Intro
In this episode of our podcast Beyond the Canopy, Alexander sits down with Alejandro Diaz, Landscape Finance Manager at Commonland, to discuss how to unlock substantial fundings for large scale landscape restoration and scape from a project view to a more holistic approach and we’ll dive into their 4 Returns Funding Approach.
The episode
About Alejandro Diaz
Alejandro Diaz is the Landscape Finance Manager at Commonland, where he has worked for four years. With a background in business and traditional finance, including time spent at a bank in Canada, he transitioned into development finance, focusing on innovative and blended finance models. His role at Commonland centers on mobilizing financial resources for landscape partners, essentially connecting restoration programs and interventions with investors, including public and private funders. He is deeply involved in supporting partners to design investable projects and develop financing models, aiming to bridge the gap between finance and the holistic, large-scale needs of landscape restoration.
Transcript
Alexander Watson
Welcome to the Beyond Canopy, the podcast where we dive deep into the tools, stories, and innovations driving ecosystem restoration and impactdriven investments. I’m Alexander from Open Forest Explore.land and today we’re exploring one of the biggest questions in the restoration space. So up to 40% of the world land is degraded and the need is huge. So how can we unlock substantial funding for law for large scale landscape restoration and how to scale from a project view towards a more holistic landscape approach. So how to connect finance and landscapes in respon in a more responsible way. Our guest today is Alejandro Diaz. He is landscape finance manager at Commonland. It’s an organization pioneering the for returns framework which is a powerful approach or methodology that is rooted in the theory of change. And the goal is to restore landscape ecosystems while creating value for local communities, increasing biodiversity and other ecosystem services. for example, water retention, soil protect protection, but also of course stability of the local temperatures. So for this to happen, the idea is to build synergies between landscape stakeholders such as farmers, communities and municipalities, local businesses, and the private sector such as investors, philanthropy, but potentially also corporate businesses. Alejandro supports landscape partners in designing investable landscape restoration projects and helps developing financing models that blend capital types and unlock potential funding. So, welcome Alejandro. Great to have you on the podcast and yeah, please introduce yourself.
Alejandro Diaz
Thank you so much Alexander. really nice to to be here and to chat. So yes, my name is Alejandro. You can call me Ali. I’m a landscape finance manager here at Commonland. I’ve been in the organization for four years now as of this week exactly. So it’s nice plenty to talk about. And it’s been really a a learning learning process. My background is more generally in in business and finance. Started more traditional working at at a bank in Canada where I spent a lot of time living when I where I studied and where I then worked for some years. Then going into more broadly development finance. So not nature specific let’s say but already looking into these you know blended finance solutions innovative finance models and so on and indeed after four years or so that was called is called convergence and after four years there I moved to Commonland so indeed as you mentioned I’m a landscape finance manager the whole idea with the team in my role is to support landscape partners with mobilizing financial resources essentially. So bottom line is we try to connect these interventions programs to investors in some case through public finance years as well private finance years and mobilize some capital. Yeah, it’s a it’s a work in progress, but happy to get into it a little bit more.
Alexander
Yeah. So, I think we already started to to go a little bit into it and maybe we should really start with a difficult question. So, we know landscape degradation is one of the root cause of climate change, biodiversity loss and poverty. But why is it so hard to mobilize capital for for restoring these landscapes?
