Henry Mills, CEO of Burlingtons Biodiversity Solutions, argues that the Nature Restoration Fund, while laudable on the surface, will likely be an opaque drain of funds that functions as a pay-to-pollute scheme in which responsibility over conservation is diffused.
Henry’s article was published in BusinessGreen, 20 March 2025.
The UK government’s newly proposed Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) is being marketed as a fast-track solution to unlock critical infrastructure projects while safeguarding the environment. On the surface, it sounds like a perfect balance—developers pay into a central fund rather than handling mitigation themselves, and the government allocates these pooled resources to large-scale conservation projects. A seamless, efficient process, right? Not quite.
This is, at best, a government cash grab dressed up as environmental progress, and at worst, a dangerous precedent that could undermine both development and conservation. If history has taught us anything, it is that funds like these become black holes, absorbing money with little transparency or tangible results. Infrastructure projects are unlikely to be ‘unblocked’ at the pace promised, and landowners—who stand to be directly affected—have been given very little clarity on how much say they will have in the process.
A Pay-to-Pollute Scheme?
One of the biggest red flags of the NRF is that it allows developers to buy their way out of environmental obligations rather than taking direct responsibility for mitigating their impact. While proponents argue that this will result in more cohesive and strategic conservation efforts, what it really does is create a system where money changes hands, but real accountability is lost.
Take Biodiversity Net Gain as a cautionary tale. It was designed to ensure that new developments contributed to environmental improvements, yet without giving it time to mature and work through its growth phase, we are seeing local planning bottlenecks and a lack of information and infrastructure in credit allocation which has slowed real progress to a crawl. Now, the government is suggesting we centralize even more control under a single delivery body, expecting a different result?
This fund does not solve the root causes of delays in UK development—bureaucracy, slow planning processes, and government inefficiency. It merely shifts the responsibility from individual developers to an opaque state-run entity, further clogging an already dysfunctional system.
The Landowner Dilemma: Who Controls the Land?
A crucial but under-discussed aspect of the NRF is how it might impact landowners. While officials claim this will be a ‘voluntary’ process, history tells us that ‘voluntary’ in government language often translates to strong incentives leading to de facto mandates.
- Could landowners find their estates designated as mitigation sites without meaningful consultation?
- Will future planning applications become even more restrictive due to environmental zones created under this scheme?
- If land is used for mitigation, will landowners be adequately compensated and protected against long-term restrictions?
Without clear legal guarantees, this fund could pave the way for creeping expropriation. This is not about protecting nature; it is about giving the government more control over rural land use while offloading its own environmental obligations onto private estates.
Government Black Holes and the Money Problem
Let us talk about money. Proponents of the NRF argue that consolidating funds will allow for large-scale, impactful environmental projects rather than small, fragmented efforts. But here is the problem: government-run funds have a long history of inefficiency, misallocation, and a complete lack of measurable results.
For example, look at HS2—a project initially budgeted at £33 billion that ballooned to over £100 billion, before much of it was scrapped. Similarly, the Green Homes Grant, a scheme that promised to improve energy efficiency in homes, was so poorly managed that it collapsed within months, leaving thousands without funding. Even flood defence funds meant to protect rural communities have been bogged down in bureaucracy, with promised projects delayed by years, despite urgent need.
Why should we believe that the NRF will be any different? Developers will pay in good faith, expecting their projects to be expedited, but without proper oversight, this money will likely disappear into administrative costs, inefficiencies, and endless ‘consultations’ rather than real conservation work.
The Pros—and Why They Do Not Hold Up
Supporters argue that the NRF will speed up development approvals. Yet there is no direct evidence to suggest that routing funds through a government-controlled entity will be more efficient than developers handling their own mitigation. In fact, centralization often slows things down, as we have seen time and again.
Supporters also argue that the NRF will deliver better environmental outcomes — but where is the accountability? If developers no longer have to oversee their own mitigation, what incentive is there to ensure it is actually effective?
Lastly, the NRF aims to simplify the process for developers. It does simplify payments, but at what cost? More regulation, more red tape, and more risk that mitigation projects are mismanaged or delayed, leaving developers in limbo.
The Real Solution: Local Accountability, Not Centralized Control
If the government genuinely wanted to speed up infrastructure development while protecting the environment, it would streamline planning approvals by cutting down bureaucracy rather than adding another layer of complexity.
The government would keep environmental responsibility local, ensuring that developers work directly with councils and landowners rather than funnelling everything through a national black hole.
It would also ensure transparency, with clear reporting on where every penny of mitigation funding goes and what results it delivers. The government would also continue to develop its already new model of BNG to create a balance between landowner, developer and environmental impact.
Instead, what we are getting is yet another government slush fund that will likely make developers’ lives harder, put landowners at risk, and deliver little to no environmental benefits in the long run.
The Nature Restoration Fund is not a solution—it is a smoke-and-mirrors distraction that risks deepening the very problems it claims to solve.
