Monthly Archives: April 2025

There has been a shift to recognise nature’s detachment from the economy, prompting a redefinition of how we value the services it provides. While funding has always been necessary to conserve and enhance nature, the scale and pace required, along with the level of funding needed, are now seen as too great for the public purse to fill. This has led to renewed calls for greater private sector involvement. Can private capital and investment make a difference, or are we obscuring nature’s true value and putting the natural world at even greater risk? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

From ancient Greek and Roman times to the contributions of Alexander von Humboldt, James Hutton and Charles Darwin, scholars have long explored the natural world through various fields such as geology, biology, zoology, astronomy, and oceanography. Their work, spanning different geographical scales and ecosystems, aimed to understand the interconnections and relationships between humans and nature. Some of this work viewed nature as hierarchical, allowing for high-order beings such as humans to extract from the environment, while others regarded human activities as destructive and unsustainable leading to discussions about the Anthropocene and extinction. Indeed, the State of Nature (SON) report shows that since 1970, UK species have declined by 19%, and 16.1% of species are now threatened with extinction. Changes in the way we manage land for farming and climate change were  cited as the biggest causes of wildlife decline on land, and in rivers and lakes. 

In more recent times, academics, policy-makers and practitioners have been focusing on the financial aspects of nature, exploring how much money is spent on the environment, and what the financing needs are to meet regional, national or international targets or goals. For example, back in 2012 the UN Development Programme (UNDP) launched BIOFIN (The Biodiversity Finance Initiative), providing technical support to 133 participating countries to develop strategies for biodiversity finance.  In 2021, the Green Finance Institute (GFI), eftec and Rayment Consulting Services published The Finance Gap for UK Nature, looking at the disparity between required spending and committed or planned spending associated with a set of nature-related outcomes. In 2022, the Government set out plans to raise at least £500 million in private finance to support nature’s recovery every year by 2027 in England, rising to more than £1 billion by 2030.  The Government describes how “With the right framework of standards, rules and data, we believe that the private sector can play its part in helping to deliver our ambitious nature goals, while guarding against ‘greenwashing’ and ‘double counting” (page 33). 

What is nature? How much funding is needed to deliver ‘nature positive outcomes’? Do we need nature-based markets, and what does this all mean for rural communities?  

What is nature, and how do we value it? In policy circles, in February 2025, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), published a discussion paper on the meaning of nature. They described how ‘nature is a widely used but rarely defined term amongst scientists, policy makers, business leaders and the public’ – and often used interchangeably with terms such as ‘biodiversity’ and ‘sustainability’. They recommended that the IUCN definition of nature be broadened and strengthened to: 

“… [encompassing] both the non-living components (i.e. geodiversity) and the living components (i.e. biodiversity) of the natural world… [and that] nature refers to biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem level, to all the dynamic processes and features of geodiversity, and to all their interactions”. 

Back in the UK, in 2011, the Government published the first White Paper on the natural environment in more than twenty years. ‘The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature’, adopted a broad meaning to the natural environment, describing how it ‘covers living things in all their diversity: wildlife, rivers and streams, lakes and seas, urban green space and open countryside, forests and farmland’. The White Paper highlighted how nature is sometimes taken for granted and undervalued in ‘a complex, interconnected system’. Subsequent policy documents have described ‘improving nature’ as being ‘our apex goal’, with the Government highlighting a need to halt the decline in biodiversity, and achieve ‘thriving plants and wildlife’.  

In academic circles, according to the Encyclopaedia of the Environment, nature can be distilled into four main ideas: 

• The totality of material reality that does not result from human will. 
• The whole universe as a place, source and result of material phenomena. 
• The force at the principle of life and change. 
• The essence, the set of specific physical properties and qualities of an object, living or inert. 

Some academics describe how defining nature is not an objective scientific exercise, but that context, worldviews and values all play a role. For example, a view that humans are ‘superior’ or ‘above’ nature has led some academics to look at ‘environmental domination or ‘eco civilisation’, in implying that human affairs need to be contained within the limits set by nature. In geography this has led to concepts such as ‘hybridity’ which seek to ‘decentre’ humans and downplay distinctions between humans and nonhumans’ and ‘animal geographies’, directed at shifting the boundary between humans and animals. More broadly, this work has led to calls for humans to be seen as part of nature. 