Alejandro
So I think for us at Commonland really the main thing is making it holistic and place-based and large scale. So when we’re talking about holistic just to be on the same page, we’re referring to looking at all kinds of activities across a particular area. Usually we look at maybe 50,000 hectares and more. We support some landscapes that look at a million hectares. So very very large areas but have of course many underlying activities. In some cases those activities might be degrading contributing to degradation. In other cases might be contributing to restoration. All equally important to look at. And so considering the way in which these different interventions activities interact with each other is very important. In some case there might be interventions that maybe cancel each other out. There is little collaboration synergies that could be found. And so it’s a lot of work in first bringing together organizations, bringing together stakeholders across, you know, you’ve mentioned farmers, could be businesses, local government, engaged citizens, maybe national park authorities. They’re all active. They’re all have a view and voice and want to restore their their landscapes but maybe don’t really meet each other. And so first of all is bringing this you know these entities these individuals together that makes it tricky for capital mobilization because as you can imagine in some cases there’s revenue generating activities. In some case there’s not. So you might require maybe €5,000 for in grant funding for a small intervention around maybe bringing together folks at an event. Whereas in other cases you might be looking at a €10 million euro project that maybe requires you know debt finance. And so how do you present that? Do you bring it together as like a package? You’re talking about different kinds of finance flows. therefore different capital providers. So, it’s it’s tricky from the from the get-go. How do you Yeah. showcase the interventions? To start, who’s funding the keeping the lights on for an entity that is doing the coordination itself? those organizations that are typically the ones that that we’re supporting at Commonland landscape partnerships, let’s say, that require you know core funding ongoing largely unrestricted you know flexible funding to do this initial work.
Alexander
Yeah. Great. So what what I hear is there are different stakeholders with different interests. Sometimes they are really aligning. Sometimes they’re sometimes they could be contradicting these interests and they all have a different background. So different understanding potentially of the problem, a different language they use in their day-to-day business. But how to bring this together and maybe now my question, how does common lens for returns framework help to address these challenges?
Alejandro
Yeah. So I think in going back to because it’s holistic these different activities first need to be identified and and mapped. So landscape partnerships do a great job in playing that intermediation role that’s a core part of the you know four returns framework. This locally grounded, locally based and locally led entity who is driving that effort. But again to back to your point of mobilizing resources perhaps before going to the forward returns framework a little bit more important to distinguish what kinds of resources because it’s very different to mobilize let’s say philanthropy and grants from or let’s say maybe bigger scale investment capital. Because we’re looking at landscape level work and different kinds of interventions all are relevant and so my role in particular is more oriented to private sector mobilization. We t tend to look at the investment opportunities within the the landscape and to be frank I think part of the problem is how the current economic system and how investment decisions are being made because they tend to allocate resources in a very sector oriented. It’s it’s actually difficult if you’re let’s say talking about maybe funds being set up to find anything that’s maybe very place-based or very locally grounded. And so what do you present? And how do you address the fact that maybe there’s contingencies with some of the investment opportunities that require a completely different set of funds and different kind of capital but is required for it all to work in conjunction. So that’s part of the of the difficulty. But making clear that essentially the sum of the parts is greater than one when they’re all working together. You’re mapping the interventions and not working in isolation. And so part of the forms framework and what common aims to do and and to support is in in driving these efforts forward bringing these parties together. The forms framework is essentially looking at how do you bring stakeholders together, develop a common vision, having a shared understanding of what needs to happen in the landscape, developing a plan to do that and implementing it and looking at for returns in order to make it holistic. So return of inspiration very important. How do you bring back hope and inspiration, a sense of belonging, sense of connection to to that landscape?
Alexander
And and this is this is also quite unique for the four returns model. So with the usual models, you like have the triple bottom line with social, economic, and environmental, but you also added the inspirational part, right?
Alejandro
Indeed. Yeah. We see it as the as the main driver. It’s what’s really making it happen and what will sustain it long term because you can have all of these other you know views and and benefits but in our view if the let’s say local communities local actors don’t have let’s say that connection in that sense or that ownership around it that it’ll be difficult to sustain it longer term. So it’s probably the one where yeah we pay definitely much more attention to than than other actors or we try to highlight it more. And of course that is combined with social returns, natural returns, financial returns. So having this holistic lens around programs as opposed to a a narrow narrower view highlighting that you know it needs to be integrated.
Alexander
You mentioned the 4 Returns. So this is like the inspirational social component natural capital and financial returns. That is more like the the the road map that you agree to yeah together with the stakeholders on so the pathway how to where you want to get so the vision at the horizon but in in order to make it possible so a pro like a landscape initiative ready for funding what needs to be in place before supporting in terms of yeah maybe desk review, governance structure, management plans, financial structures. So for example, if if if there’s an an landscape with some actors, how do you support them towards connecting maybe with with some funders maybe philanthropy first and then connect them build them further towards more professional funders. what what is your approach? So maybe you can give an example or outline how that works.
