Farm Country Fights Back Against Natural Asset Companies

A coalition of rural and conservative organizations is mounting opposition to the proposed creation of Natural Asset Companies (NACs), a new financial instrument that aims to monetize ecosystem services. Critics argue that NACs represent a dangerous form of financialization that could threaten agricultural land use and rural livelihoods.

The following are eligible for NACs: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Conservation Areas on Private and Federal Lands, Endangered Species Critical Habitat, and the Conservation Reserve Program. Lest you think that any conserved land is conserved in your name, the largest Conservation organization in the U.S., is called The Nature Conservancy, or TNC, which, while being a 501(c)3, also holds six billion dollars of land on its books. Those lands have been taken using your money via donations and government grants, and transferred to the Nature Conservancy, which can do with those lands what it wills.

American Stewards of Liberty, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Kansas Natural Resource Coalition, Financial Fairness Alliance, and Blue Ribbon Coalition have filed comments opposing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposal to allow NAC listings. Republican senators Pete Ricketts, James Risch, and Mike Crapo have sent inquiries to the SEC, while Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) has proposed an amendment to defund the SEC’s efforts to approve NAC listings.

Opponents draw parallels between NACs and the complex financial instruments that contributed to the 2008 economic crisis. They argue that NACs represent an “asset grab” similar to strategies used to strip value from American manufacturing companies between 2009 and 2020. These tactics often involved leveraging debt to acquire companies, sell off equipment, reduce workforce, and potentially raid pension funds before reselling at a higher price.

Critics contend that NACs are an attempt by financial institutions to secure hard assets in anticipation of economic instability. However, they warn that removing land from productive use could accelerate economic decline. They emphasize the importance of local stewardship, arguing that land must be actively managed by those who live on and work it to prevent degradation and invasive species encroachment.

The push for NACs is seen by some as part of a broader “green” agenda and net-zero emissions targets. Skeptics argue that these policies have triggered a form of financialization – essentially betting on future outcomes – because traditional energy sources, which drive real economic growth, have been increasingly restricted over the past two decades.

Ultimately, critics view NACs as a potential threat to America’s agricultural heartland, warning that this financial innovation could have far-reaching consequences for rural communities and the broader economy.

As the debate continues, policymakers and regulators will need to carefully weigh the potential benefits of NACs against the concerns raised by their opponents.