In industry, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) defines nature as encompassing ‘all living things and their interactions with surrounding physical environments. Nature can also be understood through a construct of four physical realms – land, ocean, freshwater, and atmosphere’. While for the World Economic Forum, it is ‘the boundless networks of species that make up the planet’s biodiversity support all life on Earth’. 

According to Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, “Nature has historically been regarded as largely expendable in the pursuit of economic advances, but there is a growing understanding that we can no longer afford to treat it in such a careless way”. In July 2024, Steve Reed, Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), described how [Nature] underpins everything – the economy, food, health and society. We stand at a moment in history when nature needs us to defend it…Working with civil society, business and local government, we will develop an ambitious programme to turn the tide and save nature”. Reed further highlighted how “Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Our wildlife is in crisis, faced by the perfect storm of habitat loss and fragmentation, climate change, pollution, resource consumption pressures and invasive species…This Government will introduce a new, statutory plan to protect and restore our natural environment, with delivery plans to meet each of our ambitious targets. This includes those on water, circular economy and air quality as well as delivering against the target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030”. 

Natural resource economists have worked for more than 60-years to better understand the role of natural resources in the economy in order to develop sustainable methods of managing those resources. Terms such as ‘natural capital’ [parts of nature that provide benefits to people] and ‘ecosystem services’ [services provided by the natural environment that benefit people] have also emerged as part of efforts to quantify nature and its services to humanity. This has led various bodies, from the World Bank and European Union through to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, to look at the direct and indirect economic value of nature. Latterly, this has started to harness artificial intelligence to process big data and crunch commercial assessments of the natural world. For example, the World Bank highlights Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) which provides a set of objective data showing how a country’s natural resources in terms of stocks and flows of natural capital contribute to the economy and how the economy affects this resource over time and space; while the European Commission has Environmental Footprints methods to model, calculate and report life cycle environmental impacts of products and organisations. The European Environment Agency (EEA) describes nature as ‘priceless’ to us: “After all, it was nature that provided the building blocks of life and the surroundings necessary to allow Homo sapiens to evolve at least 300,000 years ago. Fast-forward to today and we still cannot live without nature. In fact, we might be more dependent than ever on healthy and resilient ecosystems to guarantee long-term wellbeing”. The EEA focuses on nature’s ‘use value’, of putting a monetary value on natural capital to frame the ecosystem services nature provides, its cultural value, and its intrinsic value. 

Some commentators question the validity of assigning a commercial value to nature. In ‘the pricing of everything’, George Monbiot describes how we are effectively pushing the natural world even further into the system that is eating it alive, harnessing economic growth (with its commodification, financialisation, and abstraction) as some kind of salvation to the natural world. Indeed, Professor Bill Adams argues that assigning a quantitative value to nature does not automatically lead to the conservation of biodiversity, and may in fact lead to species loss and conflict. More recently there have been debates around whether we are pushing nature into two artificial camps: conservation or economic growth.  Dr Gerard Bertrand describes how our disregard for nature is at odds with the unmeasurable value we derive from it. Much of the devastation wrought upon the natural world is not necessarily destruction for its own sake, but the byproduct of a global economic system that derives value from things that can be priced. He argues that protecting nature’s capital and biodiversity is not optional but fundamental to protecting and improving the economy. Bertrand believes Governments need to regulate and encourage strong markets to protect biodiversity – and that private capital and investment is needed to make a difference. 

All of these definitions and dialogues are important because they find their way into local, regional, national and international frameworks and conventions, which in turn lead to policies, standards, regulations, targets, interventions and funding. If nature is of importance in its own right, for humanity, and for global economic growth, how much money do we need to spend to benefit nature as opposed to maintaining the status quo or witnessing its decline?  

Is there a finance gap? Back in February 2021, an independent review on the economics of biodiversity produced by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta  highlighted how current financial flows are insufficient to effectively protect and restore biodiversity, creating a significant funding gap. Dasgupta also found that natural resources were often undervalued in economic calculations, leading to their exploitation and degradation; and there was a need for innovative financing solutions including public policies and private sector investments to close the gap. 