Alejandro
Yeah, I think it talking about an example kind of brings it to make it a little bit more concrete. So when we’re talking about mobilizing resources, there is an underlying entity that needs to absorb that capital. Yeah, we talk about landscape sometimes in an abstract way, but of course in the end it’s one individuals and organizations. So different kinds of entities. Some of those entities are potentially business cases or maybe a specific you know project entity that can absorb investment capital. So investment in this case very specifically being debt equity. So the type of resources resource that needs to be repaid and likely with some type of financial return. And so you need appropriate structures to absorb that. That implies that there needs to be a legal entity ideally locally grounded, locally led who can do that. Plus this need to absorb let’s say grant funding whether it’s from philanthropy or from public resources. Even philanthropy has a a lot of constraints right and requirements. What kind of entity do you need to be? Do you need to be a a charity a registered charity? Do you need to be an association? Do you need to be maybe in some case have some connection with maybe government you know on the public side. So you can imagine all of these entities forming an ecosystem of partners within a landscape having different roles. So where common land comes in is in identifying or supporting the identification and bringing all of these organizations together to first again develop a vision around what’s going to happen. What do all of these entities and individuals want to happen for the next 20 years in that landscape? Once you have that because it’s long term, it’s you know it’s it’s landscape level restoration. It’s not going to happen overnight. So that’s point one and then developing of course what’s the plan maybe for the next year three years five years around that then you can start implementing or creating some of the entities that are still needed to be created or doing business development doing project development that is where let’s say our team as landscape finance is well positioned to then come come in and support. So we will go through a process right now. This is something that we’re for example piloting in in the Altiplano Estepario landscape in in Spain to essentially identify all of the interventions that the landscape partners are working on and their financing needs. And so it’s very simple actually. It’s like it’s data collection but standardized. And so then these underlying organizations are contributing information that very specifically looks at what kind of finance they need, how much do they need, when for how long, from whom ideally. And then we can start making assessments of maybe this could be commercial. It’s revenue generating. there’s, you know, sufficient cash flow potential there to maybe repay a commercial loan. Great. Maybe this requires equity. Most of them are actually interventions that need grant funding. So, let’s look at that. Public funding, philanthropy, and then you can get a a really good picture of what is needed with that input. So you’re just answering what is needed then we can support finance strategy development. So let’s bring that to how are you going to to actually fundraise for it. Are there sufficient investors and donors that are maybe interested for maybe through funds that already exist public maybe programs and so on subsidies and if not then how do you tackle it? Do you develop something new? Do you maybe try to put together a new project? Are there maybe additional interventions that need to to be developed by the local partners, not by by Commonland? We’re just supporting this this process. And then once you once you have that strategy then I think it’s way more effective to then go out to the market with this really good understanding of what is needed as opposed to developing something maybe from a more top-down sense or approach where funds get set up and maybe you know 50, 75, 100 million euros that then is difficult to allocate because there is maybe little identification of pipeline ahead of time, little absorption capacity within landscapes and so it’s difficult to find these opportunities. If we do it the reverse way, so I first identifying what the needs are and then setting up relevant and appropriate solutions then you know we can start to bridge that uh a little bit more.
Alexander
Super interesting. So let me quickly recap. So we have like a a complex landscape with different stakeholders and these different stakeholders have different financial requirements. So let’s say also on the level how they are developed. So some stakeholders might need some training so they need grant for training. Others has a others have a farm and they want to expand the farm lease more land for regenerative agriculture. So they need a loan to do to do that. Maybe there’s a consortium of a cooperative that wants to to have a more professional investor that gives them a bigger loan for for longer period that that could could be an option. And so my question is there also collaboration with with corporate that so that like a landscape could feed into their supply chain. So because you mentioned Alip Plano in Spain which we had the chance to visit like two years ago with the team there were a lot of almond plantations and I think that’s a really valuable product also for the industry and getting access to almond sustainable almond supply chain might be interesting also for corporates. So I mentioned now philanthropy loan maybe equity maybe there’s also like a yeah corporate partnership possibility with landscapes. So yeah what’s your view on that?
