World Economic Forum: Why Africa can't afford a semantic debate on natural capital

Across global sustainability circles, the phrase 'natural capital' sometimes draws criticism. Proponents point to the term’s benign definition of simply being the global stock of natural resources and its positive usage in accounting and valuation as a way of managing our impact on nature. Detractors fear that it's another form of capitalism masquerading as environmentalism, arguing it boils down ecosystems into commodities, turning forests, rivers and wildlife into balance-sheet entries.

In Africa, however, this debate misses the point. The continent cannot afford the luxury of prolonged arguments over terminology. The more urgent task is mobilizing finance at scale to protect ecosystems, support livelihoods and build resilience….

The word 'capital' signals value, investment and growth. It speaks directly to the people who hold the levers of large-scale finance – ministers of finance, treasuries and institutional investors. Without framing nature as capital, ecosystems risk being treated as peripheral, worthy only of philanthropy, rather than core to economic stability and prosperity.

Kenya offers a striking example. EarthAcre, a conservation and technology initiative, has begun enabling landowners to receive direct payments for keeping wildlife corridors open around Nairobi National Park and Amboseli.

Read the full article at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/10/why-africa-cannot-afford-a-semantic-debate-on-natural-capital/