There have been various attempts to quantify the finance gap. Back in 2020, three organisations in the United States – the Paulson Institute, Nature Conservancy and Cornell Atkinson Centre for Sustainability – published a report on biodiversity conservation funding. This presented an economic case for protecting nature, looking at the current total annual capital flows toward global biodiversity conservation and the total amount of funds needed to sustainably manage biodiversity and maintain ecosystems integrity. This found [based on figures from 2019], the biodiversity financing gap was between US$ 598 billion and US$ 824 billion per year. The report set out nine financial and policy mechanisms that could close the gap including reforming agricultural subsidies and developing new financial innovations to increase conservation funding. Between 2018 and 2021, the United Nations Statistics Division delivered EnhaNCA: Enhance Natural Capital Accounting Policy Uptake and Relevance, and introduced a System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA). Much of this work has sought to highlight how biodiversity finance is dominated by public expenditures, and that a broader coalition is needed in order to fill the financing gap.  

Back in the UK, in October 2021, the Green Finance Institute (GFI) commissioned a report to identify the finance gap across the UK to achieve nature-positive outcomes. The resultant publication, ‘The Finance Gap for UK Nature’ looked at the difference between required spending and committed/planned spending associated with a set of nature-related outcomes using data from 2021 projected from 2022 to 2032. The analysis estimated the finance gap to be between £44 billion and  £97 billion over the next 10-years. 

Finance gap data was segmented by area: Northern Ireland (with a finance gap of £3-£5 billion), Wales (£5-7 billion), Scotland (£15-£27 billion), England (£21-£53 billion), and overseas territories (£200 million-£1.4 billion). Data was also divided according to eight outcomes: enhancing biosecurity (£109 million finance gap), reducing flood risk (£354 million), improving resource efficiency (£4 billion), improving access and engagement with the natural environment (£7 billion), clean water (£8 billion), protecting/restoring biodiversity (£19 billion), climate mitigation through bio-carbon (£20 billion) and a final outcome which is an ‘overlap’ between multiple outcomes (£4 billion). 

When location is taken into account, the biggest finance gap in England is protecting and restoring biodiversity (estimated at £9 billion), in Wales and Scotland climate mitigation through bio-carbon (£2 billion in Wales and £9 billion in Scotland), and in Northern Ireland for two outcomes: protecting and restoring biodiversity, and improving access and engagement with the natural environment (with each estimated to be £1 billion).  While the report highlights the magnitude of the overall finance gap for nature-related spending, it is not a full-scale assessment or comprehensive modelling of all spending requirements, and it does not capture data and finance on grey infrastructure or academic research. 

The GFI was an attempt to estimate the gap between public funding commitments for the UK’s nature goals and the required spend. Since then, analysts and organisation have reflected and probed its findings and incorporated new data and analysis into its initial assumptions. For example, commentators have queried the shortfall in funding to meet nature-related outcomes, suggesting that the analysis did not fully assess the costs and benefits associated with delivering nature outcomes such as the acquisition of land, land markets, rewilding and nature commodification. 

The Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA) has queried the proliferation of funding gap reports and the formula that they follow which consistently shows that the gap is so big that public funding cannot close it, and private finance is needed. They highlight ‘gap mania’ in describing the inadequacy of the data and evidence used to produce figures for what is spent and what is needed; and they further highlight how spending more money does not necessarily equate to nature positive outcomes. On the GFI’s financing nature report specifically, the CFFA describes how it is hard to know what is included and excluded in definitions, data and funding; and that the analysis is underpinned by information reported by donors, takes a broadbrush look at international financial flows, and assumes that green investment products increase biodiversity spending when in practice some proceeds are used to reduce company debts. 

Community Land Scotland published a research and analysis piece by Jon Hollingdale, an independent forestry and land use consultant. In ‘The credibility gap for green finance’, Hollingdale raises concerns about the reliance on private capital. He argues that this reliance may lead the Government to abdicate its responsibilities, favouring extractive relationships, and failing to secure benefits for local communities. Hollingdale also discusses the implications for land reform and community wealth building. His analysis critiques the extent of the finance gap in respect of woodland creation in the GFI report, suggesting the widely quoted figure of £1.3 billion ‘finance gap’ for woodland creation over ten years actually refers to the gross cost of delivering the full woodland creation targets, without any reflection of the support available through the Forestry Grant Scheme or the existing income opportunities from carbon credits and timber sales. In its response to the paper, NatureScot describe how “It’s very difficult to estimate the size of the funding gap because we’ve never attempted nature restoration on this scale before and there are many uncertainties around the costs of delivering this. Despite this, we know there is  a gap to fill”.    

