RSPB Says Investing in Nature Could Boost the Economy by £80bn

RSPB research shows annual £5-6bn nature investment could unlock £80bn economic growth

New research commissioned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds demonstrates that investing between £5 billion and £6 billion annually in UK nature recovery could generate £80 billion of economic activity over the next decade. The study, published in June 2026, also projects the creation of 80,000 skilled jobs and wider societal benefits worth up to £1 trillion.

The findings present a direct challenge to traditional views of environmental spending as a cost burden. Instead, the research positions nature recovery as a high-yield investment opportunity that addresses both ecological decline and economic risk. For businesses navigating tightening environmental regulations and increasing scrutiny of supply chain impacts, these numbers represent a significant shift in how nature-related financial risks are being quantified and integrated into policy discussions.

The research was conducted by economic consultancy eftec and arrives at a moment when multiple regulatory bodies are expressing concern about the pace of habitat restoration in the UK. The Office for Environmental Protection recently stated that progress in peat restoration is too slow and called for accelerated action on sustainable soil management. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank has explicitly identified nature degradation as a threat to price and financial stability.

These warnings matter for UK SMEs because they signal the direction of future regulation, public procurement criteria, and investor expectations. Companies that anticipate these changes can position themselves ahead of mandatory requirements. Those that wait may face higher compliance costs and competitive disadvantage.

Economic consultancy eftec quantifies the business case for closing the nature finance gap

The eftec study provides detailed economic modelling of what closing the UK’s estimated £5-6 billion annual nature funding shortfall could achieve. The research establishes a benefit-to-cost ratio of 34.4, meaning every £1 invested in nature recovery returns £34.40 in economic and societal value. This ratio is substantially higher than many traditional infrastructure investments.

Wetlands emerge as the habitat type offering the highest return, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 632. This finding has immediate practical implications for businesses operating in sectors affected by water quality regulations, flood risk, or agricultural supply chains. It also suggests where public funding is likely to be directed in coming years.

The research breaks down returns across several categories. Economic activity includes direct job creation in habitat restoration, land management, and environmental monitoring. It also encompasses indirect benefits such as reduced flood damage costs, improved water quality requiring less treatment, and enhanced carbon sequestration reducing the need for technological carbon removal.

The projected 80,000 jobs would span a range of skill levels and locations. Many would be created in rural areas where alternative employment opportunities are limited. This geographic distribution matters for businesses considering supply chain resilience and regional economic development when making site location or supplier selection decisions.

Societal benefits quantified in the study include improved public health outcomes from access to green space, enhanced mental wellbeing, and educational value. While these may seem peripheral to business concerns, they increasingly feature in social value weighting criteria for public sector tenders and in investor assessments of companies’ contribution to the communities where they operate.

The research methodology draws on established environmental economics techniques for valuing ecosystem services. However, it also incorporates recent advances in understanding nature-related financial risks, particularly the cascading effects of biodiversity loss on supply chain stability and asset values.

Three policy recommendations target fiscal rules and financial risk assessment

The RSPB is using the research to advocate for specific policy changes that would enable the proposed investment level. First, it calls for a new Green Finance Strategy that combines public and private capital to reach the £5-6 billion annual target. This would create a structured framework for businesses to participate in nature recovery while meeting their own environmental commitments.

Second, the proposal recommends tasking the Office for Budget Responsibility with assessing nature-related financial risks at every fiscal event. This would mirror the OBR’s existing role in evaluating other systemic risks to the UK economy. For businesses, this change would increase the visibility and credibility of nature-related risks in mainstream financial reporting and strategic planning.

Third, the RSPB advocates updating fiscal rules to allow borrowing for natural capital investment on equal footing with built infrastructure. Currently, spending on nature restoration is often classified as current expenditure rather than capital investment. This accounting treatment makes it harder to justify compared to projects like transport infrastructure, even when the long-term returns are comparable or superior.

These policy recommendations align with recent statements from the Office for Environmental Protection, which highlighted the need to enhance and enforce legal protections on protected sites. The OEP specifically noted that the UK’s Marine Strategy is now three years overdue and that seabird conservation plans require acceleration.

The European Central Bank’s recent economic bulletin reinforces this policy direction by stating that nature degradation poses challenges to both price stability and financial system resilience. The ECB identified multiple transmission channels through which biodiversity loss affects economic performance, including disruption to agricultural productivity, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and degradation of natural resources that underpin industrial processes.

Manufacturing, agriculture, and construction face direct supply chain implications

The research has immediate relevance for businesses in sectors that depend on natural resources or are exposed to nature-related regulatory requirements. Manufacturing companies that source agricultural or forestry products face supply chain risks as habitat degradation reduces the availability and increases the volatility of these inputs.

