There is arguably no more existential question for the human race than how we halt and reverse declines in wildlife. There is a basic premise that if we destroy nature, we destroy ourselves, because we rely on it for so much \u2013 food, water, protection from flooding and mitigation of climate change.<\/p>\n
It was once thought the solution was a question of raising awareness \u2013 through, for example, wildlife documentaries. Then there was hope that governments would sort things out through international agreements, and, to a certain extent, they did. The Rio Conference on biodiversity in 1992 and the Paris Agreement of 2015 were both hailed as game-changers at the time. Yet none of this seems to have worked.<\/p>\n
How is private funding help nature?<\/p>\n
In the past decade or so, a potential new saviour has emerged. Somewhat alarmingly, perhaps, it\u2019s the very same entity that has arguably played the biggest role in wreaking environmental destruction in the first place: the private sector. Companies. Investors. Pension funds.<\/p>\n
But this new funding model for nature has not taken off either \u2013 not yet, anyway. Take the UN\u2019s REDD+ programme, which aims to help developing countries maintain carbon-rich tropical forests by paying them not to chop them down. It was initially funded by international governments but, as long as a decade ago, it was hoped that the private sector would step in and take on more of that burden. <\/p>\n
Sadly that hasn\u2019t happened. And after all, if the private sector doesn\u2019t have to contribute, then why should it? Some big companies like to demonstrate they are environmentally responsible by contributing to, for instance, voluntary carbon offsetting schemes (including those under the REDD+ umbrella).<\/p>\n
The problem with such schemes is that they are often accused of being little more than greenwashing: in general, the money paid is a tiny percentage of turnover, and the schemes themselves often achieve only marginal benefits for the environment.<\/p>\n
But in England, there is now a policy that requires developers to compensate for the nature lost to their development. It\u2019s called Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), and became mandatory in 2024.<\/p>\n
What is Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)?<\/p>\n
BNG is complex but the legislation essentially requires developers to assess how much wildlife is on the land they are building on, in the form of biodiversity units. They then either recreate the same number of units, plus 10 per cent, on-site or pay for enhancement or restoration of nature elsewhere. <\/p>\n
While BNG is being forced on developers, some business people see it as an opportunity. Take brothers Philip and Andy Brainin, owners of the aforementioned Sleight Farm and cofounders of Biofarm, a company that helps both landowners and private companies with BNG deals.<\/p>\n
\u201cWorking in BNG appealed because it addressed three big issues,\u201d says Andy Brainin. \u201cClimate and nature being in a disastrous state; the need to build more housing without harming nature; and farming becoming unviable for landowners.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Brainins are creating \u2018habitat banks\u2019 \u2013 essentially, parcels of enhanced nature \u2013 and selling the resulting biodiversity units to companies in need.<\/p>\n
Why is Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) important?<\/p>\n
Given the government\u2019s target to build 300,000 homes a year, it\u2019s estimated that, annually, BNG could result in the enhancement or restoration of 15,000ha of new wildlife habitat and drive \u00a3135\u2013270 million into conservation. Or, at least, those were the figures. Labour recently announced it could ease or drop BNG requirements for small and medium-sized house-builders, which could nearly halve the amount of money going towards conservation.<\/p>\n
And that is perhaps the biggest weakness of the policy: again, if the private sector doesn\u2019t have to spend money enhancing wildlife, it probably won\u2019t. It\u2019s also not clear how the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill will impact the new policy.<\/p>\n
How can private sector companies be convinced to help?<\/p>\n
But what if you could persuade private-sector companies that safeguarding biodiversity was in their interest, rather than something being foisted upon them? That\u2019s the concept that Rebalance Earth, a \u2018boutique fund manager\u2019, is working on.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s how it works: pension funds need to invest clients\u2019 money in something that will provide a return. That could be companies listed on the stock market or government bonds.<\/p>\n
Managing director Robert Gardner believes Rebalance Earth can provide a return by investing in nature, because the private sector is increasingly impacted by natural events such as flooding. \u201cNetwork Rail and the Highways Agency think a third of their railways and roads are at risk from flooding, and that will increase to 50 per cent in the next 25 years,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n
Flooding also affects water companies, whose creaking infrastructure is less and less able to cope with heavy downpours. And what if electrical substations or supermarkets were to flood? A report from Oxford University has predicted that 12 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is at risk from climate-related issues.<\/p>\n
Gardner puts that in perspective: \u201cAt the peak of the Covid lockdown, there was an 11 per cent drop in GDP, and that was very short and sharp,\u201d he says. In other words, if that was bad, the damage from climate-related events could be far worse.<\/p>\n
But there are solutions. \u201cWe identify where there\u2019s material financial pain [to the private sector] and then identify the nature-based solutions that offer valuable ecosystem services,\u201d says Gardner.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe then go to the supermarkets, airports and water companies, and say, \u2018If we reduce your flood risk by 80 per cent, if we help unlock \u00a32 billion worth of development capital, you need to pay us for that.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
These solutions could be restoring peat or planting trees in upper catchments, rewiggling rivers or returning beavers to a wetland, and thus increasing its water storage capacity. Rebalance Earth is talking to the private sector about funding river and peatland restoration, and will this year launch a \u00a3150 million exemplar fund.<\/p>\n
A total of \u00a35 trillion is invested by pension funds in the UK and this will double to \u00a310 trillion by 2035. If just 2 per cent of that \u00a35 trillion were invested in nature, Gardner argues, that\u2019s \u00a3100 billion, which would go a long way.<\/p>\n
![\"Beaver\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Beaver.jpg\")
Thanks to their ability to create dams, and therefore wetlands, beavers can play an important part in nature restoration. Credit: Getty
\nWhat is carbon offsetting?<\/p>\n