What Forest Investment can learn from Figure Skating

Do you have Olympic fever?

With the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympics practically in our back yard, our family sure does. We even managed to catch a hockey game at the new stadium. Unfortunately (for us), the USA pummelled the Canadian women 5-0. Fortunately, the fans delivered a gold medal performance!

And though for many Canadians, the winter Olympics are mostly about how well your hockey team does, what I want to talk to you about today is – figure skating.

I was struck by how far the sport, and the Olympic platform has come in turning what was once an arguably qualitative evaluation of performance, into something highly technical and evidence based. Jumps are broken down frame by frame. Synchronization and spacing in pairs skating are measured precisely. Multiple camera angles provide transparency. Judging is far more reliable than it once was.

Technology has strengthened credibility.

So what does this have to do with forest investment?

Measuring What Matters

For decades, we have relied on proven approaches for forest inventory measurement, forest valuation and timber specifications to assess productivity and the performance of different management regimes. These systems work. With lidar, remote sensing and machine learning models, forest product value chains are becoming more precise and more affordable to measure. We can link performance in achieving timber — and increasingly carbon — objectives directly to forest management activities.

When the objective is timber, the “scoring system” is well established.

But as I wrote in my previous article, we are moving toward a whole forest value model.

And this is where the challenge emerges. We need a standardized scoring system for nature. Biodiversity, soil and water integrity for example, do not lend themselves to simple measurement in the same way as cubic metres of wood.

In my analogy, nature measurement today is like assessing one skater with sensors in their skates, another with multiple high-definition cameras from different angles, and a third simply by counting the number of falls. Without consistency in how performance is measured, credibility quickly erodes.

The good news is that we are getting there. We now have access to eDNA, acoustic monitoring, camera trapping, heat mapping and more. The technical capability to measure aspects of nature is advancing quickly.

Of course, biodiversity is inherently complex and nuanced. It cannot and should not be reduced to a single metric. But complexity does not mean we avoid structure.

Two Challenges to Mainstreaming Nature Measurement

As already introduced via my comparison to figure skating, the first challenge is the absence of a widely recognized and standardized approach for evaluating nature.

If we want nature to sit alongside timber in investment models and in emerging nature markets, we need greater consistency between management actions and measurable outcomes. Without that alignment, trust is difficult to build.

Listen in to this week’s podcast, where Ross Hampton, CEO of the International Sustainable Forestry Coalition (ISFC) discusses their initiative to advance standardized nature measurement in forests – also introduced in my previous article.

The second challenge is cost.

In traditional timberland investment, management costs are built into a fee structure, typically in the 1.5-2% range. In nature-based solutions projects, monitoring and verification costs are built into the carbon credit price.

Yet we increasingly see investors asking for more credible, measured nature outcomes while being reluctant to adjust management fees or carbon pricing to reflect these additional costs.

More rigorous measurement requires resources. If we want credible delivery, those costs must be recognized and built into the investment model. The article, by the Restoration Seed Capital Facility, How to Budget for Biodiversity Impact Measurement – summarizes this challenge and offers practical solutions.

So Where Does This Leave You?

If you are a forest investment manager or NbS developer and you want to deliver credible nature benefits and engage in emerging nature markets, without risking the financial viability of your strategy – where do you start?

There is no simple solution. Some managers are spending years developing in-house approaches because a universally accepted framework does not yet exist.

But there is a structured place to start.

I would urge managers to begin with a Theory of Change.

Here you identify the specific nature objectives that are important to your strategy. From there, you define mid-term outcomes. You then drill down to the specific activities that will deliver those measurable results — where standardized methodologies that already exist can be applied. Finally, you cost out the management and monitoring activities. Only then can you determine delivery cost and ensure those inputs are built into your management fees or carbon pricing when negotiating with investors.

If you need support developing your Theory of Change reach out and we can discuss your needs. Making nature objectives more credible and efficient is just one of the roles this tool can play within your broader forest investment or NbS strategy.

Book A Call Now