Construction firms operating in areas subject to nutrient neutrality requirements or biodiversity net gain obligations will need to engage with nature recovery projects. The proposed investment framework could provide additional capacity for these offset schemes, potentially reducing costs and delays for development projects that demonstrate genuine environmental improvement.

Agricultural businesses and their supply chain partners face both opportunity and obligation. The RSPB’s campaign explicitly calls for increased government investment to support farmers in delivering for nature, climate, and food production simultaneously. This signals a shift from purely production-focused subsidies toward payment for ecosystem services.

Water-intensive industries should note the research finding that wetland restoration offers exceptionally high returns. This suggests regulatory pressure will increase for businesses whose operations affect wetland areas or water quality. Conversely, companies that proactively invest in wetland restoration may be able to demonstrate compliance with emerging requirements while securing long-term water resource stability.

Businesses tendering for public sector contracts need to understand that the RSPB’s policy advocacy, if successful, will likely translate into stronger social value and environmental weighting in procurement scoring. The quantification of job creation and regional economic benefits in the research provides a template for how these criteria may be assessed.

Financial services firms are already responding to regulatory expectations around climate-related financial disclosures. The integration of nature-related risks into OBR assessments would create parallel expectations for nature-related financial reporting, following frameworks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.

£5-6 billion annual investment target breaks down across habitat types and interventions

Understanding where the proposed investment would be directed helps businesses identify relevant opportunities and obligations. The research model allocates funding across several priority areas based on their benefit-to-cost ratios and contribution to multiple policy objectives.

Wetland restoration receives significant allocation due to its exceptional return on investment. This includes both freshwater habitats like rivers and floodplains and coastal wetlands like saltmarsh. Restoration activities encompass rewetting drained land, removing barriers to natural water flow, and reintroducing native vegetation.

Peat restoration represents another major category, particularly relevant given the Office for Environmental Protection’s recent criticism of slow progress. UK peatlands store approximately 3 billion tonnes of carbon, equivalent to several decades of UK emissions. Damaged peat releases this carbon while also degrading water quality and reducing flood mitigation capacity.

Woodland creation and management forms a third significant component. This includes new native woodland planting, restoration of ancient woodland sites, and improved management of existing forests to enhance biodiversity alongside timber production. These interventions overlap with carbon sequestration objectives, creating dual benefits for climate and nature.

Marine and coastal habitat restoration addresses the overdue Marine Strategy highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection. Specific interventions include seagrass restoration, shellfish reef creation, and measures to protect seabird colonies. These habitats support commercial fisheries while also providing coastal protection against erosion and storm damage.

Agricultural land management improvements focus on integrating nature recovery within productive farmland rather than taking land out of production. Techniques include hedgerow restoration, creation of wildlife corridors, management of field margins, and soil health improvement. These measures can enhance long-term agricultural productivity while delivering biodiversity benefits.

What the numbers mean for business planning and compliance

The benefit-to-cost ratio of 34.4 establishes a benchmark against which businesses can evaluate their own nature-related investments. Companies making site-level habitat improvements or funding nature recovery through biodiversity net gain requirements can use this figure to communicate the wider value being created.

The 80,000 job projection provides a sense of scale for the emerging nature recovery sector. Businesses in environmental consulting, land management, ecological surveying, and related fields should anticipate growth in demand for their services if the proposed investment materializes. Conversely, companies in sectors that may be regulated more heavily should factor in the costs of compliance support.

The £1 trillion figure for wider societal benefits exceeds the direct economic activity by more than tenfold. This ratio illustrates why public policy is increasingly willing to mandate or incentivize private sector contribution to nature recovery. The returns to society justify regulatory intervention even when individual businesses may not capture all the benefits of their investments.

The timing of the research, published in June 2026, positions it to influence the upcoming spending review period. Businesses should monitor how the recommendations regarding fiscal rules and OBR assessment responsibilities develop. Changes to accounting treatment of natural capital could affect how corporate investments in nature are classified and valued in financial reporting.

For businesses already working toward net zero commitments, nature recovery investment offers potential synergies. Many of the highest-return habitats identified in the research, particularly peatland and woodland, also provide significant carbon sequestration. Companies can address both climate and nature objectives through integrated approaches rather than treating them as separate workstreams.

The emphasis on wetlands has particular relevance for businesses operating in catchment areas where water quality is already a regulatory concern. Investment in upstream wetland restoration can reduce the treatment burden on water companies and improve resilience against both drought and flooding, benefiting all water users in the catchment.

Policy implementation timeline remains uncertain but direction is clear

The RSPB’s proposals require government decisions on fiscal rules, institutional responsibilities, and funding mechanisms. These decisions operate on political timescales that may not align with the urgency expressed in the research. Nevertheless, the direction of travel is consistent across multiple sources.