In further work, the GFI was commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Bank of England to quantify UK financial and economic risks from exposure to nature degradation. Working with the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre and the Universities of Oxford and Reading, their report was published in April 2024. The assessment shows that: 

• 75% of the UK is covered by at least one hotspot of natural capital depletion, and 25% is covered by two or more hotspots.
• Deterioration of our natural environment could slow economic growth and result in UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) being 6% lower than it would have been otherwise by the 2030s under two scenarios (domestic and international), and 12% lower under an AMR-pandemic scenario. These figures are greater than the impact on GDP experienced during the Global Financial Crisis (4-6%) and the global COVID-19 pandemic (11%). The authors suggest these figures are conservative and that the risks will increase over time with the potential for crossing tipping points. 
• Environmental degradation increases the likelihood and severity of an acute climate or health shock, and the combined effect would have a ‘very material’ impact on the economy. These compounding impacts could lead to UK GDP that is 8% lower than it would otherwise be, resulting in 4-7 years of lost growth. 
• The gradual impacts of environmental degradation are as detrimental to the economy, or more so, than climate change in the near-term. 
• Around 50% of nature-related risks come from overseas, through supply chains and financial exposures, indicating the importance of working internationally. 
• The agricultural sector is the most exposed to transition risks and opportunities (in percentage terms), compared to the services and manufacturing sectors (in monetary terms). Analyses suggest between 8% and 53% of the portfolios of the seven largest UK banks are exposed to transition risks. However, businesses and banks could also derive opportunities from new demand for nature-positive products and services. 

The GFI and partners have produced a series of tools including a Nature-Related Risk Inventory (UK-NRRI) that includes 29 key risks to the UK – with zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance and soil health decline the highest risks in terms of likelihood and impacts; and quantitative scenarios for financial institutions. 

In July 2024, Defra announced a rapid review to assess whether the targets set out in the Environment Act and its delivery as outlined in the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) are sufficient to meet the scale of the nation’s environmental challenges in line with science. The findings were  published in January 2025, which for future EIPs recommended improved coordination with others to better understand where action is needed and/or can be better targeted or focused, clarifying what and who is contributing to a goal or target, a clear process of prioritisation, stronger collaboration with stakeholders, and simplified and sustained funding to tackle skills and capacity issues.   

Outside of these policy circles, Frontier Economics worked with The Wildlife Trusts to develop a valuation toolkit which promotes the role of nature in solving local and global problems. This builds on Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric Tool and Defra’s biodiversity credit price, in valuing biodiversity based on the cost of replacing primary habitat and the money required by the Government to permit its destruction.  

What all of the assessments show is that there is a ‘finance gap’ and that more investment is needed to meet nature targets. There seems to be less discussion on nature goals and outcomes, how they are selected, and what might be overlooked. Are nature-related risks currently subsumed within climate-related risk assessments and do they need their own risk entry? To what extent should we focus on working internationally for investment and to what extent should we work domestically? If nature needs advocates, do we need to make a clear and compelling economic case that can be supported by public, private, voluntary and community sectors? For me, I am not sure if we will ever be able to calculate the full value of nature but the interdependencies of nature (e.g. public health, personal/community wellbeing, food, employment) means we must do all that we can to protect, restore and conserve nature – how can we focus on prevention and early intervention rather than cleaning up the mess afterwards? 

I was also left wondering if we need to measure nature in pounds and pence to realise how valuable it is to us. Is this an effective way of ensuring nature is visible and considered in decision-making or does reducing nature to monetary terms render it less valuable? Moreover, much of this existing work seeks to calculate the amount of money flowing to nature and to determine how much money is needed to solve the nature crisis. It does not always determine where this money should come from. 

Where does the money come from – and what are nature-based markets? Back in 2023 when the Government published its Environmental Improvement Plan it stated how: “We will continue working with the private sector and third sector to ensure we are tapping into their expertise, leveraging their knowledge and finance towards these targets. We are clear that our targets should set a floor to their ambition. Businesses and investors are a key part of a nature-positive future. There is a market opportunity as they pivot towards delivering against these goals, recognising that the growth opportunity of nature-positive investment, both here and abroad” (page 17). The EIP was accompanied by a Green Finance Strategy. Building on the first strategy, published in 2019, this outlined how the UK can mobilise investment into nature-positive economy, and would be seen as a world leading hub for green finance. 

