Explore how Link can help you assess, prioritize, and reduce your company's impacts and risks related to nature.
By submitting this form you agree to be contacted by Link Nature. To opt-out of communications, please click the unsubscribe link in our emails.
James, your model is designed to bring large-scale investment into nature. Where did this idea come from, and what problem are you trying to solve?
My personal climate journey started around 10 years ago while I was working in the digital health space, particularly on a personal air pollution monitoring device. It was this project where I had my ‘aha’ moment: I realized we are in a huge planetary crisis and running out of time. That’s when my co-founder Manuel Piñuela and I knew we had to take action and apply our skills to tackling this crisis.. At the time, everyone was focused on planting trees. What struck us was this huge, overlooked part of our planet, grasslands, and the fact that land degradation is as big a crisis as deforestation.
We saw a direct parallel to our work in healthcare: we started seeing degraded land as a sick patient, and our goal became finding the right treatment: the restoration pathway. So much like precision medicine for a patient, we wanted to perform precision recovery for grasslands.
It's a powerful analogy. How do you go about that?
We saw that technology, especially data and AI, could play a huge role. We started building tools to identify areas of degraded land that had the highest potential to bounce back. This is the crucial first step because the bigger the "uplift" from a sick state to a healthy one, the more environmental benefits the project can generate. That improvement, whether it’s more carbon stored in the soil or more species diversity restored, is what creates the value. By finding the land with the most potential, you create a project that is good for nature and good for business.
To make this concrete, can you break down who is involved in a project and what’s in it for each of them?
It's a three-sided model. First is the landowner, for example a rancher. We work with them to implement better practices like sustainable grazing. They benefit from healthier land, better food for their cattle, new infrastructure paid for by the project, and a new income stream from the environmental improvements. Nothing happens without them.
Second is the investor, like a firm that manages money for pension funds. They aren't donating; they are looking for a financial return by investing in a new, growing category of investment.
Third is the offtaker, typically a large corporation that wants to buy the high-quality carbon credits generated by the project to meet their climate goals.
What makes your company successful in getting a project like this off the ground?
Our success comes from translating nature restoration projects into the familiar language of a financial asset class. That is a category of investments, like real estate or infrastructure. To an investor, nature projects can feel risky, because they’re new. We do the hard work of clearly describing and organizing the project such that it becomes a more safe decision. We frame a restoration project as an infrastructure investment and make it meet the same strict standards: proving legal ownership of every acre, professional-grade reporting, and legal checks. It's this level of institutional-grade rigor that gives them the confidence they need to invest.
You make a point of keeping the investor and the offtaker separate. Why is that so important?
Typically, an offtaker who is also the financier works on a ‘cost of production’ model, which tends to keep project costs as low as possible. An investor, on the other hand, wants a good return, which encourages making the project as high-quality as possible to get the best price for the carbon credits. Therefore, in most circumstances, we believe having investors that are separate to the offtakers delivers the best outcomes for the project.
You mentioned these corporate offtakers are looking for "high-quality" credits. What does a smart buyer look for?
The forward-thinking companies we work with aren't just shopping for the lowest price. They are looking to secure their future supply because they see a shortage of high-quality carbon credits coming. Their other motivation is influence. By committing to buy from a project early on, they get to help design it. They want to know exactly how we're measuring the ecological impact and biodiversity.
On that topic of measurement, the market is very focused on carbon. But you take a "biodiversity-first" approach. How does that fit in?
It’s really important because our primary goal is about healing the ecosystem. You can’t do that with carbon tunnel vision. We measure everything: water, soil health, carbon, and biodiversity, as well as the social impact on the community.
Right now, the carbon market is one of the most developed ways to monetize the benefits of a project. But what makes a carbon credit "high-quality" is the proof of all the other benefits that come with it. The healthier the biodiversity, the stronger the water cycles, and the greater the community benefits, the more valuable the project becomes. We take a biodiversity-first approach because without a healthy, functioning ecosystem, the project isn't sustainable in the long run. There are nature markets beyond carbon, and we always strive to find the best way to value all the services nature provides.
To end on a forward-looking note, the market is facing real challenges right now. Are you still optimistic about the future?
Yes. We recognize the headwinds, but we’re also really encouraged by the number of investors, offtakers, and other actors who are leaning into this space. It's about bringing that 'coalition of the willing' together to make it happen. It would be nice if there was a global policy consensus on restoring and protecting nature, but we believe there are enough actors already out there right now to make a significant change. Our role is to enable them.