Alejandro
Definitely and it’s super interesting right now because of these I think there is more of this recognition across corporates and more initiatives looking into this but even these disclosure setting organizations like uh TNFD or or target setting like SBTN are already looking at landscape engagement targets for and putting out guidance and around for corporates around how to do this in financial institutions as well. So I think it’s increasingly going to be happening that there’s going to be inbound requests to landscape partnerships such as AlVelAl from corporates who want to do this. Not only but for sure this is the the biggest driver in terms of supply chain resilience and securing you know products key commodities that they need. but also because of these landscape engagement targets and needing to really go beyond just maybe net zero and cleaning up their own supply chain but looking at what is happening around it. What which landscapes are you active in? How are you supporting the broader landscape restoration effort, the holistic landscape restoration effort and not only your own supply chain? So we start to see that, but it still I think tends to be more focused from a yeah supply chain security perspective and and risk perspective as opposed to the more proactive landscape engagement side. But ideally, you have corporates that have the capacity to sign, you know, really good off-take agreements providing a premium and therefore an incentive for farmers to transition to certain practices and that that’s rewarded also in in the market. So people being willing to pay that additional price for the the benefits and that also implies that there’s a way to measure and track these other you know additional benefits maybe around biodiversity around water carbon of course and so these conversations start to happen I think it’s important to again go beyond maybe supply chain and security and procurement but including these corporates who are key landscape actors as well in the broader conversations and then facilitating their resources to be linked to maybe a financial institution locally that can provide maybe a cheaper loan because of the off-take agreement and maybe that can be again blending right it can be guaranteed by the local government to a certain extent again lowering the price, maybe providing some additional flexibility to farmers and mesmes from the landscapes in order to to facilitate the that transition. But for sure we see that happening.
Alexander
So what what what what becomes obvious is that it’s a super complex system landscape due to the to the environmental conditions, due to the stakeholders and it’s it’s nothing that you can restore within a typical investment cycle of 3 to 5 years. So, you really need patient capital to do so. Can you explain what it is and why it matters in landscape and maybe also how you convince funders to be to become more patient than they are in general.
Alejandro
Yeah, tricky one but essentially when we think about patient capital I guess it can be it can be twofold. When of course the tenor like when are you asking for a return on that money or for the money itself to be paid back. In many cases, this goes back to, you know, what are what is our current system asking for? And you can tail back to asset owners and, you know, pension funds and insurance companies or individuals who typically want to see some potentially recurring income or maybe already like principal back, their money back. And those timelines tend to be short. So 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, long long-term funds, 7, 10, 12 years, increasingly, you know, 10 plus. But when we’re looking at landscape restoration, you need at least 20 years to make, you know, a dent at landscape level, a ecological restoration. And sometimes those timelines again misalign. So you could have 12 years being a long time for let’s say a fund we and we would advocate for evergreen structures or permanent structures but where that is yeah maybe not possible because of current system. you assume that an investment cycle will be 7 8 9 years max which means you invest and then all the activities happen in order for you to get the return that you’re looking for and you exit that investment in order to be able to to get paid as an investor. So that assumes that the cycle is very fast. Yeah. So that’s that’s part of the problem. And so when we’re looking at again patient capital, can we look at permanence? Can we look at 15ear cycles, 20 year cycles, maybe different innovative structures with having some liquidity available maybe through blending or market mechanisms that can facilitate that. But keeping the money in landscapes long term and ideally or for value ad that is being created to also remain in the landscapes. So different ways of doing it but yeah just being more flexible.
Alexander
So let’s say the it’s difficult to convince very conventional investors with short-term horizons because landscape projects are not bankable in the common common sense. So, and I see that we have to be a little bit more innovative in the financing mechanisms. So, and yeah, you you just described already a few one how you support them from philanthropy, loans and things like that. What what about for example outcome-based finance? So where you invest into carbon credits, biodiversity credits, water funds. That could be one category.