According to Natural England, nature’s current value to the economy is estimated to exceed £1.8 trillion; and economic growth is unattainable without a thriving natural environment. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum reports that over half of global GDP is ‘moderately’ or ‘highly dependent’ on nature and the ecosystem services it provides, valued at approximately US$44 trillion. By 2030, delivering 15 nature-positive outcomes could generate US$10 trillion and create 395 million jobs. While Governmental action is essential, the private sector is increasingly recognised as crucial in mobilising the necessary funding. In this sense, the premise is that economic growth and sustainable development are embedded with nature. 

In 2022-2023, the Government spent approximately £876 million of public sector funding on biodiversity in England. While Natural England’s expenditure on biodiversity accounted for 8% of annual public sector spending on biodiversity, payments to farmers and land managers under agri-environment schemes accounted for 57%. Spending on biodiversity in the UK by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) over the same time period was estimated at £353 million. These public sector figures are based on published and unpublished data from organisations across England; and the NGO figure on data compiled from 41 organisations. Defra acknowledges that some businesses and private individuals support NGO action on biodiversity, and the public sector figures concentrate on ‘direct expenditure’ and do not cover all research, training and development or any local authority expenditure on nature conservation. Projects and work related to biodiversity cover multiple departments which means these figures are likely to be an underestimation. 

To address global challenges, the Government set up the UK International Climate Finance (ICF) and committed to spending £11.6 billion between 2021-2022 and 2025-2026 on tackling climate change and nature loss. Of this sum, the Government stated that £3 billion would be used to protect nature, including £1.5 billion for forests. Analysis by Carbon Brief found the UK spent on average, £450 million a year on nature during the first 3-years of the commitment and to meet its target it will need to find £1.7 billion by 2026. A large portion of nature funding given to date is money that the Government has paid into international funds including the UN’s Green Climate Fund. The UK is one of five countries that has committed a portion of its international climate finance to nature. The other countries are Canada, France, Germany, and Norway. 

The Labour Government has highlighted the importance of unlocking more nature finance and remains committed to the £11.6 billion pledge. However, it faces significant fiscal constraints. From a cursory perspective, it is difficult to understand the total amount of public, NGO and private funding spent on nature, both within the UK and internationally. Recent indications suggest that the public sector may struggle to secure the desired funding for nature, and that private finance options could make up for the lack of funding from Government. To support businesses in these endeavours, various frameworks, roadmaps, action plans, products, tools, demonstration projects, standards, market infrastructure and services have emerged. 

Nature Markets, also known as natural capital markets, environmental markets, or ecosystem services markets, are based on the sale and purchase of ecosystem services. Put simply, it is a sub-set of the economy where nature is specifically traded and valued. Its range is huge and includes agricultural commodities, carbon sequestration, restored or connected habitats, and decreasing nitrogen or phosphorus run-off. According to Defra, a nature market is ‘a mechanism for private investment in nature through the sale of units of ecosystem services, which are delivered by nature restoration projects or improvements to land or coastal management’. Defra also acknowledges that the private sector may also invest in nature in other ways that do not involve the creation of units, such as providing repayable finance to projects, direct investment in benefits to a company’s operations or supply chain, or philanthropic funding of nature restoration projects. Nature markets can be voluntary (driven by businesses wanting to meet environmental or climate targets) or driven by regulatory obligations (where companies are required by law to deliver environmental improvements). Some examples of nature markets include the UK Woodland Carbon Code, Peatland Code and Woodland Water Code. 

National Landscapes cover 20% of England, 25% of Northern Ireland, and 4% of Wales. The National Landscapes Association’s Nature based Solutions team is developing long-term, collaborative and strategic programmes of work to finance nature, including innovative corporate partnerships, and work with businesses that want to invest in and pay for nature on a voluntary basis that will deliver nature recovery at scale. Rebuilding Nature is an alliance of cross-sector organisations who want to create a Strategic Nature Network (SNN) and provide a no-regrets mechanism for delivering existing national and international climate and nature targets simultaneously. While Environment Bank provides opportunities for businesses to invest in nature-based solutions through Habitat Banks, Biodiversity Units, and Nature Shares. More recently, in March 2025, the Government introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which includes the establishment of a Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) which marks a new way for developers to discharge environmental obligations by making a payment, that will then be used by Natural England to take a strategic approach to nature restoration. 

