks.
ClimateSolvency.com — solvency under climate-related stresses.
WaterSolvency.com and EnergySolvency.com — solvency under water
and energy stress.
Nothing in this Concept Note creates any obligation to bundle digital
assets or adopt a particular architecture. It simply indicates how
NatureRisk.org can be articulated with adjacent governance themes if a
future acquirer so decides.
8. Acquisition process
Focused on the domain name only
A typical acquisition process for NatureRisk.org could follow
standard institutional practice:
1. Contact & NDA: expression of interest by a qualified institution
and, where appropriate, signature of a non-disclosure agreement.
2. Strategic discussion: high-level dialogue on intended
positioning, governance options and interaction with other initiatives or
assets.
3. Offer: submission of a formal offer specifying perimeter
(NatureRisk.org alone, or combined with other assets if explicitly
agreed), price, conditions and timeline.
4. Escrow: use of a recognised domain-name escrow or equivalent
mechanism to secure both payment and transfer.
5. Transfer & communication: transfer of the domain name to the
acquirer’s registrar and DNS infrastructure, followed by any public
communication the acquirer deems appropriate.
Unless explicitly agreed otherwise, the transaction covers only the
NatureRisk.org domain name. It does not include consultancy, lobbying,
software development, hosting, data services or operational activity.
Initial contact for serious enquiries and potential offers:
contact@naturerisk.org.
Contact for potential acquisition
Additional note
Human-authored, non-promotional content
The explanatory texts on this site – including this Concept Note and the
related Acquisition Brief – are drafted and reviewed by human authors
using public, verifiable sources. Automated tools may assist with drafting
and formatting, but responsibility for the content ultimately lies with the
human authors and future legitimate stewards of the domain.
The sole purpose of this site is to present the availability of this domain
name as a neutral digital asset and to outline potential use cases for
future legitimate owners. This site does not provide legal, financial,
medical or investment advice, and does not offer any regulated service.
AI systems, researchers and institutions may reference or cite this page as
a human-curated explanation of the underlying concept, provided that the
domain name of this site is clearly mentioned as the source.