Alejandro
So yeah on outcomes based the implication is that we can measure that and in a reliable way. So there’s a lot of organizations who are working on on this on the tracking measurement and monetization of maybe these for example ecosystem services or other kinds of impact. But yeah, it I think the difficulty is in setting up structures where you find a buyer for it. And that doesn’t maybe outsource the the risk or put the the burden on maybe for example a farmer who’s already taking significant amount of risk. Yeah. So if you do outcomes based and something happens, there’s a catastrophe, maybe there’s a drought and you don’t meet maybe some threshold. How do we navigate that? But we definitely have to go in. So there’s a lot of, you know, things to to figure out, but I think it’s going in the in the right direction. There’s a lot of interest in it. And at the end of the day, I think if we don’t start measuring this more and become better at it and again put the risk where it’s really absorbable and where it’s, you know, meant to be and on who it’s meant to be. Then we can unlock some of these additional revenue streams and incentives for for farmers measuring these externalities. Right now, that’s a big big gap. If you look at maybe a landscape, the landscape economics and the transition economics would work quite well if you could measure these externalities, positive externalities and pay the people who who need to be paid for it.
Alexander
Do you see the possibility that the new CSRD directive might close this gap because a landscape so when we talk about Altiplano in Spain I know it’s more than a million hectares or something like that and part of the landscape there are also companies corporates doing their business there which might be subject um to the CSRD Do you see that there might some sources coming from from from this new directive that might flow into the landscape and help to restore them?
Alejandro
I think already again going back to your question around corporates for sure there’s more interest that will probably continue to happen when we I think in the case of for example the altiplano I think the the biggest leverage points continue to be also on the on the public side though so how do we shift maybe certain subsidies maybe the cap, you know, what is it incentivizing? Can we maybe inform public policy so that farmers get incentivized in the right direction? Let’s in the concept of plan towards regenerative organic practices. It starts to happen for example around water like swales for example now you can get subsidies for it but then looking at what is that the surrounding ecosystem for it do farmers know how to implement soils is there appropriate machinery for it equipment how do you go out in in the right way right facilitating that so we’ll need to look at corporates contributing to that public side contributing to that philanthropy as well consumers. So I think it it does need to be across the board and it’s it’s going in the right I think direction market shift.
Alexander
So so we at open force because we work with tools we develop explore.land event and also Commonland is using it to visualize their initiatives on a map to show progress and help to communicate internally. So therefore my question is really regarding tools and frameworks. Are there anyone who are particularly helpful for you to organize these complex structures?
Alejandro
So I mentioned the the process kind of like this step place work that we’ve been doing especially recently. So one is the it’s essentially we call a finance assessment but it’s it’s data collection. It’s standardized data collection. They’re not super complex, but if we can combine that with for example like explorer land and other web- based platforms that can visualize that information and map it. So for example you collect coordinates but right now is it’s an Excel sheet. We don’t have the capacity or we haven’t you know gone to that point of everything that you input in real time shows up and really gives you a nice visualization and a dashboard around the financing needs and what kind of project it is and if it’s revenue generating or not. So the more that we can take these kind of simple tools and I think it needs to be simple initially at least but indeed then then maybe combining them right and if you have instead of an Excel you have a nice web- based application for example like explorer land then you also benefit more and more quickly because there’s no value in just collect collecting data for the sake of collecting data. We need to do something with it. Let’s show it. Let’s put it in front of people who maybe are looking for these projects who have capital to to allocate and reach them. the only the I think the the biggest benefit or value that we see in in the tools that we’re using is in the standardization and and making it easier to tell that story and to communicate what it is that landscape partners are working on but the underlying value and the tools are still the work on the ground. So from a landscape finance perspective is just let’s take that let’s see what is needed and communicate it in a in a clear and con consistent way.
Alexander
So you have kind of a landscape investment readiness assessment. So for example if a finer approached you and said I I want to do something I don’t know in Mexico in Spain South Africa you have you have different impact dimensions that you’re supporting with your projects what can I do and is there a way to see how ready a landscape is to take on the investment so in the beginning you mentioned there has to be like a financial infrastructure for distributing the the funds to to the different to the diff different levels. So is is is there a way how how how you measure it and communicate that to potential investors?