The British Standards Institution (BSI) is partnering with Defra, the devolved administrations and industry, to establish a standards framework to address barriers to investing in nature. The Nature Investment Standards (NIS) Programme has led to BSI Flex 701 v2.0 Nature Markets specifying requirements for high-integrity UK nature markets. Launched on 25 March 2025, the Standard, the first of its kind, is intended to help nature-friendly investments across the UK to grow, by building confidence among businesses that these investments can make a real difference to the natural environment. 

Beyond the UK, some commentators have focused their attention on how to encourage financial institutions to join sustainability certifications and verifications which can have a positive impact on reducing nature-negative business activity (e.g. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Roundtable for Responsible Soy). The World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company published a private sector roadmap to finance and act on nature. They called on businesses to produce a ‘nature strategy’ to set corporate ambitions for halting and reversing nature loss, and a ‘nature finance action plan’ to operationalise this strategy. The Nexus Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) analysed 186 scenarios from 52 different studies, grouping them into six archetypes that illustrate different possible futures based on chosen priorities. The report offers businesses 71 response options, grouped into 10 broad categories. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) published guidance encouraging businesses to assess, report and act on their nature-related dependencies. In 2024, over 420 organisations in more than 50 countries representing US$15.9 trillion in assets, committed to making disclosures in their corporate reporting. Additionally, more than 160 organisations are preparing to set nature targets through the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN). At the COP28 UN Climate Change Conference, The Council for Sustainable Business, Accenture, Defra, Natural England and the Environment Agency launched Projects for Nature, with the goal of bridging the funding gap and accelerating urgently needed nature recovery. In its first year, the initiative raised £700,000 from corporate partners to invest in nature restoration projects across England, including ‘Weald to Waves’ which is supported by Lloyds Banking Group and building a 100 mile nature recovery corridor across Sussex.  In February 2026, the UK will host the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) where the main item will be a Business and Biodiversity Assessment of the impact and dependency of business on biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people. The JNCC contributed to the first round of reviews for this assessment and will be working with Defra and other government departments to implement the key recommendations in the final assessment.  

In ‘scaling finance for nature’, academics at the University of Cambridge engaged with the Banking Environment Initiative, Investment Leaders Group and ClimateWise to better understand the barriers to close and surpass the biodiversity finance gap. The main theme that emerged from the investigation was that nature finance is often narrowly perceived as conservation finance with low returns, making it unsuitable for private commercial capital at scale. The publication uses a ‘mitigation hierarchy’ to scale private capital’s meaningful contribution to a nature-positive economy, focused on both halting and reversing nature loss. This includes continuing momentum of various financial mechanisms including Finance for Biodiversity Foundation, Nature Action 100, PRI Spring Stewardship initiative, the Finance Sector Deforestation Action Initiative and biodiversity bonds.  While PwC has profiled 80 global finance vehicles and conducted interviews with stakeholders leading to calls for a Nature Finance Accelerator. 

From a citizen perspective, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), has developed a Global Environmental Impacts of Consumption (GEIC) Indicator, which provides information on the environmental impacts of consumption habits. The GEIC is a Defra-funded tool, jointly developed by JNCC and the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York. It provides data on the biodiversity loss, water use, and deforestation associated with a country or territory’s consumption, and can be visualised through a  dashboard. The indicator combines physical and financial data on trade between countries with various datasets that quantify the environmental impacts of growing the traded commodities. The results can be filtered by impact type, year, producing country, and commodity. For example, the tool tells you that the UK’s consumption of bananas in 2022 resulted in an estimated 68.3 hectares of deforestation in Colombia. Living England is an open-source national scale habitat map. Produced by Natural England, and part-funded by Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), it forms part of a broader attempt by Defra to build a ‘whole system’ picture of the state of the natural environment. The current map shows the extent and distribution of 16 different habitats across England – with arable and horticultural land covering an estimate 38% of the country, grassland 29%, and built-up areas and gardens 11%. Future versions of the map will also show where habitats are growing or diminishing in size, with the next release due for publication in 2026. 

With an abundance of information available, where should a business start when reviewing its nature credentials? If a company aims to contribute to a nature positive economy, to what extent should it focus on internal efforts within the business, and to what extent should it invest in external financial instruments and initiatives? Many of the mechanisms and tools highlighted here have been established by the public sector or NGOs, who then engage the private sector. Is this dynamic shifting? What is the optimal balance between public and private investment to deliver for nature?

From a citizen’s perspective, how much do people consider and care about nature in their everyday purchasing decisions and consumption habits? 