The Office for Environmental Protection’s statutory role includes advising government and holding it to account on environmental law and policy. Its recent reports provide independent verification of the need for accelerated action. This makes it harder for government to dismiss the RSPB’s investment proposals as advocacy from a special interest group.

The European Central Bank’s identification of nature degradation as a financial stability risk demonstrates that these concerns extend beyond environmental organizations. Central bank statements influence how financial regulators, commercial banks, and investors assess risk. UK businesses should expect similar statements from the Bank of England to follow.

The three-year delay in updating the Marine Strategy provides a concrete example of the implementation gap the RSPB research aims to address. This delay has left businesses operating in marine sectors with uncertainty about future requirements. Accelerated investment and clearer policy frameworks would provide the certainty needed for long-term planning.

International policy developments also support the investment case. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed in December 2022, commits signatory countries including the UK to specific nature recovery targets by 2030. Meeting these commitments will require substantial increases in both public and private finance.

Key figures from the RSPB research and supporting analysis

The following points summarize the most significant numbers and findings for business readers:

• Annual investment of £5-6 billion in UK nature recovery could generate £80 billion of economic activity over ten years, with every £1 invested returning £34.40 in economic and societal value.
• The investment could create 80,000 skilled jobs across habitat restoration, land management, and environmental monitoring, many in rural areas where alternative employment is limited.
• Total societal benefits including improved public health, flood protection, water quality, and carbon sequestration could reach £1 trillion over the period.
• Wetland restoration offers the highest benefit-to-cost ratio at 632:1, making it a likely priority for public funding and regulatory attention.
• The UK currently faces a £5-6 billion annual funding gap for biodiversity and nature-based solutions, which the Office for Environmental Protection confirms is resulting in too-slow progress on commitments like peat restoration.
• The research proposes three specific policy changes: a Green Finance Strategy combining public and private capital, OBR assessment of nature-related financial risks at every fiscal event, and updated fiscal rules to enable borrowing for natural capital investment.

Where businesses should focus attention in the near term

Companies should start by understanding their direct dependencies on and impacts on natural resources. This includes obvious connections like agricultural supply chains, but also less visible dependencies such as water availability, pollination services for food ingredients, or flood protection provided by upstream habitats that safeguard operational sites.

Businesses subject to biodiversity net gain requirements should engage early with the developing market for habitat creation and restoration. The proposed investment framework would increase the supply of credible projects, but demand is also rising as more developments trigger the requirements. Early movers can secure better quality offsets at more competitive prices.

Companies preparing for the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures should use the eftec research methodology as a reference for how nature-related risks and opportunities might be quantified in financial terms. The benefit-to-cost analysis approach provides a model that can be adapted to company-specific assessments.

Sectors facing increasing regulatory pressure on environmental performance should consider whether proactive investment in nature recovery could provide a more cost-effective compliance route than reactive responses to enforcement. The research demonstrates that well-designed interventions deliver returns that far exceed costs, particularly when multiple benefits are considered.

Businesses with significant landholdings should evaluate whether parts of their estate could contribute to nature recovery while maintaining or enhancing core business activities. Agricultural businesses in particular face both policy incentives and market pressure to demonstrate environmental stewardship alongside food production.

Companies involved in public sector supply chains should track how social value assessment methodologies evolve in response to this research. The quantification of job creation and economic activity provides metrics that procurement teams can incorporate into tender evaluations, rewarding suppliers who contribute to these outcomes.

We support businesses in understanding how nature-related risks and opportunities affect their operations through our ESG compliance and environmental reporting services. This includes helping companies navigate biodiversity net gain requirements, prepare for nature-related financial disclosures, and identify where investment in natural capital aligns with business objectives.

Where to find detailed information and official sources

The full research report commissioned by the RSPB is available on the RSPB website, including detailed methodology and breakdown of economic modelling assumptions. This provides the underlying analysis for businesses that need to understand how the benefit-to-cost ratios were calculated.

The Office for Environmental Protection publishes regular progress reports on environmental targets and legal compliance. These reports provide independent assessment of where policy implementation is falling short and where regulatory attention is likely to increase.

Government policy on natural capital and ecosystem services is coordinated through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The department’s publications include the 25 Year Environment Plan and Environmental Improvement Plan, which set out statutory commitments that businesses may need to support.

The Bank of England is developing its approach to nature-related financial risks following the lead of institutions like the European Central Bank. Businesses should monitor publications from the Prudential Regulation Authority regarding expectations for financial institutions, as these will cascade to corporate borrowers through lending criteria.

For businesses specifically interested in the marine aspects of the research, the UK Marine Strategy documentation provides context on statutory requirements and the implementation gap identified by the Office for Environmental Protection.