Alejandro
I think so far it continues to be at at intervention level. You know we talk about landscape finance and tracking all finance flows that are relevant but it’s also extremely complex to be able to set something up that is indeed landscape finance per definition. because that implies you need philanthropy, you need public finance, you need private just the effort of coordinating that into a single maybe structure is just potentially too much. It’s not may not need it. So right now that process becomes more okay we’ve identified the interventions there are appropriate and you know commercially viable business cases let’s connect those business cases to the appropriate investors let’s connect the projects that require maybe grant funding to philanthropists the let’s influence maybe or or try to train or strengthen capacities within landscapes in order to be able to access existing flows of of finance. But so far we haven’t really you know there’s no landscape finance examples per se. Yeah. But I think increasingly and we’re working on a couple of different in a couple of different landscapes to serve maybe key activities or key interventions that do require some maybe more niche or more specific blended finance mechanism because it’s a leverage point in the landscape perhaps called transition finance for farmers. So you do have to like we do narrow it down to a more concrete and more simple problem and then find a solution for that problem in the context and informed by the broader holistic landscape restoration program. So it’s still not creating a a finance a blend let’s say a finance mechanism or a solution in isolation. It is informed by all of the conversations that we’ve been having, informed by the local partners. It’s locally led, locally grounded so that when it does get created, if it gets created, it is able to, you know, tackle some of the challenges that that have been identified and the finance can be absorbed appropriately.
Alexander
So as as I understand at the moment you identify problems and solutions on the intervention level and then you seek funding especially to remedy or improve these specific areas for example reduce pesticides in plantations something something like that. what what needs what what do the farmer needs to to become organic farmers and they might have like a transition time and is is this an example and then you basically you select let’s say areas where you have a relatively high leverage and where basically also you have a matching funder because maybe one alone is is for a transition towards organic for a training you might need grants. Yeah. Is that correct?
Alejandro
Correct. It just really depends on the intervention. But there is a it while it’s intervention specific, let’s say. It’s indeed important to look at the broader landscape and the broader let’s say call it system. That you’re active in. So let’s let’s if you look at the landscape as a system then what is the leverage point within that landscape is it agriculture and and farmer practices is it maybe I know in some cases it might be the natural zone restoration efforts in other case maybe it’s education and then based on that then you can create a solution that is maybe specific for that challenge but it is informed formed by all of the other activities within the landscape. It’s driven by the landscape partnership. How did Yeah. So it’s not you have a project and let’s fund that project. It’s you have this problem and leverage point. How do we address this informed also and influenced by the system? Yeah. And so that’s the key I would say or one of the key value adding capabilities of landscape partnerships. They’re embedded in the landscape. They know the landscape better than than any external entity might and have the right conversations with the local actors that are that need to be involved.
AlexanderYeah. So I myself see more actors appearing in this landscape sector. So we work with the Wyss academy for nature. I see that Rockefeller philanthropy advisers are interested in developing possibilities for landscape financing. When you speak with funders through common land, do you see a tendency or funders being more interested in financing landscapes at at that point?
Alejandro
I do I’m more on the investment side. So I I know for sure the philanthropy there has really good experience with it and and advocating also for flexibility in the funding. So beyond what it’s allocated to let’s say holistic landscape restoration it’s how and the how is process level. So again unrestricted flexible long-term recurring core funding that is critical for the continuation of landscape partnerships on on the grant side let’s say fund. Yeah, on the investment side, I think it it’s still while there’s more familiarity with it, I and familiarity including why it would be beneficial to do this and and the challenges that might be associated with it. I think it’s still not there yet in terms of, you know, investors being open and understanding and allocating to landscapes. very nent still very little funding that gets allocated in in this way. So we have to for example tend to look at environmental and let’s say nature finance, nature-based solutions, conservation finance, or let’s say agri finance. There’s no bucket that is let’s say restoration or like landscape finance. So hopefully that continues to to evolve. But so far it’s still challenging.
Alexander
Yeah. And and and do you have like an idea of how that could made be made possible?
Alejandro
I think the more familiarity with it, the more it’s embedded into directives, target setting, there’s a an ability to also measure things. So landscape level economics, understanding of landscape finance, understanding of implications, synergies, risks of why you need to do an assessment that goes beyond a supply chain and look at the whole landscape, the whole ecosystem. Yeah. Then there will be more and more awareness probably leading to capital allocation and there are examples don’t get me wrong, but it’s still quite small.