What does this all mean for rural communities? While there is a perception that people living in the countryside are surrounded by nature and nature-rich environments, numerous studies have highlighted that many rural areas are actually nature-access poor. Semi-rural and rural areas are among the ten worst-ranked areas for access to nature in one study, with South Holland (Lincolnshire) ranked as the second most nature access-deprived local area in England and Fenland (Cambridgeshire) in third place after the City of London (first). The lack of publicly accessible spaces, poor public rights of way, and issues with walking and public transport all limit citizens’ ability to engage with nature. Some of this work has formed part of a call for nature to have a much clearer focus in the Government’s Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs) and to debates about how to reconcile access with protection. The Government’s Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) contained a commitment that the public would be able to access green space or water within a 15-minute walk from home. Under the current Government, will this 15-minute commitment remain when the next EIP is published this year and if so, how can it be achieved? There is a broader discussion here about if we want people to protect nature, do they need to feel a connection to it? What more can we do to improve nature access for rural residents?

The Government’s Nature Markets Framework seeks to scale up private investment into nature’s recovery and sustainable farming. Building on the work of Financing Nature Recovery UK, and UK Nature Markets Dialogue, it sets out plans for the development of rules to clarify how farmers and other land managers can access markets and combine income streams with public funding; the establishment of a suite of high-integrity nature investment strands to operate and scale markets for ecosystem services; and the consideration of institutional arrangements, regulatory roles and market infrastructure to ensure good governance. This includes a Farming Toolkit, commissioned by Defra to support England’s farming community in understanding nature market opportunities and a step-by-step to engaging (called ‘The Snake’). The ADHB has been running roadshows and produced a ten-point checklist of considerations for farmers before committing to natural capital markets. The Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP) has published a report exploring how cooperative governance models can empower farmers in these new markets. This highlights challenges, including the high cost of measurement for baselines – evidencing change such as an uplift in biodiversity can be costly and is a medium-term investment which needs to be backed by grant support. Will this farming transition be ‘farmer led’, should there be a greater degree of stacking between markets? Companies reliant on agricultural products are already investing in regenerative farming, and financial institutions are offering farmers green finance options.  

In December 2024, the National Audit Office (NAO) published an Overview of Defra for the new Parliament 2023-2024. Under ‘what to look out for’, the NAO references private finance and notes the difficulties Defra and the Environment Agency have experienced in attracting private finance for projects such as flood defences and tree planting. As a key department participating in the UK’s Green Financing programme, how successful will these initiatives be in securing £500 million of private finance flowing into nature recovery every year by 2027?   

On 11 March 2025, Defra announced it would stop accepting new applications to the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI). Since it was launched in 2022, the scheme has more than 37,000 multi-year live agreements supporting farmers to deliver sustainable food production and nature recovery. This application pause is part of a reset, with a reformed SFI and budget to be confirmed in the Spending Review this 

. When the scheme opens again, it is thought funding will be directed where there is greatest potential to ‘do more on nature’. The reset forms part of a bigger reform of markets, supply chains and regulations to ensure farmers can access private sector support where possible. Elsewhere, in Scotland, for example, NatureScot is exploring new models which can both be an attractive financial proposition to land manager and which can also displace public funding so that these funds can be reallocated to other public finance priorities. Back in England what impact will the sudden closure of the SFI have on nature recovery and farmer confidence to make long-term sustainability investments? Modelling and evidence shows that the agricultural sector is the most exposed to economic risks from nature degradation. With public funding uncertain, will the private sector take on a greater role in supporting agriculture? 

While many commentators do not question the need to increase spending on nature (though they may query the sums necessary to do so), what does this ‘nature positive future’ actually look like if we make this investment? All of the reports and assessments seem to indicate that the funding gap is so big that the public sector cannot possibly close it, and so private finance needs to step in and step up. Will the Government’s commitment to building clear, long-term frameworks deliver the private investment that it wants to see or will it lead to more blending and nature/green washing? For me, viewing nature in economic terms, changes our perception of the world, and our place in it – how much is nature worth? 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I am grateful to my colleague Richard Norris for bringing to my attention the work of the GFI and initiatives being developed to mobilise private investment into nature. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently collecting data to highlight the positive impact of relocating NHS clinical services into community settings; developing a community masterplan; and evaluating a heritage skills programme. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting rural communities across Cambridgeshire and is a member of her local Patient Participation Group. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

LinkedIn: 🌈Jessica Sellick