Alexander
Okay. And do you see it also in the space of public private partnerships so that governments de-risk yeah private engagement there is is this also important component of it
Alejandro
Definitely part of the problem is you communicate to those different actors in different ways. So we need tools that serve the needs and understanding of maybe public actors national subnational. You need tools that maybe serve the needs of corporates, financial institutions, asset managers, local actors, farmers and everyone is kind of playing different roles. So, but yes, definitely in the end if we can if organizations can find ways and agree on how to measure maybe ecosystem services. Yes. And that is embedded into maybe a public policy that is then leading to allocation of resources to a a lands landscape level kind of ecosystem services scheme. Then that can then de-risk or those concessional or public resources can de-risk investment into that type of transition finance. And yeah, there could be a really nice system and then you have a corporate acting as off taker lowering the risk and then you know the local actors get the resources required but in ways that are absorbable. It’s it cannot be extremely expensive. It just won’t happen if it’s very difficult and expensive and time intensive as well to let’s say get a loan like maybe it needs to be a part of the cap needs to be a subsidy or needs to be a grant or it needs to be a much cheaper loan.
Alexander
Yeah, I’m trying to to recap because we coming slowly to an end of of our conversation. So what what what what I hear so I so there are a lot of aspects but certainly we need like government a governmental framework be it on country level be it on European level that sets the boundaries and a structure to to support landscape restoration finance that is one component another component I hear we need transparency data and a way to measure progress in a transparent and also a standardized way so that it’s not just very specific for one location so that financial institutions could apply it to a bigger portfolio and the third point I’ve forgotten no I think the third point was that we also need like innovative financing mechanisms be it through car credits, be it through beat other compensation mechanism, beat tax exemptions for doing a positive impact in the landscape. And having said that also maybe to connect supply chains of corporates better with the local actors under again sustainability assumptions. So that for example timber processing, almond production, cocoa production, all these things that used to be conventional and harming the environment and the landscapes brought to a more sustainability level. Yeah.
Alejandro
Agreed. Yeah. So there’s a lot of moving things but it is an interesting interesting topic that’s quickly moving.
Alexander
Yeah. Is there anything that you would like to share with our listeners and resources platform call to actions?
Alejandro
Yeah, I all of these tools that Commonland works on and uses are open source and right now we are continuing to to develop them. We’ve been piloting them. So definitely call to reach out to if you have tools that you’ve been using that have been helpful. We’d love to, you know, also try them out. If you want to participate or use the tools that we’ve been using, do reach out as well. right especially landscape partners yeah who are interested in in using them or or getting some some support I think that’s what Commonland is is really built for act I think as a you know service to landscape partnerships so we will also put it into the show notes maybe a final more personal question so you basically your careers more started in the in the conventional financial area So what has motivated you to to do this work?
Alejandro
Now I think the I mean what motivates me and the day-to-day it’s still the connection of what’s happening on the ground. So for me being able to connect with and to really understand what is happening and and see and hear the great work that the landscape partners are doing. For example, Kosorda in Mexico or AlVelAl in the Altipano. I think that is for sure the biggest motivator. They have the the really difficult roles and just I don’t know supporting in from here in the way that we can I think is the the main thing for for me and yeah I would argue for most of or for common land in general. yeah and I think it’s it’s been taking a long time. The state right now of course look state of the world how things are moving the macro picture is sometimes yeah maybe quite challenging to hear about. And so these local initiatives that continue to to move forward and you know do great work with very little is really the the highlight encouraging.
Alexander
Encouraging. Thank you very much Alejandro for sharing your valuable insights. thank you for having me.
Alejandro
No pleasure. Nice chatting with you Alexander.
Alexander
I think this conversation showed that with the right frameworks and the right capital we have the chance to make large scale restoration investable and feasible. It also shows that there are still a lot of struggle and challenges that we have to address but yeah it also reveals that that that there’s a path forward. So to all our listeners, thank you very much for tuning in. Subscribe, share, and stay tuned for the next episode of Beyond the Canopy. Have a great day.
